It's been so long since I saw Unbreakable, all I could remember was the concept. I've spent a while looking for it online because when I first saw it, I didn't like it and didn't want to waste my money by buying it. When I failed, I cashed out and watched it this morning. I think this film might just manage to get into my Top Ten. It's such a powerful film both in the way it was produced as well as the content.The story was an ambitious one to sell, and it was only going to be after M. Night's first film, The Sixth Sense was a hit that a studio would ever greenlight a film like this. It's very slow, more so than even The Sixth Sense and frankly, although both the leads (Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson) are superbly underplayed for the most part, with a story as slow and different as this, it really requires powerful actors to portray these characters and balance them out.
I'm not a fan of flashbacks, as I've always found that it seems as if the writer has been struggling to tell the past of a character via dialogue and so decided to cross-cut, but here the flashbacks are sparse and do no-more than get a point across that would only drag the film out if the point were told in dialogue.
The story itself isn't anywhere near as 'twisty' as Shyamalans other efforts. The most odd premise is laid out quite early in the film and for the main part, the movie follows the characters progression trying to unravel a mystery and fit a theory to it. For a good part of the film, the plot is on stand-still, but everything shown has an impact on the film as it continues.
My favorite thing about Unbreakable was easily the tech things. Certain unconventional shots that have been used exceptionally well or little techniques that just work well. The use of filming a reflection rather than the actual scene is used a few times and seems to create an essence of distance from the characters as if you're intruding. There are some shots that are particularly effective, such as one very early in the film where the camera is moved so that train seats almost always block one of the two actors who are talking. The music is thrilling and powerful and it truly is the cherry on an already fulfilling cake. It gives an aura of power when it's needed and can really stir up emotion when needed.
I'd completely forgotten just about the entire film and I'm so pleased with it. It's a wonder M. Night Shyamalan only get's recognised for his twists when he can write such great material and translate it to the screen so well.
5/5
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Wednesday 30 May 2007
Jackass Number Two (2006)
Jackass Number Two brings you more madcap antics and heartfelt stunts from your favourite ‘professionals’ in the business with a couple of special guests.
Soft music plays. The Ecstasy of Gold, taken from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly soundtrack plays to a misty street. There’s something haunting, yet calm about this suburbanite area empty and filled with a powdery smoke. Slowly, shadows form and the smoke starts to swirl and shift. It’s not long before the darkened figures become people and we see the architects of destruction, the common man in over his head, the self sacrificing space monkey; the Jackass Crew.As the full orchestra begins to fade in, the boys’ faces twist and contort, as they push forwards with every fibre of their being. Their mouths wide open push out a silent scream which is eerily echoed by the introduction of a chorus before finally, we see why they’re running. Hot on their heels are a herd of bulls. The music speeds up, the slow-mo dies down and everyone runs for their lives.
This is stupidity at its prime perfection.
This is non-stop pain.
This is Jackass.
The great thing about Jackass Number Two is that it can’t really fail. There’s no such thing as bad acting because it’s all real. The camerawork is beautifully handheld most of the time which means that cinematography is vivid and real. And music? To hell with classical masterpieces. Beethoven’s 5th doesn’t really say much about the pain these guys are feeling now, does it? The only possible way that this film could be crap is if the stunts were rubbish or boring. I think it’s fair to say that they aren’t.
You really couldn’t get cruder if you tried. Rectal bleeding happens at least twice in the first 10 minutes or so and that’s nothing. Prosthetics to make you look old is nothing new in Jackass but wondering around a busy town looking like a naked 75 year old woman sure as hell is. There are a few stunts throughout the film that nobody even has any faith in and if the people who choreographed them only see pain in the future, what else can we anticipate?
With swearing, nudity (real as well as prosthetic) and lots of blood (kudos to Knoxville for the ball pit skit) it’s a fool proof formula. Many of the skits feel increasingly retarded, such as tying midget Wee-Man Acúna to resident fatman Preston Lacy and have Wee-Man jump off a bridge, but no matter what, just about every sketch ends in complete hilarity.
Pulling off a hilarious prank may not be as easy as it seems. Given a moments thought based on the funniest scenes, it’s apparent a lot of careful planning and thought went into this film. The funniest parts are definitely the bits that were given considerable thought as opposed to the improvised public pranks that crop up every now and then. They’re still very funny, but not a patch on the others.
A film (or even the prior show) such as this may be frowned upon by many people (outspoken critics calling it hideous are duly noted) but it’s nice to know that there are some individuals willing to put their health on the line for our entertainment.
On top of that though, one thing that seems insane is that they continue to think up and act out these increasingly painstaking stunts and yet they still manage to draft in celebrities such as Matt Hoffman and Tony to help out. Ok, so they may not be A-list celebrities, but they’re well known throughout their field.
As was evident by the first scene, the crew also aren’t above enlisting the help of animals to achieve the desired effect whether it is hilarity, fear or general shock. Sharks, fish, yak, bulls, leeches, bees, horses and snakes (lots of snakes) are used frequently and just about each and every time, it results in pain.
You have to give kudos to the Jackass crew (not just because of their bravado or ability to continue) but because of the amount of wit that’s used before, after and sometimes during a stunt. Usually, there are jokes made about the lack of trust throughout the group. They may be friends, but it’s only natural that trust is low and diminished. What trust there is feels like too much, given the nature of the crew and their ability to take advantage of each other.
In the end, whilst it’s easy to pass Jackass Number Two off as retarded and juvenile, most of the skits are quite clever and it shows that with a little effort (and a lot of blood) just about most anything can be entertaining.Jackass Number Two may be a film about self torture, but if you like the rest of the crews material, or are new to the idea, it’s certainly worth a chance.
4/5
Soft music plays. The Ecstasy of Gold, taken from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly soundtrack plays to a misty street. There’s something haunting, yet calm about this suburbanite area empty and filled with a powdery smoke. Slowly, shadows form and the smoke starts to swirl and shift. It’s not long before the darkened figures become people and we see the architects of destruction, the common man in over his head, the self sacrificing space monkey; the Jackass Crew.As the full orchestra begins to fade in, the boys’ faces twist and contort, as they push forwards with every fibre of their being. Their mouths wide open push out a silent scream which is eerily echoed by the introduction of a chorus before finally, we see why they’re running. Hot on their heels are a herd of bulls. The music speeds up, the slow-mo dies down and everyone runs for their lives.
This is stupidity at its prime perfection.
This is non-stop pain.
This is Jackass.
The great thing about Jackass Number Two is that it can’t really fail. There’s no such thing as bad acting because it’s all real. The camerawork is beautifully handheld most of the time which means that cinematography is vivid and real. And music? To hell with classical masterpieces. Beethoven’s 5th doesn’t really say much about the pain these guys are feeling now, does it? The only possible way that this film could be crap is if the stunts were rubbish or boring. I think it’s fair to say that they aren’t.
You really couldn’t get cruder if you tried. Rectal bleeding happens at least twice in the first 10 minutes or so and that’s nothing. Prosthetics to make you look old is nothing new in Jackass but wondering around a busy town looking like a naked 75 year old woman sure as hell is. There are a few stunts throughout the film that nobody even has any faith in and if the people who choreographed them only see pain in the future, what else can we anticipate?
With swearing, nudity (real as well as prosthetic) and lots of blood (kudos to Knoxville for the ball pit skit) it’s a fool proof formula. Many of the skits feel increasingly retarded, such as tying midget Wee-Man Acúna to resident fatman Preston Lacy and have Wee-Man jump off a bridge, but no matter what, just about every sketch ends in complete hilarity.
Pulling off a hilarious prank may not be as easy as it seems. Given a moments thought based on the funniest scenes, it’s apparent a lot of careful planning and thought went into this film. The funniest parts are definitely the bits that were given considerable thought as opposed to the improvised public pranks that crop up every now and then. They’re still very funny, but not a patch on the others.
A film (or even the prior show) such as this may be frowned upon by many people (outspoken critics calling it hideous are duly noted) but it’s nice to know that there are some individuals willing to put their health on the line for our entertainment.
On top of that though, one thing that seems insane is that they continue to think up and act out these increasingly painstaking stunts and yet they still manage to draft in celebrities such as Matt Hoffman and Tony to help out. Ok, so they may not be A-list celebrities, but they’re well known throughout their field.
As was evident by the first scene, the crew also aren’t above enlisting the help of animals to achieve the desired effect whether it is hilarity, fear or general shock. Sharks, fish, yak, bulls, leeches, bees, horses and snakes (lots of snakes) are used frequently and just about each and every time, it results in pain.
You have to give kudos to the Jackass crew (not just because of their bravado or ability to continue) but because of the amount of wit that’s used before, after and sometimes during a stunt. Usually, there are jokes made about the lack of trust throughout the group. They may be friends, but it’s only natural that trust is low and diminished. What trust there is feels like too much, given the nature of the crew and their ability to take advantage of each other.
In the end, whilst it’s easy to pass Jackass Number Two off as retarded and juvenile, most of the skits are quite clever and it shows that with a little effort (and a lot of blood) just about most anything can be entertaining.Jackass Number Two may be a film about self torture, but if you like the rest of the crews material, or are new to the idea, it’s certainly worth a chance.
4/5
Tuesday 29 May 2007
Trainspotting (1996)
Chronicling the lives and trends of a group of addicts, Trainspotting is a raw, deep and honest look at the pros, cons and horrors of abusiveness to addiction.
As Renton (Ewan McGregor) and Spud (Ewen Bremner) hurl down the street with the energy of a Duracell bunny it’s apparent that there’s something very powerful about Trainspotting. As the Iggy Pop’s ‘Lust for Life’ pounds through your ears it may be difficult to realise at first. Is it this iconic choice of soundtrack? Could it be the pain that you feel along with the actors, who gurn and gasp as they push their way through the streets of Edinburgh?
Or could it in fact be the startlingly stirring voiceover provided by Ewan McGregor? Yeah, that would be it, though it is important that you remember something. This is the 1996 Ewan McGregor. Before Star Wars, or Moulin Rouge! and it was well before The Island. This is Ewan McGregor when he had to dive into toilets, and dig bodies. This is Ewan McGregor who didn’t have the luxury of multi-million dollar deals or stunt doubles. This is Ewan McGregor who is only a stone’s throw from the drug addled character he’s playing, and above everything else that shows.
One of the many initial criticisms of Trainspotting has been that it seems to be promoting drug use and it doesn’t take long to see why. The film starts off startlingly realistically with Renton sneering that he wouldn’t do drugs if he didn’t enjoy it. With this, we learn at breakneck speed that the world of drug abuse that we’ve been taught about and steered away from is like any other addiction and that to an extent, we, the average viewer, are no better than these people. So light-hearted is the first quarter of the film, common sense seems to leave and it’s not made entirely open why drugs are considered bad in society. But the enjoyable caper that you settle comfortably into doesn’t last for long and soon it’s apparent that director Danny Boyle is showing the good and the bad; the Heaven and the Hell. Whilst watching Trainspotting you’re in junkie limbo.
Among the themes of drugs, there are others relating to everyone. A core idea is the Choose Life movement, a phrase repeated throughout the film to perfectly nauseating effect. “Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television…” Both stark and hideously blunt, the truth about conformity in materialism soon sets in to make it apparent that ‘choosing life’ may well be exactly the opposite. On top of that, in case anybody is worried that they might not be able to relate to Renton’s drug issues, addiction on other levels is explored thoroughly. A commentary on how prescription pill popping is just as damning but seen as much less crude by society is but one.
Considering that Trainspotting isn’t quite an ensemble cast film, it’s surprising to what extent most of the main characters are explored. Before the end, qualities, problems, traits and secrets of just about all the major characters are exposed and examined. There is no character that could be accused of being a strict (or even slight) cliché.
Naturally, because Renton is an addict, you wouldn’t really trust him if he tried to tell you his life story in the pub and so frequently, he is played off as an unreliable narrator. There are numerous times that he exclaims that he will do something, usually get off the heroin, to no avail at all mostly because he simply hasn’t the power to do this. At around the 65 minute mark, you really come into a full opinion of who he is and how much control he does (or doesn’t) have over himself, his life and his addiction.
One of the main reasons Trainspotting excels at being such a disturbing film is that it doesn’t back down at the thought of having to push the envelope and employ some abstract ideas in order to truly get a message across. The most effective uses of these are without doubt when juxtaposition is used to take an innocent idea and put it in a horrifyingly grim environment. Not only does this create a spellbinding effect, but Boyle and his crew also raise the bar by taking advantage of these moments to create real suspense.
From a technical standpoint, the camerawork and cinematography are fluid, inventive and original. The music is interestingly diverse and always fitting.The story itself is nothing new but is written and executed in such a wild fashion that everything seems fresh rather than recycled. However, you can only go so far on recycled material and as the stakes are raised, the film starts to lose focus of what has throughout, felt like the most core theme of the film.Not drugs, not addiction, but friends. Despite the advertising and the views of the film-makers and the controversy the key idea of friends always being there for one another is what feels like the blood pumping throughout the body of this film to keep it moving and invigorated.
After all, with who else would you be able to ramble about the trivial knowledge you’ve garnered of James Bond over the years, shoot dogs with air rifles, recreate the legendary Beatles album walking across a road or refer to everything via your own personal favoured pop culture?
Trainspotting is a film for anyone who wants to take a trip to the dark side but also see the light that keeps people there. It’s a film for anyone who’s not afraid to cross the line. It’s a film for anyone who chooses life.
4/5
As Renton (Ewan McGregor) and Spud (Ewen Bremner) hurl down the street with the energy of a Duracell bunny it’s apparent that there’s something very powerful about Trainspotting. As the Iggy Pop’s ‘Lust for Life’ pounds through your ears it may be difficult to realise at first. Is it this iconic choice of soundtrack? Could it be the pain that you feel along with the actors, who gurn and gasp as they push their way through the streets of Edinburgh?
Or could it in fact be the startlingly stirring voiceover provided by Ewan McGregor? Yeah, that would be it, though it is important that you remember something. This is the 1996 Ewan McGregor. Before Star Wars, or Moulin Rouge! and it was well before The Island. This is Ewan McGregor when he had to dive into toilets, and dig bodies. This is Ewan McGregor who didn’t have the luxury of multi-million dollar deals or stunt doubles. This is Ewan McGregor who is only a stone’s throw from the drug addled character he’s playing, and above everything else that shows.
One of the many initial criticisms of Trainspotting has been that it seems to be promoting drug use and it doesn’t take long to see why. The film starts off startlingly realistically with Renton sneering that he wouldn’t do drugs if he didn’t enjoy it. With this, we learn at breakneck speed that the world of drug abuse that we’ve been taught about and steered away from is like any other addiction and that to an extent, we, the average viewer, are no better than these people. So light-hearted is the first quarter of the film, common sense seems to leave and it’s not made entirely open why drugs are considered bad in society. But the enjoyable caper that you settle comfortably into doesn’t last for long and soon it’s apparent that director Danny Boyle is showing the good and the bad; the Heaven and the Hell. Whilst watching Trainspotting you’re in junkie limbo.
Among the themes of drugs, there are others relating to everyone. A core idea is the Choose Life movement, a phrase repeated throughout the film to perfectly nauseating effect. “Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television…” Both stark and hideously blunt, the truth about conformity in materialism soon sets in to make it apparent that ‘choosing life’ may well be exactly the opposite. On top of that, in case anybody is worried that they might not be able to relate to Renton’s drug issues, addiction on other levels is explored thoroughly. A commentary on how prescription pill popping is just as damning but seen as much less crude by society is but one.
Considering that Trainspotting isn’t quite an ensemble cast film, it’s surprising to what extent most of the main characters are explored. Before the end, qualities, problems, traits and secrets of just about all the major characters are exposed and examined. There is no character that could be accused of being a strict (or even slight) cliché.
Naturally, because Renton is an addict, you wouldn’t really trust him if he tried to tell you his life story in the pub and so frequently, he is played off as an unreliable narrator. There are numerous times that he exclaims that he will do something, usually get off the heroin, to no avail at all mostly because he simply hasn’t the power to do this. At around the 65 minute mark, you really come into a full opinion of who he is and how much control he does (or doesn’t) have over himself, his life and his addiction.
One of the main reasons Trainspotting excels at being such a disturbing film is that it doesn’t back down at the thought of having to push the envelope and employ some abstract ideas in order to truly get a message across. The most effective uses of these are without doubt when juxtaposition is used to take an innocent idea and put it in a horrifyingly grim environment. Not only does this create a spellbinding effect, but Boyle and his crew also raise the bar by taking advantage of these moments to create real suspense.
From a technical standpoint, the camerawork and cinematography are fluid, inventive and original. The music is interestingly diverse and always fitting.The story itself is nothing new but is written and executed in such a wild fashion that everything seems fresh rather than recycled. However, you can only go so far on recycled material and as the stakes are raised, the film starts to lose focus of what has throughout, felt like the most core theme of the film.Not drugs, not addiction, but friends. Despite the advertising and the views of the film-makers and the controversy the key idea of friends always being there for one another is what feels like the blood pumping throughout the body of this film to keep it moving and invigorated.
After all, with who else would you be able to ramble about the trivial knowledge you’ve garnered of James Bond over the years, shoot dogs with air rifles, recreate the legendary Beatles album walking across a road or refer to everything via your own personal favoured pop culture?
Trainspotting is a film for anyone who wants to take a trip to the dark side but also see the light that keeps people there. It’s a film for anyone who’s not afraid to cross the line. It’s a film for anyone who chooses life.
4/5
Monday 7 May 2007
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Life is good for Peter Parker (Toby Maguire). The city loves Spider-Man, he’s earning money, doing well in school and he’s planning to marry the love of his life Mary-Jane Watson (Kirstin Dunst). However, it seems that he’s still on the receiving end of much loathing from Harry Osborne (James Franco) who still believes Peter murdered his father and as new super-villain Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) enters the fray it doesn’t take long for everything to go wrong for Spidey.
It’s natural to feel scared when you get to the third film in a series. Quite frankly, they usually suck in comparison to the first and second. For every Goldfinger, there must be one hundred Superman III’s. For every Return of the King there must be one thousand The Godfather: Part III’s. And don’t get me started on the X-Men: The Last Stand. So how does Spider-Man 3 stand in comparison to the first two? It’s hard to explain, as rather than turning to greatness or downright awfulness it comes out as a bit of a mixed bag.
Firstly, we’ll start with what Spider-Man 3 does right. It seems as if the bad dialogue from the first film is never coming back as the writing throughout Spider-Man 3 is steady. The action scenes never fall short of pure genius and long gone are the frustrating ‘experimental’ transitions from Spider-Man 2. Unfortunately, you need to sit through about 30 minutes to really see this.The film starts out with some narration from your friendly neighbourhood photographer who masquerades as a super-hero whenever trouble arises: Peter Parker. Everything seems pretty good for about 10 minutes. We get the impression that everything is fine and dandy for Pete. And then everything starts to go wrong. We immediately see Harry walk out of the gas chamber that almost claimed his father’s life back in the first film as calm as can be and approach some altered Goblin gear. However the problem here is that there is no intricate preparation. This chemical almost killed Norman Osborne (who makes a brief appearance later, once more played by Willem Dafoe) and seems to have driven him insane, but for some reason it’s done nothing of the sort for Harry. So, he may have altered it. But this is the kid who depended upon Peter frequently in High School. Generally, the feeling is that the introduction of this New Goblin feels too rushed. Spider-Man 3 is a long film (clocking in at 1hour 28 minutes) but I can’t help but feel that 5 minutes preparation before jumping in would have been useful.
That said, there is no time wasted with the first action scene. Starting about 20 minutes in (as opposed to the first two not having set pieces this large for at least 40 minutes) it’s surprisingly dark. There’s little warning as to how dangerous it will get and the jokes that kept the second film rolling are remarkably scarce. Not that the lack of jokes are a bad thing. The scene has great pacing and really manages to build up suspense, which is rare so soon in a movie of this calibre.
On the subject of humour I think that it’s time we look at the key players of Spider-Man 3. All the regulars are back. J.K. Simmons is once more J. Jonah Jameson, the fierce Daily Bugle editor who appears to have been tamed, not by a super-hero, nor by his wife but by high blood sugar. Although, as ever, his scenes are scarce, in Spider-Man 3 we see a few newer sides to him. One of restrain, humility and honesty. Throughout the series, we’ve been seeing more to Jameson than is expected (trying to protect Parker from the Goblin in Spider-Man; admitting New York needs Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2) and here we learn that although he hates Spider-Man, he’s at least honest about any material he produces.
Naturally, it wouldn’t be a Spider-Man film if the king of cameos, Bruce Campbell didn’t show up. In what is easily the funniest scene in the film, Bruce is, as ever hilarious as the French Waiter. It really does go to show how a simple joke can eclipse entire movies (here’s looking at you Little Man). And how could I not mention the immortal Stan Lee. Once again picking up a cameo, this is the only one so far that he has referred to as his best cameo.
It may seem obvious to mention that the cinematography continues to move forward in new and exciting ways but it does. Most noticeably with the Super-Villains, the camera movements are vivid and rather exciting. Where the music is concerned, it really shows where long time composer Danny Elfman hasn’t been involved. Christopher Young does a good job but it shows where Elfman has helped.
The CG doesn’t immediately appear to have improved from Spider-Man 2 a great deal but when new villain, the Sandman appears it really shows where the $250 million went. It looks absolutely incredible. The individual grains of sand are perfectly visible and it seems absolutely astonishing to think that it was all done with computer effects rather than actually mutating an actor.
As everyone knows, the previous Spider-Man films have been above creating ‘evil’ characters as such. The Goblin was turned insane and Doc Ock was controlled by his ‘arms’. Thankfully, Raimi doesn’t take the easy option in Spider-Man 3. The Sandman’s completely aware of everything he does, but it seems that all he’s trying to do is save his daughter. The scene in which this is revealed is a very touching one and stands out as a glimmer of light amongst the overall dark subject matter of the film.
Naturally, everyone knows about the black suit already. As a metaphor, it works wonders to portray Peter’s continuing sins. It starts with pride, and who could blame him? With the whole city on his side, who wouldn’t be proud? But as Peter’s personality and responses darken, so does the suits attraction to him. Needless to say, it isn’t long until Peter Parker is in fully fledged ‘emo’ mode. However, regardless of the meaning the middle section of the film with Peter embracing his dark self feels a little overlong and a bit cheesy.
Maybe that’s why the final 30 minutes seem so great though.
Although the beginning is sketchy and the emo-mode scenes are pushing it slightly, the ending is just breathtaking. It’s a return to everything Spider-Man stands for and frankly just puts everything back in its place. To say anymore would be unfair but it is a serious contender for the title of greatest Super-Hero ending ever.
Spider-Man 3 is a rollercoaster that explores the characters well enough for the rushed beginning and awkward emo scenes to be forgiven. But the final 20 minutes are what really put it in its place as a Spider-Man film. Not as good as Spider-Man 2 but better than Spider-Man, this is a suitable end to a great trilogy.
4/5
It’s natural to feel scared when you get to the third film in a series. Quite frankly, they usually suck in comparison to the first and second. For every Goldfinger, there must be one hundred Superman III’s. For every Return of the King there must be one thousand The Godfather: Part III’s. And don’t get me started on the X-Men: The Last Stand. So how does Spider-Man 3 stand in comparison to the first two? It’s hard to explain, as rather than turning to greatness or downright awfulness it comes out as a bit of a mixed bag.
Firstly, we’ll start with what Spider-Man 3 does right. It seems as if the bad dialogue from the first film is never coming back as the writing throughout Spider-Man 3 is steady. The action scenes never fall short of pure genius and long gone are the frustrating ‘experimental’ transitions from Spider-Man 2. Unfortunately, you need to sit through about 30 minutes to really see this.The film starts out with some narration from your friendly neighbourhood photographer who masquerades as a super-hero whenever trouble arises: Peter Parker. Everything seems pretty good for about 10 minutes. We get the impression that everything is fine and dandy for Pete. And then everything starts to go wrong. We immediately see Harry walk out of the gas chamber that almost claimed his father’s life back in the first film as calm as can be and approach some altered Goblin gear. However the problem here is that there is no intricate preparation. This chemical almost killed Norman Osborne (who makes a brief appearance later, once more played by Willem Dafoe) and seems to have driven him insane, but for some reason it’s done nothing of the sort for Harry. So, he may have altered it. But this is the kid who depended upon Peter frequently in High School. Generally, the feeling is that the introduction of this New Goblin feels too rushed. Spider-Man 3 is a long film (clocking in at 1hour 28 minutes) but I can’t help but feel that 5 minutes preparation before jumping in would have been useful.
That said, there is no time wasted with the first action scene. Starting about 20 minutes in (as opposed to the first two not having set pieces this large for at least 40 minutes) it’s surprisingly dark. There’s little warning as to how dangerous it will get and the jokes that kept the second film rolling are remarkably scarce. Not that the lack of jokes are a bad thing. The scene has great pacing and really manages to build up suspense, which is rare so soon in a movie of this calibre.
On the subject of humour I think that it’s time we look at the key players of Spider-Man 3. All the regulars are back. J.K. Simmons is once more J. Jonah Jameson, the fierce Daily Bugle editor who appears to have been tamed, not by a super-hero, nor by his wife but by high blood sugar. Although, as ever, his scenes are scarce, in Spider-Man 3 we see a few newer sides to him. One of restrain, humility and honesty. Throughout the series, we’ve been seeing more to Jameson than is expected (trying to protect Parker from the Goblin in Spider-Man; admitting New York needs Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2) and here we learn that although he hates Spider-Man, he’s at least honest about any material he produces.
Naturally, it wouldn’t be a Spider-Man film if the king of cameos, Bruce Campbell didn’t show up. In what is easily the funniest scene in the film, Bruce is, as ever hilarious as the French Waiter. It really does go to show how a simple joke can eclipse entire movies (here’s looking at you Little Man). And how could I not mention the immortal Stan Lee. Once again picking up a cameo, this is the only one so far that he has referred to as his best cameo.
It may seem obvious to mention that the cinematography continues to move forward in new and exciting ways but it does. Most noticeably with the Super-Villains, the camera movements are vivid and rather exciting. Where the music is concerned, it really shows where long time composer Danny Elfman hasn’t been involved. Christopher Young does a good job but it shows where Elfman has helped.
The CG doesn’t immediately appear to have improved from Spider-Man 2 a great deal but when new villain, the Sandman appears it really shows where the $250 million went. It looks absolutely incredible. The individual grains of sand are perfectly visible and it seems absolutely astonishing to think that it was all done with computer effects rather than actually mutating an actor.
As everyone knows, the previous Spider-Man films have been above creating ‘evil’ characters as such. The Goblin was turned insane and Doc Ock was controlled by his ‘arms’. Thankfully, Raimi doesn’t take the easy option in Spider-Man 3. The Sandman’s completely aware of everything he does, but it seems that all he’s trying to do is save his daughter. The scene in which this is revealed is a very touching one and stands out as a glimmer of light amongst the overall dark subject matter of the film.
Naturally, everyone knows about the black suit already. As a metaphor, it works wonders to portray Peter’s continuing sins. It starts with pride, and who could blame him? With the whole city on his side, who wouldn’t be proud? But as Peter’s personality and responses darken, so does the suits attraction to him. Needless to say, it isn’t long until Peter Parker is in fully fledged ‘emo’ mode. However, regardless of the meaning the middle section of the film with Peter embracing his dark self feels a little overlong and a bit cheesy.
Maybe that’s why the final 30 minutes seem so great though.
Although the beginning is sketchy and the emo-mode scenes are pushing it slightly, the ending is just breathtaking. It’s a return to everything Spider-Man stands for and frankly just puts everything back in its place. To say anymore would be unfair but it is a serious contender for the title of greatest Super-Hero ending ever.
Spider-Man 3 is a rollercoaster that explores the characters well enough for the rushed beginning and awkward emo scenes to be forgiven. But the final 20 minutes are what really put it in its place as a Spider-Man film. Not as good as Spider-Man 2 but better than Spider-Man, this is a suitable end to a great trilogy.
4/5
Sunday 6 May 2007
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Flash forward two years and life is no easier for Peter Parker (Toby Maguire). He’s still pining over Mary-Jane Watson (Kirstin Dunst), he’s getting no end of slack about his ‘friend the bug’ from Harry Osborne (James Franco) and as well as that he’s failing school with no money to support himself with. But at least he doesn’t have any super-villains to fight…right…?
That score rises up once again and suddenly, we’re back. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been since you may have seen Spider-Man, both the general feel and the ‘recap’ put you right back in the mood. The recap is shown via some wonderfully drawn out reconstructed images from the first film. It’s more fun than a flashback and better than nothing.
Something instantly different about Spider-Man 2 is that it instantly focuses on humour. Within Spider-Man, humour was there, but it was used mostly to show us more about the characters, or move the plot along. With this film, however, now that the ‘origin story’ is done and wrapped up, there’s time to play around. But as well as that, the opening scene, a hyper-active depiction of Pete’s job as a pizza delivery boy, shows that sometimes his life is just as epic as his alter-ego’s, which is always a good thing because we get to see what everybody wants: the ability to use super-powers for their own agenda. But never fear! Spider-Man is still not selfish, as we see when everyone’s favourite mutant arachnid saves a few children from a bus. It seems that pizza delivering isn’t all that Peter has on his hands either. All hell is breaking loose for him at the Daily Bugle, where he’s still trying to flog pictures of Spider-Man to loudmouthed arrogant (yet slightly noble) editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). I think it’s fair to say that (as in Spider-Man) J.K. Simmons steals just about every scene he’s in. In terms of sheer hilarity, the man hit’s the mark and flies off the scale. There seems to be an aura about him that just makes it impossible to keep a straight face. That or, as is commonly perceived, he is just a really fantastic actor.
It seems that like Peter, loving old Aunt May is also somewhat low on money. One of the first really strong scenes built on action alone is of May giving her broke nephew the last scrap of cash she has. Returning director Sam Raimi seems to know that he can up-the-ante and does so to full effect at the most conveniently distressing of times. On that note, it seems like some kind of miracle that it’s so easy to follow the plotlines (for there are a lot). Maybe it’s down to Raimi’s ability to blend everything together and give everything a reason for happening but somehow everything just fits.
Considering it’s been 3 years since the release, it almost feels bad to say that the CG still looks absolutely wonderful. Usually, effects are dated within 6 months but somehow Spider-Man 2 (which won an Academy Award for its effects) stands tall and proud, still looking beautiful.
As ever with Spider-Man the camera movements are fluidly creative and generally incredible. Due to the extreme nature of the plot (It’s a man with the attributes of a spider!) you need to be inventive with your camera movements and Spider-Man 2 doesn’t disappoint for a second. Danny Elfman’s score naturally is superb and finally, the whole dialogue problem is sorted out. There may not be a great deal of stand out lines, but it’s generally better than the first film.
A special note for the legendary Bruce Campbell who returns in yet another cameo. This time Bruce is a character credited only as ‘rude usher’. To say anymore would completely wreck every fibre of the scene but it’s easily one of the stand-out parts of just about any super-hero film.
Before long Peter is invited to meet a doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). One of the first impressions one might get are that he’s outspoken and opinionated (“Peter Parker: brilliant but lazy…”) but it doesn’t take long to learn that he is wise. Not just clever (as a scientist, that’s expected) but wise. However, as wise as he is who really holds a possibly cataclysmic experiment that has the potential to harness the power of the sun at the heart of New York?! Just destroy the city why don’t you…
Naturally, to harness the power of the sun, Octavius isn’t going to use his hands. We’ve gathered that the man is ambitious (overly so) but also wise. And so he crafted 4 metallic arms which connect themselves to his spinal column so he can control them. It all seems good until he puts the arms on, because it isn’t until that point that you truly see how much of a hideous spectacle they really are. Naturally, you can guess what happens…
As push comes to shove, we find ourselves in the midst of a ‘metal arm slaughter’ which is without doubt one of the most disturbing scenes ever committed to film. “But this is a children’s film,” you may cry “surely they’re clichéd as all hell?” I’m afraid not. There may not be any claret, but it’s a fine example of how suspense, great shots and set pieces have more effect than any bucket full of gore for your average teenage slasher addict ever will.
It seems rather petty to bring it up but one of the (admittedly) few problems with Spider-Man 2 is the transitions. It tries some new ones and frankly, they don’t work. I can’t imagine a star-wipe (or in this case spider-wipe) has ever worked in anything other than Star Wars. It seems that simple fades and cuts are best for the Spider-Man films.
The bank set piece is just plain coolness. The CG is smoking and remember those inventive, impressive camera movements? They’re flung into overdrive here. Generally, seeing Spider-Man [try to] dodge the car doors and bags of money thrown at him by Doc Ock is immense. Hell, seeing Ock throwing them is a remarkable in it’s own right. The design of the character is somewhat astonishing and makes for a great deal of creativity which is shown frequently. And if nothing else, the bank scene is great because once again, we’re treated to Mr Stan Lee saving someone once again. Looks like you don’t need super powers to be a hero.
As the film goes on it gets progressively darker, skilfully reflecting Pete’s perceptions on many the events and his responsibilities as Spider-Man.
One of the great things about Elfman’s score is that the cinematography and actors never have to push too far to show Pete’s pain in any kind of abstract way, but the score manages to create a strong emotion along with the acting in the context of the script.
The single biggest problem with the film has to be the inclusion of a song.Whoever decided ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ should have been inserted into the film needs to be kept away from films from now on. It doesn’t matter if it was Raimi or Elfman, it just doesn’t fit at all. It just feels really cringeworthy and not in a “Wow, I can’t believe they did that.” kind of way. It just feels embarrassing in comparison to the darker tone that had successfully been built up before it.
Despite that, though, the good far outweighs the bad and this is definitely a must for all the fans of the first.
Darker, deeper and a little dafter. Spider-Man 2 is a perfect example of how sequels should turn out and shows in being one of the better Super-Hero films out there.
5/5
That score rises up once again and suddenly, we’re back. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been since you may have seen Spider-Man, both the general feel and the ‘recap’ put you right back in the mood. The recap is shown via some wonderfully drawn out reconstructed images from the first film. It’s more fun than a flashback and better than nothing.
Something instantly different about Spider-Man 2 is that it instantly focuses on humour. Within Spider-Man, humour was there, but it was used mostly to show us more about the characters, or move the plot along. With this film, however, now that the ‘origin story’ is done and wrapped up, there’s time to play around. But as well as that, the opening scene, a hyper-active depiction of Pete’s job as a pizza delivery boy, shows that sometimes his life is just as epic as his alter-ego’s, which is always a good thing because we get to see what everybody wants: the ability to use super-powers for their own agenda. But never fear! Spider-Man is still not selfish, as we see when everyone’s favourite mutant arachnid saves a few children from a bus. It seems that pizza delivering isn’t all that Peter has on his hands either. All hell is breaking loose for him at the Daily Bugle, where he’s still trying to flog pictures of Spider-Man to loudmouthed arrogant (yet slightly noble) editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). I think it’s fair to say that (as in Spider-Man) J.K. Simmons steals just about every scene he’s in. In terms of sheer hilarity, the man hit’s the mark and flies off the scale. There seems to be an aura about him that just makes it impossible to keep a straight face. That or, as is commonly perceived, he is just a really fantastic actor.
It seems that like Peter, loving old Aunt May is also somewhat low on money. One of the first really strong scenes built on action alone is of May giving her broke nephew the last scrap of cash she has. Returning director Sam Raimi seems to know that he can up-the-ante and does so to full effect at the most conveniently distressing of times. On that note, it seems like some kind of miracle that it’s so easy to follow the plotlines (for there are a lot). Maybe it’s down to Raimi’s ability to blend everything together and give everything a reason for happening but somehow everything just fits.
Considering it’s been 3 years since the release, it almost feels bad to say that the CG still looks absolutely wonderful. Usually, effects are dated within 6 months but somehow Spider-Man 2 (which won an Academy Award for its effects) stands tall and proud, still looking beautiful.
As ever with Spider-Man the camera movements are fluidly creative and generally incredible. Due to the extreme nature of the plot (It’s a man with the attributes of a spider!) you need to be inventive with your camera movements and Spider-Man 2 doesn’t disappoint for a second. Danny Elfman’s score naturally is superb and finally, the whole dialogue problem is sorted out. There may not be a great deal of stand out lines, but it’s generally better than the first film.
A special note for the legendary Bruce Campbell who returns in yet another cameo. This time Bruce is a character credited only as ‘rude usher’. To say anymore would completely wreck every fibre of the scene but it’s easily one of the stand-out parts of just about any super-hero film.
Before long Peter is invited to meet a doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). One of the first impressions one might get are that he’s outspoken and opinionated (“Peter Parker: brilliant but lazy…”) but it doesn’t take long to learn that he is wise. Not just clever (as a scientist, that’s expected) but wise. However, as wise as he is who really holds a possibly cataclysmic experiment that has the potential to harness the power of the sun at the heart of New York?! Just destroy the city why don’t you…
Naturally, to harness the power of the sun, Octavius isn’t going to use his hands. We’ve gathered that the man is ambitious (overly so) but also wise. And so he crafted 4 metallic arms which connect themselves to his spinal column so he can control them. It all seems good until he puts the arms on, because it isn’t until that point that you truly see how much of a hideous spectacle they really are. Naturally, you can guess what happens…
As push comes to shove, we find ourselves in the midst of a ‘metal arm slaughter’ which is without doubt one of the most disturbing scenes ever committed to film. “But this is a children’s film,” you may cry “surely they’re clichéd as all hell?” I’m afraid not. There may not be any claret, but it’s a fine example of how suspense, great shots and set pieces have more effect than any bucket full of gore for your average teenage slasher addict ever will.
It seems rather petty to bring it up but one of the (admittedly) few problems with Spider-Man 2 is the transitions. It tries some new ones and frankly, they don’t work. I can’t imagine a star-wipe (or in this case spider-wipe) has ever worked in anything other than Star Wars. It seems that simple fades and cuts are best for the Spider-Man films.
The bank set piece is just plain coolness. The CG is smoking and remember those inventive, impressive camera movements? They’re flung into overdrive here. Generally, seeing Spider-Man [try to] dodge the car doors and bags of money thrown at him by Doc Ock is immense. Hell, seeing Ock throwing them is a remarkable in it’s own right. The design of the character is somewhat astonishing and makes for a great deal of creativity which is shown frequently. And if nothing else, the bank scene is great because once again, we’re treated to Mr Stan Lee saving someone once again. Looks like you don’t need super powers to be a hero.
As the film goes on it gets progressively darker, skilfully reflecting Pete’s perceptions on many the events and his responsibilities as Spider-Man.
One of the great things about Elfman’s score is that the cinematography and actors never have to push too far to show Pete’s pain in any kind of abstract way, but the score manages to create a strong emotion along with the acting in the context of the script.
The single biggest problem with the film has to be the inclusion of a song.Whoever decided ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ should have been inserted into the film needs to be kept away from films from now on. It doesn’t matter if it was Raimi or Elfman, it just doesn’t fit at all. It just feels really cringeworthy and not in a “Wow, I can’t believe they did that.” kind of way. It just feels embarrassing in comparison to the darker tone that had successfully been built up before it.
Despite that, though, the good far outweighs the bad and this is definitely a must for all the fans of the first.
Darker, deeper and a little dafter. Spider-Man 2 is a perfect example of how sequels should turn out and shows in being one of the better Super-Hero films out there.
5/5
Sunday 22 April 2007
Spider-Man (2002)
When teenage science geek Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) is bitten by a genetically engineered ‘super-spider’, he suddenly finds he has many attributes of spiders; web-swinging, increased strength and a precognitive ‘spider-sense’. The question is, will he use these newfound abilities for his own personal gain, or for the good of the public?
As Spider-Man opens, a sweeping score courtesy of Danny Elfman settles. It creates an incredible feeling of power and suddenly, everything feels very epic. So imagine your surprise when the first you see of Spider-Man is of his alter-ego, Peter Parker: Teenage nerd.
Generally, it’s the normality of everything which is striking. Pete is a science-geek who pines after a girl who is completely out of his league. But then, who wouldn’t be pining after Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? She’s beautiful, kind and just has that sort of aura around her that just says: check me out, I may be a little shallow, but who isn’t?
Then of course we have Norman (Willem Dafoe) and Harry Osborne (James Franco). Norman is the caring but slightly ignorant father of Harry Osborne, as well as a brilliant scientist. Harry is Pete’s best friend, failure of lessons and son of Norman.
The chemistry throughout all the characters works well. Everyone seems to be quite happy in their own little mundane lives throughout the Big Apple. It’s strange to think that in a super-hero film, there has to be mass conflicts of interest however, for just about the first 15 minutes, everyone in Spider-Man is happy to…well, exist.
However, it doesn’t take long for that conflict to kick in. We learn Norman is losing his funding and he generally seems somewhat pissed off about that. See the thing about Norman is that he is brilliant but somewhat overly ambitious. The sort of guy who just takes things too far…
Now would be a great time to learn some more about Peter’s family. He lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). These two are pretty much the subject of some of the earliest (and best) humour of the film. It’s subtle, and it’s very honest in the way of which characters are saying what but it works wonders. Uncle Ben, is essentially the comedian, whereas Aunt May is the voice of reason. It’s a good coupling and it works well.
The great thing about having Sam Raimi directing a motion picture, like Spider-Man is that having worked on low budget horror flicks (The Evil Dead) he knows what can be very scary and how far to go. He exploits that to the max in the scene where Peter begins to change into Spider-Man as a creepy montage of DNA and Spiders occurs. Generally, this isn’t the best film for Arachnophobics…
Meanwhile back at school everything is portrayed incredibly well. Raimi doesn’t opt to take the simplistic approach of looking at school as a hyper-stereotypical place of “Oh my gawds…” and cheerleaders. Everything seems generally real. The one slight problem is that the local bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello) seems slightly on the edge.
The computer effects have aged since 2002 but can be given the benefit of the doubt now. They certainly don’t render the film unwatchable and still get across the principle of what is portrayed.
Spider-Mans only obvious fault has to be the writing. It is usually pretty good, but sometimes it just fails terribly. There are lines that are supposed to tug at the heart-strings but never manage to do anything other than make you wonder who wrote those terrible lines, such as Peter saying “Sometimes…you know people…” whilst trying to convince her she’s a good actor.
When it comes to the wrestling ring, Raimi manages to catch a wonderfully tacky and gritty environment. Naturally, for a character as over the top as the Ring side announcer, you need a great actor. But not too great. Which is why I see that the only man for the job was Bruce Campbell! He isn’t around for much, but when he’s pulling off the worlds worst Elvis impression, he is funny. Almost too funny.
A great thing about Spider-Man is that it has no problem with making Peter seem really, really dark when required. When everything kicks off and Peter goes crazy, Toby’s performance and the tone of the film really sends one of those immense chills down your spine.I can’t stress enough how much I think the studio hit the jackpot with Toby Maguire as Spider-Man.
Obviously, with a project such as Spider-Man, it would be insane not to have some incredible shots. When the camera swings down and up through the traffic of New York in a first person shot looking at everything from Spider-Man’s point of view it’s one of those great shots that just has you feeling exilerated for hours on end.
A special notice here to J.K. Simmons for his unforgettable and hysterical portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson, editor in chief of the Daily Bugle (“If we can geta picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can sure get a picture of this weirdo!”) In spite of just about anything that’s happening on screen, Jameson is, always has been and always will be my favorite character from the Spider-Man series.
Despite the subject matter of criminality, it’s all handled fairly light-heartedly. It’s quite shocking when people start dieing, but Spider-Man’s wit and general ass-kickery just makes everyone feel at home. As ever, when the first real set piece comes in, we’re treated to a brief glimpse of the one and only Mr Stan Lee, head of Marvel comics. Adding Spider-Man to the long list of cameos he has done must have been a great experience, especially seeing he had the honour of saving someone (he’s now my hero).
Naturally, I’m not ending this review without a mention of the upside down kiss in the rain. It’s a great moment of cinematography and whoever came up with the idea deserves a raise. Whoever decided they’d have her cheat on her boyfriend, however deserves to be fired. Unless of course the idea is to give a hint that she doesn’t care about him? Think about it…
The final few scenes say just about everything youi’d ned to know about the film. It sums up the plot, the action and the characters really well. You get a great feel for everyone and everything and it shows how much effort was put into making it.
Overall, the direction brings out the best performances in what is essentially a flawed script when it comes to dialogue. But there are also some amazing set pieces and great conventions put into effect really well.
4/5
As Spider-Man opens, a sweeping score courtesy of Danny Elfman settles. It creates an incredible feeling of power and suddenly, everything feels very epic. So imagine your surprise when the first you see of Spider-Man is of his alter-ego, Peter Parker: Teenage nerd.
Generally, it’s the normality of everything which is striking. Pete is a science-geek who pines after a girl who is completely out of his league. But then, who wouldn’t be pining after Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? She’s beautiful, kind and just has that sort of aura around her that just says: check me out, I may be a little shallow, but who isn’t?
Then of course we have Norman (Willem Dafoe) and Harry Osborne (James Franco). Norman is the caring but slightly ignorant father of Harry Osborne, as well as a brilliant scientist. Harry is Pete’s best friend, failure of lessons and son of Norman.
The chemistry throughout all the characters works well. Everyone seems to be quite happy in their own little mundane lives throughout the Big Apple. It’s strange to think that in a super-hero film, there has to be mass conflicts of interest however, for just about the first 15 minutes, everyone in Spider-Man is happy to…well, exist.
However, it doesn’t take long for that conflict to kick in. We learn Norman is losing his funding and he generally seems somewhat pissed off about that. See the thing about Norman is that he is brilliant but somewhat overly ambitious. The sort of guy who just takes things too far…
Now would be a great time to learn some more about Peter’s family. He lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). These two are pretty much the subject of some of the earliest (and best) humour of the film. It’s subtle, and it’s very honest in the way of which characters are saying what but it works wonders. Uncle Ben, is essentially the comedian, whereas Aunt May is the voice of reason. It’s a good coupling and it works well.
The great thing about having Sam Raimi directing a motion picture, like Spider-Man is that having worked on low budget horror flicks (The Evil Dead) he knows what can be very scary and how far to go. He exploits that to the max in the scene where Peter begins to change into Spider-Man as a creepy montage of DNA and Spiders occurs. Generally, this isn’t the best film for Arachnophobics…
Meanwhile back at school everything is portrayed incredibly well. Raimi doesn’t opt to take the simplistic approach of looking at school as a hyper-stereotypical place of “Oh my gawds…” and cheerleaders. Everything seems generally real. The one slight problem is that the local bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello) seems slightly on the edge.
The computer effects have aged since 2002 but can be given the benefit of the doubt now. They certainly don’t render the film unwatchable and still get across the principle of what is portrayed.
Spider-Mans only obvious fault has to be the writing. It is usually pretty good, but sometimes it just fails terribly. There are lines that are supposed to tug at the heart-strings but never manage to do anything other than make you wonder who wrote those terrible lines, such as Peter saying “Sometimes…you know people…” whilst trying to convince her she’s a good actor.
When it comes to the wrestling ring, Raimi manages to catch a wonderfully tacky and gritty environment. Naturally, for a character as over the top as the Ring side announcer, you need a great actor. But not too great. Which is why I see that the only man for the job was Bruce Campbell! He isn’t around for much, but when he’s pulling off the worlds worst Elvis impression, he is funny. Almost too funny.
A great thing about Spider-Man is that it has no problem with making Peter seem really, really dark when required. When everything kicks off and Peter goes crazy, Toby’s performance and the tone of the film really sends one of those immense chills down your spine.I can’t stress enough how much I think the studio hit the jackpot with Toby Maguire as Spider-Man.
Obviously, with a project such as Spider-Man, it would be insane not to have some incredible shots. When the camera swings down and up through the traffic of New York in a first person shot looking at everything from Spider-Man’s point of view it’s one of those great shots that just has you feeling exilerated for hours on end.
A special notice here to J.K. Simmons for his unforgettable and hysterical portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson, editor in chief of the Daily Bugle (“If we can geta picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can sure get a picture of this weirdo!”) In spite of just about anything that’s happening on screen, Jameson is, always has been and always will be my favorite character from the Spider-Man series.
Despite the subject matter of criminality, it’s all handled fairly light-heartedly. It’s quite shocking when people start dieing, but Spider-Man’s wit and general ass-kickery just makes everyone feel at home. As ever, when the first real set piece comes in, we’re treated to a brief glimpse of the one and only Mr Stan Lee, head of Marvel comics. Adding Spider-Man to the long list of cameos he has done must have been a great experience, especially seeing he had the honour of saving someone (he’s now my hero).
Naturally, I’m not ending this review without a mention of the upside down kiss in the rain. It’s a great moment of cinematography and whoever came up with the idea deserves a raise. Whoever decided they’d have her cheat on her boyfriend, however deserves to be fired. Unless of course the idea is to give a hint that she doesn’t care about him? Think about it…
The final few scenes say just about everything youi’d ned to know about the film. It sums up the plot, the action and the characters really well. You get a great feel for everyone and everything and it shows how much effort was put into making it.
Overall, the direction brings out the best performances in what is essentially a flawed script when it comes to dialogue. But there are also some amazing set pieces and great conventions put into effect really well.
4/5
Fight Club (1999)
When a mindless consumer (Edward Norton) begins finding it difficult to sleep, he begins going to therapy sessions for problems he doesn’t have. But when suddenly, his flat explodes whilst he’s away on business he finds himself with nowhere to go. In a fleeting moment of insanity, he calls a man he’d met on a plane earlier that day: Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), and as they shun a life of consumerism, they find a new way of living: Fight Club.
As Fight Club opens to a CG journey from the microscopic cells on the Narrators head to the barrel of the gun in his mouth, it seems no wonder that the film failed tremendously at the box-office. It’s too unconventional too fast and as such is, too much to take so soon, which is why it’s nice for everything to conform slightly. However, for every time Fight Club adheres to the pre-determined rules, it breaks a few more.
Edward Norton’s narrator is suitably unemotional in his voice-over. Both the way that everything is spoken, and the actual dialogue itself is obscenely clever. It’s gripping, clever and really reflects everything that the average person doesn’t like to be reminded about themselves. The very fact that they are consumers. And in that alone, the narrator is: us.
The conventionalism within Fight Club soon wears off, but it happens in such a way that the audience doesn’t mind. For a short time, there doesn’t seem to be a plot. The Narrator struggles to find any comfort with merely being a white-collar everyman so he tries to remedy it. He goes to a number of support groups for the (usually terminally) ill where he finds that he can survive with a mixture of human interaction and consumerism, a balance. To relate back to the Narrators coffee table, you have to have the both the Yin & Yang sides of things.
As much as Fight club is fuelled by testosterone, it’d be ridiculous to assume there are no female leads. Firstly there’s Bob (Meatloaf). Bob sounds very predominantly like a man, so why is he put down as a female lead? “Bob has bitch tits” drawls the Narrator whilst weeping into bob’s disturbingly heavy chest. Admittedly, that’s overly harsh. I just didn’t want Helena Bonham Carter to feel alone as the only female lead. Marla Singer is in short, a bitch. She appears to find catharsis in the same support groups as the Narrator. Naturally, being awoken to the shallow nature of his little game, the Narrator looks to get rid of her as much as possible and decides to trade therapy groups. It seems sick because it is. It’s one of many times that Fight Club displays an ability to embrace controversy as if it were something to be proud of. And what with the execution of such controversial acts, everyone behind the making of Fight Club should be proud.
The film, in stark similarity to the narration, is very blunt. It’s a real world with most of the colours being dark and dank as opposed to a bright colour filled land of happiness and joy. People are cruel and selfish, none less so than Tyler Durden. Tyler is just that kind of guy who you love even though you know you shouldn’t. He is straight to the point and embraces his humanity, not totally dissimilar to the way in which the film embraces controversy (controversy, he is usually the instigator of).
Where the Narrator thinks about what he does, Tyler just rolls with it. He is that guy who is so off the cuff that he doesn’t even try to condone what he does. He will give reasons for it, but never once will he say that he’s doing the right thing. In that respect it seems to an extent that Tyler Durden is so fucking sly that he could run for president. In a similar respect, he is a character that everyone wants to be and because everyone wants to be him, he’s a character unrestricted by the burden of logic and sanity.
With Tyler comes a quirky sense of humour that despite bordering on absurdity never makes the final leap and so helps the viewers to relate to the characters. The dialogue is compelling, funny and at times completely and utterly disturbing.
There are times where Fight Club will delve into great detail to help the viewer come to a state of premature nirvana (in relation to the film) only for such a scene to be followed by another in which as little is revealed as possible. The entire film is very confusing at times and in between the random facts (“You can swallow a pint of blood before you get sick.”) and the unrelentless fighting, you get a slow but steady evolution. Not only with the plot and the characters, but with yourself. Remember: you are the Narrator, and as the Narrator evolves (mostly into Tyler) so do you.
The strange thing about evolving into Tyler however is that as you evolve into him, you’d expect to gain a greater knowledge of him. As soon as you think you know something about Tyler he is just as likely to throw it in your face as he is to replicate such an action.
Fight Club throughout has an insane science to it. There is a slight religious subtext but nothing to be taken too seriously. The characters are the focus of the story but you never quite get a full portrait of anyone. And overall, at the most light-hearted of moments is when everything seems the scariest. Fight Club is a mixed bag of emotion and a lucky dip of contradiction.
The cinematography is interesting. There are times when the camera actions and editing seem standard but naturally, in a film like Fight Club, that doesn’t last for very long. There’s something captivating about how everything plays out. It’s possibly in the way that it never quite misses an opportunity to display great dialogue or plot. On top of that the music throughout is 100%, sometimes in the most embarrassingly catchy way.
Brad Pitt is brilliant as the coolest guy alive (honestly, is he actually even acting?) just as Edward Norton is great as a hollow shell that follows the crowds.
There are a few key points throughout that really stay with you for a long time afterwards. Firstly is the breaking of the fourth wall. It’s done a good 3 or 4 times throughout the film and sometimes it makes you wonder if a character really is talking to you. It never gives a distinct answer but it’s all up to a specific individual really.
Second are a few scenes that turn everything on it’s head and give off the overall impression that ALL HELL HAS BROKEN LOOSE!
But that only happens a few times, so there’s really no need to fret.
It’s strange how many different views Fight Club brings up that you were probably never going to think about if you hadn’t seen it.Sacrifice is everything.Everything is nothing.Nothing is knowing yourself.To know yourself you need to sacrifice.
Sometimes it does seem that the film is so close to emo. The lack of conformity, the moving away from the crowds and the general truthfulness of it all.
Maybe that’s the point. Or maybe the point is to stop worrying about the point…
Conformity is bad from Tylers point of view.Tyler is bad from conformity’s point of view.But whatever your opinion, it’s pointless to deny that Tyler is an infection, a self replicating virus. Sooner than later, everyone is Tyler and it’s certainly worth checking Fight Club out just to experience this.
5/5
As Fight Club opens to a CG journey from the microscopic cells on the Narrators head to the barrel of the gun in his mouth, it seems no wonder that the film failed tremendously at the box-office. It’s too unconventional too fast and as such is, too much to take so soon, which is why it’s nice for everything to conform slightly. However, for every time Fight Club adheres to the pre-determined rules, it breaks a few more.
Edward Norton’s narrator is suitably unemotional in his voice-over. Both the way that everything is spoken, and the actual dialogue itself is obscenely clever. It’s gripping, clever and really reflects everything that the average person doesn’t like to be reminded about themselves. The very fact that they are consumers. And in that alone, the narrator is: us.
The conventionalism within Fight Club soon wears off, but it happens in such a way that the audience doesn’t mind. For a short time, there doesn’t seem to be a plot. The Narrator struggles to find any comfort with merely being a white-collar everyman so he tries to remedy it. He goes to a number of support groups for the (usually terminally) ill where he finds that he can survive with a mixture of human interaction and consumerism, a balance. To relate back to the Narrators coffee table, you have to have the both the Yin & Yang sides of things.
As much as Fight club is fuelled by testosterone, it’d be ridiculous to assume there are no female leads. Firstly there’s Bob (Meatloaf). Bob sounds very predominantly like a man, so why is he put down as a female lead? “Bob has bitch tits” drawls the Narrator whilst weeping into bob’s disturbingly heavy chest. Admittedly, that’s overly harsh. I just didn’t want Helena Bonham Carter to feel alone as the only female lead. Marla Singer is in short, a bitch. She appears to find catharsis in the same support groups as the Narrator. Naturally, being awoken to the shallow nature of his little game, the Narrator looks to get rid of her as much as possible and decides to trade therapy groups. It seems sick because it is. It’s one of many times that Fight Club displays an ability to embrace controversy as if it were something to be proud of. And what with the execution of such controversial acts, everyone behind the making of Fight Club should be proud.
The film, in stark similarity to the narration, is very blunt. It’s a real world with most of the colours being dark and dank as opposed to a bright colour filled land of happiness and joy. People are cruel and selfish, none less so than Tyler Durden. Tyler is just that kind of guy who you love even though you know you shouldn’t. He is straight to the point and embraces his humanity, not totally dissimilar to the way in which the film embraces controversy (controversy, he is usually the instigator of).
Where the Narrator thinks about what he does, Tyler just rolls with it. He is that guy who is so off the cuff that he doesn’t even try to condone what he does. He will give reasons for it, but never once will he say that he’s doing the right thing. In that respect it seems to an extent that Tyler Durden is so fucking sly that he could run for president. In a similar respect, he is a character that everyone wants to be and because everyone wants to be him, he’s a character unrestricted by the burden of logic and sanity.
With Tyler comes a quirky sense of humour that despite bordering on absurdity never makes the final leap and so helps the viewers to relate to the characters. The dialogue is compelling, funny and at times completely and utterly disturbing.
There are times where Fight Club will delve into great detail to help the viewer come to a state of premature nirvana (in relation to the film) only for such a scene to be followed by another in which as little is revealed as possible. The entire film is very confusing at times and in between the random facts (“You can swallow a pint of blood before you get sick.”) and the unrelentless fighting, you get a slow but steady evolution. Not only with the plot and the characters, but with yourself. Remember: you are the Narrator, and as the Narrator evolves (mostly into Tyler) so do you.
The strange thing about evolving into Tyler however is that as you evolve into him, you’d expect to gain a greater knowledge of him. As soon as you think you know something about Tyler he is just as likely to throw it in your face as he is to replicate such an action.
Fight Club throughout has an insane science to it. There is a slight religious subtext but nothing to be taken too seriously. The characters are the focus of the story but you never quite get a full portrait of anyone. And overall, at the most light-hearted of moments is when everything seems the scariest. Fight Club is a mixed bag of emotion and a lucky dip of contradiction.
The cinematography is interesting. There are times when the camera actions and editing seem standard but naturally, in a film like Fight Club, that doesn’t last for very long. There’s something captivating about how everything plays out. It’s possibly in the way that it never quite misses an opportunity to display great dialogue or plot. On top of that the music throughout is 100%, sometimes in the most embarrassingly catchy way.
Brad Pitt is brilliant as the coolest guy alive (honestly, is he actually even acting?) just as Edward Norton is great as a hollow shell that follows the crowds.
There are a few key points throughout that really stay with you for a long time afterwards. Firstly is the breaking of the fourth wall. It’s done a good 3 or 4 times throughout the film and sometimes it makes you wonder if a character really is talking to you. It never gives a distinct answer but it’s all up to a specific individual really.
Second are a few scenes that turn everything on it’s head and give off the overall impression that ALL HELL HAS BROKEN LOOSE!
But that only happens a few times, so there’s really no need to fret.
It’s strange how many different views Fight Club brings up that you were probably never going to think about if you hadn’t seen it.Sacrifice is everything.Everything is nothing.Nothing is knowing yourself.To know yourself you need to sacrifice.
Sometimes it does seem that the film is so close to emo. The lack of conformity, the moving away from the crowds and the general truthfulness of it all.
Maybe that’s the point. Or maybe the point is to stop worrying about the point…
Conformity is bad from Tylers point of view.Tyler is bad from conformity’s point of view.But whatever your opinion, it’s pointless to deny that Tyler is an infection, a self replicating virus. Sooner than later, everyone is Tyler and it’s certainly worth checking Fight Club out just to experience this.
5/5
Monday 16 April 2007
Lost In Translation (2003)
When has-been movie star Bob Harris (Bill Murray) travels to Japan to scrape a small fortune for a whisky advert, he finds comfort in Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a newlywed many years his junior who shares the aimlessness that has dominated his life.
What sort of film opens on an image of Scarlett Johansson’s ass? I mean, don’t get me wrong, Scarlett is a complete and utter babe but it just seems…strange. I’m unsure what Director Sofia Coppola was attempting to achieve. Maybe something artsy? Or maybe she just wanted something other than credits to captivate the audience…
Bob Harris sits in the back of a Japanese taxi sliding down the highway parallel to the absurdly bright town of Tokyo. Slowly, some gentle and soothing music kicks in and alters the tone of the scene massively. The pounding city lights blur past the taxi juxtapose the calm music to create an entirely different mood. May seem like a small point, but it’s one of the more beautiful transitions ever committed to film.
It’s a simple thing to film, but there is something unsettlingly hysterical about seeing Bill Murray in an elevator surrounded by Japanese men all of whom are at least a foot shorter than him. It’s really nice to see film-makers having fun with culture, something that just about everybody has been afraid to do for a long time in the fears that it could spark of some major international incident. From remarkably low shower heads to a running machine that cannot be stopped, it seems that Bob samples everything that could be different from what he’s used to in the west and watches it fall apart in front of him.
However, once again, a series of darkly lit establishing shots with some slow (and frankly depressing) music manage to set up a mournful slow mood for when necessary.
Charlotte however seems to have everything working for her but possibly in too well a way. She immediately seems unappreciated by her photographer husband and her reasons for coming to Japan are as simple as “I had nothing better to do.” Seeking fulfilment, Charlotte makes her way to a nearby shrine and watches a number of monks and nuns engaging in some kind of ritual, but as she later states she feels nothing. She’s numb.
It seems only too perfect then that Bob is having the same issue, albeit along with a few other problems. There are a few memorable scenes, one of which involves a hooker trying to, for lack of a better word, force Bob to have sex with her. It really is one of the funniest scenes ever, as the woman rolls around on the ground screeching “Oh, no Mr. Harris, I just want you to rip my stockings.”, whilst tripping him over. It’s up amongst the funniest intercultural exchanges ever.
It really takes a while for Bob and Charlotte to truly notice each other. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson seem to have under-acting down to an art form and when they do meet, that under-acting really makes the raw dialogue feel more natural. Sometimes what they are saying breaches the realms of believability slightly but there isn’t a line within the entire film that goes so far as to feel ‘romantic’ as such.
Something great about the film is that it feels real. It’s very unconventional, in the way of the script and the simplistic techniques in the way of shots and angles, but it’s a realistic idea and one that, although at first hard to comprehend, is perfectly plausible. There really is something strange about the unconventional realism that Sofia Coppola seems to be trying to employ.
Rather than using metaphorical situations and strategies, Lost in Translation uses more realistic techniques in order to convey depth. Rather than delving too deep, everything is shown as it is, and as such although the film is set in a different country and culture to the primary audience, the idea of real events really keeps the feeling of depth around.
The idea of being in another culture is used very well and is seen as a way for the two leads to realise what they dislike around their lives, and this of course makes them feel more and more distant from those around them. It’s a great idea for these two people, decades apart in age, to bond through their distance and to feel comfortable as they are in a similar position to each other. Although not once throughout the entire film is there a ‘threat’ as such, but despite that there is the deep sincere feeling that both Bob and Charlotte are saving each other, if not only from wandering through the rest of their lives aimlessly.
Every film has its flaws, and it’s a shame to say that Lost in Translation loses its appeal pretty quickly, not because it gets repetitive but because about 40 minutes is the subtle quiet humour is abruptly shifted to a loud scenic night life. There’s certainly a fun atmosphere all around these scenes but it’s in such contrast to what the film was for so long that it feels very much out of place. Another major flaw, revolving around this problem is that the camera actions don’t reflect the craziness of the Tokyo nightlife. The shots and angles are very much in the same vein as the slow funny scenes as earlier on and generally, it doesn’t fit. That said, the music throughout the film, although not to my own tastes is superb in terms of reflecting the on screen action or creating juxtaposition to match the context of the situation. And also when the plot moves away from the ‘fun night life’ scenes, the cinematography begins reflecting what the moods of the characters are and the direction the story is going.
It seems that the more the film progresses so do the characters. It’s very much a character driven film and there isn’t a great deal of plot to follow. Sometimes the characters are happy to just know each other and that is the sort of feeling which really helps the film move forward,
A great example of a character driven film with subtly but hysterical humour. However, it does begin to trail off at times, so can seem a bit long around the middle.
3/5
What sort of film opens on an image of Scarlett Johansson’s ass? I mean, don’t get me wrong, Scarlett is a complete and utter babe but it just seems…strange. I’m unsure what Director Sofia Coppola was attempting to achieve. Maybe something artsy? Or maybe she just wanted something other than credits to captivate the audience…
Bob Harris sits in the back of a Japanese taxi sliding down the highway parallel to the absurdly bright town of Tokyo. Slowly, some gentle and soothing music kicks in and alters the tone of the scene massively. The pounding city lights blur past the taxi juxtapose the calm music to create an entirely different mood. May seem like a small point, but it’s one of the more beautiful transitions ever committed to film.
It’s a simple thing to film, but there is something unsettlingly hysterical about seeing Bill Murray in an elevator surrounded by Japanese men all of whom are at least a foot shorter than him. It’s really nice to see film-makers having fun with culture, something that just about everybody has been afraid to do for a long time in the fears that it could spark of some major international incident. From remarkably low shower heads to a running machine that cannot be stopped, it seems that Bob samples everything that could be different from what he’s used to in the west and watches it fall apart in front of him.
However, once again, a series of darkly lit establishing shots with some slow (and frankly depressing) music manage to set up a mournful slow mood for when necessary.
Charlotte however seems to have everything working for her but possibly in too well a way. She immediately seems unappreciated by her photographer husband and her reasons for coming to Japan are as simple as “I had nothing better to do.” Seeking fulfilment, Charlotte makes her way to a nearby shrine and watches a number of monks and nuns engaging in some kind of ritual, but as she later states she feels nothing. She’s numb.
It seems only too perfect then that Bob is having the same issue, albeit along with a few other problems. There are a few memorable scenes, one of which involves a hooker trying to, for lack of a better word, force Bob to have sex with her. It really is one of the funniest scenes ever, as the woman rolls around on the ground screeching “Oh, no Mr. Harris, I just want you to rip my stockings.”, whilst tripping him over. It’s up amongst the funniest intercultural exchanges ever.
It really takes a while for Bob and Charlotte to truly notice each other. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson seem to have under-acting down to an art form and when they do meet, that under-acting really makes the raw dialogue feel more natural. Sometimes what they are saying breaches the realms of believability slightly but there isn’t a line within the entire film that goes so far as to feel ‘romantic’ as such.
Something great about the film is that it feels real. It’s very unconventional, in the way of the script and the simplistic techniques in the way of shots and angles, but it’s a realistic idea and one that, although at first hard to comprehend, is perfectly plausible. There really is something strange about the unconventional realism that Sofia Coppola seems to be trying to employ.
Rather than using metaphorical situations and strategies, Lost in Translation uses more realistic techniques in order to convey depth. Rather than delving too deep, everything is shown as it is, and as such although the film is set in a different country and culture to the primary audience, the idea of real events really keeps the feeling of depth around.
The idea of being in another culture is used very well and is seen as a way for the two leads to realise what they dislike around their lives, and this of course makes them feel more and more distant from those around them. It’s a great idea for these two people, decades apart in age, to bond through their distance and to feel comfortable as they are in a similar position to each other. Although not once throughout the entire film is there a ‘threat’ as such, but despite that there is the deep sincere feeling that both Bob and Charlotte are saving each other, if not only from wandering through the rest of their lives aimlessly.
Every film has its flaws, and it’s a shame to say that Lost in Translation loses its appeal pretty quickly, not because it gets repetitive but because about 40 minutes is the subtle quiet humour is abruptly shifted to a loud scenic night life. There’s certainly a fun atmosphere all around these scenes but it’s in such contrast to what the film was for so long that it feels very much out of place. Another major flaw, revolving around this problem is that the camera actions don’t reflect the craziness of the Tokyo nightlife. The shots and angles are very much in the same vein as the slow funny scenes as earlier on and generally, it doesn’t fit. That said, the music throughout the film, although not to my own tastes is superb in terms of reflecting the on screen action or creating juxtaposition to match the context of the situation. And also when the plot moves away from the ‘fun night life’ scenes, the cinematography begins reflecting what the moods of the characters are and the direction the story is going.
It seems that the more the film progresses so do the characters. It’s very much a character driven film and there isn’t a great deal of plot to follow. Sometimes the characters are happy to just know each other and that is the sort of feeling which really helps the film move forward,
A great example of a character driven film with subtly but hysterical humour. However, it does begin to trail off at times, so can seem a bit long around the middle.
3/5
Sunday 15 April 2007
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
When the Nazis plan to use the mystical Jewish artefact the Ark of the Covenant for their own means, the United States Government recruits Archaeologist and University Professor Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) to retrieve it first.
As Raiders opens we are treated to what one can only assume is some kind of dark and damp Amazon jungle. After travelling a little, a dark figure stops to look at a map. Suddenly, the score rises and a figure creeps behind him with a gun. At seemingly the last moment, faster than you can blink: whip, crack boom! The gun is on the floor and Indiana Jones steps into the light. It’s a grim opening for what is surely one of the most light-hearted, albeit violent, action-adventures of all time.
The opening adventure is one that has been imitated repeatedly but certainly never matched. From the spiders, to the spiked fence to the giant ball chasing Indy through the narrow passage ways. Quite frankly there is no denying that Indiana Jones can pull off some thrilling heroics. Quite simply, he’s a cool guy who everyone loves. There are points where even his enemies seem to like him. But he is in their way. And they are Nazis…but more on that later.
It seems clear within minutes of meeting Indy that he is a very human hero. When captured and surrounded by an arrogant French rival and lots of tribes-people pointing arrows at him, the only way he can manage to escape is to slip away when everyone is stunned by the beauty of a golden idol the aforementioned Frenchman Dr. Belloq (Paul Freeman) holds up to show how wonderful he is. Mere minutes later, when in the seemingly safe confines of a plane, he freaks out stupendously when realising he’s near enough sat on a snake. See, if there’s one thing about Indy, it’s that he hates snakes. But all this is why Indy is such a loveable character. He often finds himself in quite absurd situations and at such times he makes no attempt to seem suave. He generally panics and tries the first thing that comes to mind as opposed to sitting down and working out a strategy. At one point when asked what he’s going to do, he even says “I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go along.”
There are many things about Indy that have just changed cinema. One of the most famous is of course the red line travelling across the map whenever Indy travels somewhere. This is not only an interesting and unconventional way to add in a short interlude, but also saves needless conversation in order to determine where our beloved professor is going.
It seems strange when reading that this great adventurer unafraid to kill just about anyone in his way is a University professor teaching kids about archaeology, but for some reason on film it just delivers. Maybe it’s the secret fantasy everybody has harvested about leading some secret double life. Maybe it’s just the great writing and fabulous direction (courtesy of George Lucas, Philip Kaufman, Laurence Kasdan and Steven Spielberg respectively).
Maybe, Harrison Ford could just pass off as both. Who knows, but when in practise, Indy never fails to delight.
Naturally in a film this big, you need a girl and in Raiders, that girl is Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), a chick almost as hard as Indy himself. She can certainly knock back the shots and defend herself. Cue, what simply must be the greatest bar brawl ever. An early sign of greatness within Raiders is that it’s unafraid to venture into the grounds of, essentially, making fun of itself. There are so many daft moments that generally should feel out of place, but because of the simplicity of the whole film (it really is reminiscent of those old television adventure serials at times) everything just slots into place.
In a similar fashion to the cliff-hangers that would end each episode in an adventure serial, there are a number of crazy twists in Raiders which are put simply, shocking. Despite the simplistic approach to making Raiders, Spielberg and Lucas clearly have no problem in breaking a lot of pre-determined rules.
Throughout Raiders, music is used fabulously. Naturally, it would, seeing as it’s a John Williams composition. But it succeeds in doing something very few scores can do: even at the more boring talky bits (none of them are boring but some are obviously more interesting than others), the music manages to help keep you on the edge of your seats. Rather than increase the tension at slow points in the plot, it speeds the slow bits of story up. That’s not to say that suspense isn’t used. The act of building up suspense is matched only by the practise of breaking it in Raiders and it is broken a lot. Sometimes via comedy, sometimes via horror and frequently by pure hardcore adrenaline pumped action.
If nothing else, Raiders can quite happily boast the greatest action scenes ever. At some points in the film, it doesn’t stop for air. It is just spectacular set piece after spectacular set piece. And given Indy is an archaeologist, he certainly doesn’t appear to be afraid of destroying things. Whether it’s pushing baskets down to find someone or knocking a wall over with an ancient statue, Indy will do whatever it takes to find what he wants and that may be what makes the adventure atmosphere so energetic that it puts the audience on a natural high.
With a great cast, better set pieces and what is often over-looked as the greatest twist ending ever, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a simple film with remarkable humour, action and general fun. Certainly a classic.
5/5
As Raiders opens we are treated to what one can only assume is some kind of dark and damp Amazon jungle. After travelling a little, a dark figure stops to look at a map. Suddenly, the score rises and a figure creeps behind him with a gun. At seemingly the last moment, faster than you can blink: whip, crack boom! The gun is on the floor and Indiana Jones steps into the light. It’s a grim opening for what is surely one of the most light-hearted, albeit violent, action-adventures of all time.
The opening adventure is one that has been imitated repeatedly but certainly never matched. From the spiders, to the spiked fence to the giant ball chasing Indy through the narrow passage ways. Quite frankly there is no denying that Indiana Jones can pull off some thrilling heroics. Quite simply, he’s a cool guy who everyone loves. There are points where even his enemies seem to like him. But he is in their way. And they are Nazis…but more on that later.
It seems clear within minutes of meeting Indy that he is a very human hero. When captured and surrounded by an arrogant French rival and lots of tribes-people pointing arrows at him, the only way he can manage to escape is to slip away when everyone is stunned by the beauty of a golden idol the aforementioned Frenchman Dr. Belloq (Paul Freeman) holds up to show how wonderful he is. Mere minutes later, when in the seemingly safe confines of a plane, he freaks out stupendously when realising he’s near enough sat on a snake. See, if there’s one thing about Indy, it’s that he hates snakes. But all this is why Indy is such a loveable character. He often finds himself in quite absurd situations and at such times he makes no attempt to seem suave. He generally panics and tries the first thing that comes to mind as opposed to sitting down and working out a strategy. At one point when asked what he’s going to do, he even says “I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go along.”
There are many things about Indy that have just changed cinema. One of the most famous is of course the red line travelling across the map whenever Indy travels somewhere. This is not only an interesting and unconventional way to add in a short interlude, but also saves needless conversation in order to determine where our beloved professor is going.
It seems strange when reading that this great adventurer unafraid to kill just about anyone in his way is a University professor teaching kids about archaeology, but for some reason on film it just delivers. Maybe it’s the secret fantasy everybody has harvested about leading some secret double life. Maybe it’s just the great writing and fabulous direction (courtesy of George Lucas, Philip Kaufman, Laurence Kasdan and Steven Spielberg respectively).
Maybe, Harrison Ford could just pass off as both. Who knows, but when in practise, Indy never fails to delight.
Naturally in a film this big, you need a girl and in Raiders, that girl is Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), a chick almost as hard as Indy himself. She can certainly knock back the shots and defend herself. Cue, what simply must be the greatest bar brawl ever. An early sign of greatness within Raiders is that it’s unafraid to venture into the grounds of, essentially, making fun of itself. There are so many daft moments that generally should feel out of place, but because of the simplicity of the whole film (it really is reminiscent of those old television adventure serials at times) everything just slots into place.
In a similar fashion to the cliff-hangers that would end each episode in an adventure serial, there are a number of crazy twists in Raiders which are put simply, shocking. Despite the simplistic approach to making Raiders, Spielberg and Lucas clearly have no problem in breaking a lot of pre-determined rules.
Throughout Raiders, music is used fabulously. Naturally, it would, seeing as it’s a John Williams composition. But it succeeds in doing something very few scores can do: even at the more boring talky bits (none of them are boring but some are obviously more interesting than others), the music manages to help keep you on the edge of your seats. Rather than increase the tension at slow points in the plot, it speeds the slow bits of story up. That’s not to say that suspense isn’t used. The act of building up suspense is matched only by the practise of breaking it in Raiders and it is broken a lot. Sometimes via comedy, sometimes via horror and frequently by pure hardcore adrenaline pumped action.
If nothing else, Raiders can quite happily boast the greatest action scenes ever. At some points in the film, it doesn’t stop for air. It is just spectacular set piece after spectacular set piece. And given Indy is an archaeologist, he certainly doesn’t appear to be afraid of destroying things. Whether it’s pushing baskets down to find someone or knocking a wall over with an ancient statue, Indy will do whatever it takes to find what he wants and that may be what makes the adventure atmosphere so energetic that it puts the audience on a natural high.
With a great cast, better set pieces and what is often over-looked as the greatest twist ending ever, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a simple film with remarkable humour, action and general fun. Certainly a classic.
5/5
Saturday 14 April 2007
Casablanca (1942)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Casablanca: a city full of criminals and shady dealings, home only to those who wish to find transport to America, something made increasingly difficult by the raging World War II. So when Rick (Humphrey Bogart) finds that a long-lost love of his Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) and her legendary husband Victor Lazlo (Paul Henreid) have walked into his bar, his world is turned upside down.
Casablanca is one of those films that just opens, for lack of a better word, grandly. The music roars, the visuals are sharp and pristine and when the narration kicks in there is an aura of confidence which just cannot be matched by any contemporary film.
Immediately the mood is tense and although the film has aged, it still has the ability to manipulate the audience’s emotions.
One of Casablanca’s first lines says the most about the film and the setting: “Perhaps tomorrow we’ll be on a plane.” From the beginning there is no mistaking among the audience that nobody is sure of anything. And with that we move to Rick’s saloon, the specific are within the mystical town of Casablanca where most of the plot is laid out. Rick’s is a jostling borough of happiness and excitement, but also as is soon made evident the subject of many shady doings and the like. Immediately, it’s apparent that 1942 was the golden age of cinema; the women are beautiful and seductive, the men are fast talking and hard boiled and everyone knows their place.
In a film where there are endless amounts of quotes, it’s remarkable to think that just about every line and every moment is helping to move the plot along. For instance, one line that succeeds in humouring and making a point is spoken by a key character Ugarte (played to perfection by the ever wonderful Peter Lorre): “I have many friends who like me but somehow because you despise me, you’re the only one I trust.” Not only does this make just about everyone smile but it goes to show us one thing about Rick. He’s the kind of guy everybody trusts.
As well as Casablanca can build up tension, it manages to switch moods even better. Whether jumping between threats and jokes or tears and kisses it never fails to inspire some emotion. When it gets down to business there is a really strong feeling of romanticism throughout which appears to be fuelled by the way everything seems so fantastical. Whether it’s the look, the dialogue or the plot, every thing feels as if it’s in a league just slightly more elegant than that of out own world, regardless of the seedy setting.
It seems that after spending 35 minutes in Rick’s and having much of the plot laid out over one evening, everything should start to feel a little long, but there are two things that really keep everything interesting. Firstly, there is the atmosphere of the bar. Rather than feeling like somebody standing outside looking through the window and seeing what’s going on, you feel much more like a customer of Rick’s and as such everything seems much more enjoyable. Second is the idea that everything keeps moving the plot forwards, wasting no time and as such it feels at times like a thriller in the way that you’re literally on the edge of your seat wondering how things are going to turn out next. It’s a simple plot element, but it’s one that really works in a way that is usually forgotten today.
When watching Casablanca, it’s pretty much impossible to pick out an actor who isn’t really up to much. It’s often considered that acting has improved through the years, but when watching Casablanca and seeing the real emotion translated through the actors it’s impossible to deny that the performances aren’t stunning even today. As such, there is also great chemistry between Bogart and Bergman.
Throughout, Casablanca frequently has scenes which just tug at the heartstrings. It’s difficult not to feel sorry for characters as they realise that the ideas of relationships that they had planned out just aren’t going to work, or have been scattered to the winds. It really sets the standard for all romance films, which is ironic because it really is a standard which doesn’t seem like it’s particularly easy or even possible to meet or improve upon.
There’s very little to be said about Casablanca that can really take away any of it’s greatness. Every film has faults but Casablanca has so few, it almost seems trivial mentioning them. Considering that the title town is frequently referred to in disgust, presumably because of the lack of morals surrounding the city and the petty criminals within, there is little but a couple of broad establishing shots with a few shady deals to emphasise the negativity. At times, Casablanca actually seems like a rather nice place to live and set up a business, which although only slightly, does hinder the poor appearance of such a hated city.
In the end, one of the strange things about Casablanca is that it is a rather simple love story surrounded by a very intricately woven plot that is as much to do with the Second World War as anything else. It shows how Rick is affected by his love returning to him and how when she’s near she lights a fuse of hatred within him for what she did but also makes him more compassionate as well.
Despite a few little issues with the setting of the city, there really is nothing that can stop Casablanca from being the greatest romance film ever. Strong performances all around and a great plot which has forever since been honoured, this really is a classic.
5/5
Casablanca: a city full of criminals and shady dealings, home only to those who wish to find transport to America, something made increasingly difficult by the raging World War II. So when Rick (Humphrey Bogart) finds that a long-lost love of his Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) and her legendary husband Victor Lazlo (Paul Henreid) have walked into his bar, his world is turned upside down.
Casablanca is one of those films that just opens, for lack of a better word, grandly. The music roars, the visuals are sharp and pristine and when the narration kicks in there is an aura of confidence which just cannot be matched by any contemporary film.
Immediately the mood is tense and although the film has aged, it still has the ability to manipulate the audience’s emotions.
One of Casablanca’s first lines says the most about the film and the setting: “Perhaps tomorrow we’ll be on a plane.” From the beginning there is no mistaking among the audience that nobody is sure of anything. And with that we move to Rick’s saloon, the specific are within the mystical town of Casablanca where most of the plot is laid out. Rick’s is a jostling borough of happiness and excitement, but also as is soon made evident the subject of many shady doings and the like. Immediately, it’s apparent that 1942 was the golden age of cinema; the women are beautiful and seductive, the men are fast talking and hard boiled and everyone knows their place.
In a film where there are endless amounts of quotes, it’s remarkable to think that just about every line and every moment is helping to move the plot along. For instance, one line that succeeds in humouring and making a point is spoken by a key character Ugarte (played to perfection by the ever wonderful Peter Lorre): “I have many friends who like me but somehow because you despise me, you’re the only one I trust.” Not only does this make just about everyone smile but it goes to show us one thing about Rick. He’s the kind of guy everybody trusts.
As well as Casablanca can build up tension, it manages to switch moods even better. Whether jumping between threats and jokes or tears and kisses it never fails to inspire some emotion. When it gets down to business there is a really strong feeling of romanticism throughout which appears to be fuelled by the way everything seems so fantastical. Whether it’s the look, the dialogue or the plot, every thing feels as if it’s in a league just slightly more elegant than that of out own world, regardless of the seedy setting.
It seems that after spending 35 minutes in Rick’s and having much of the plot laid out over one evening, everything should start to feel a little long, but there are two things that really keep everything interesting. Firstly, there is the atmosphere of the bar. Rather than feeling like somebody standing outside looking through the window and seeing what’s going on, you feel much more like a customer of Rick’s and as such everything seems much more enjoyable. Second is the idea that everything keeps moving the plot forwards, wasting no time and as such it feels at times like a thriller in the way that you’re literally on the edge of your seat wondering how things are going to turn out next. It’s a simple plot element, but it’s one that really works in a way that is usually forgotten today.
When watching Casablanca, it’s pretty much impossible to pick out an actor who isn’t really up to much. It’s often considered that acting has improved through the years, but when watching Casablanca and seeing the real emotion translated through the actors it’s impossible to deny that the performances aren’t stunning even today. As such, there is also great chemistry between Bogart and Bergman.
Throughout, Casablanca frequently has scenes which just tug at the heartstrings. It’s difficult not to feel sorry for characters as they realise that the ideas of relationships that they had planned out just aren’t going to work, or have been scattered to the winds. It really sets the standard for all romance films, which is ironic because it really is a standard which doesn’t seem like it’s particularly easy or even possible to meet or improve upon.
There’s very little to be said about Casablanca that can really take away any of it’s greatness. Every film has faults but Casablanca has so few, it almost seems trivial mentioning them. Considering that the title town is frequently referred to in disgust, presumably because of the lack of morals surrounding the city and the petty criminals within, there is little but a couple of broad establishing shots with a few shady deals to emphasise the negativity. At times, Casablanca actually seems like a rather nice place to live and set up a business, which although only slightly, does hinder the poor appearance of such a hated city.
In the end, one of the strange things about Casablanca is that it is a rather simple love story surrounded by a very intricately woven plot that is as much to do with the Second World War as anything else. It shows how Rick is affected by his love returning to him and how when she’s near she lights a fuse of hatred within him for what she did but also makes him more compassionate as well.
Despite a few little issues with the setting of the city, there really is nothing that can stop Casablanca from being the greatest romance film ever. Strong performances all around and a great plot which has forever since been honoured, this really is a classic.
5/5
Friday 13 April 2007
Philadelphia (1993)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
When Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) contracts AID’s and is promptly fired by his conservative law firm, he sets out to prove that he was fired because of his sexual orientation with the help of a homophobic small time lawyer.
Philadelphia starts out quite well. Everything seems happy, and generally, the mood is quite similar. Generally, there’s a positive atmosphere. We get to meet Mr Beckett, played to perfection (as ever) by Tom Hanks. Everything seems pretty perfect. But then suddenly, we find out that Beckett has AID’s. and about the same time he is revealed to have AID’s, he’s revealed to have been fired from a job he obviously excels at (he stays up working ‘till 10 fer chrissakes!) Obviously, something isn’t right.
Getting straight to the point: this film is now officially a period piece. I know that some people are still homophobic, but Philadelphia deals with homophobia in the early 90’s and the crisis of AID’s which just about everyone is now completely aware is very bad.
So, Beckett thinks he has a case, but because he’s dying of AID’s and everyone in the early 90’s was scared to death of anyone with this disease (or at least that’s what the film is trying to portray) he can’t get a lawyer. Naturally, he’s going to go to the token black lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) last. There’s this really fantastic scene where Beckett goes to Millers office and he has to say the words “I have AID’s…” That one moment in the entire film is completely priceless as both Hanks and Washington’s reactions are spot on.
Naturally, Miller is just as scared as everyone else is so he says no and this gives us the chance to explore a few other examples of prejudice. It’s only when Miller is thinks about the prejudice he throws towards Beckett that he realises, being black, he’s likely to be judged in exactly the same way. The best scene in the film is set in a library when Miller realises how the librarian feels about him as he walks past. And in the very same scene, is the most accurate portrayal of prejudice against gays when Beckett is asked if he’d ‘feel more comfortable’ in a private reading room. Once again, Hanks plays the role to perfection and the whole scene is incredibly awkward.
Everything plays out perfectly up until the trial. The scenes are interesting and the performances are great. But when the trial begins, the film unfortunately begins to fall apart.
Don’t get me wrong, the trial scenes are superb. They really strengthen my idea of Washington as a great actor. But because the film is about Beckett, and he really isn’t in a position to be saying much throughout the trial scenes, he has a lot of scenes devoted solely to him towards the end. In the early 90’s, seeing that a gay man was the same as any other individual would have been a great move to make, and would have put the film-makers in the gay rights activists good books. But it really does feel in these scenes like they’ve tried to hard. Tom Hanks cannot perform badly, but generally when not in court, the films writing seems shoddy. The screenplay is commendable only for the issues it raises because other than that, it feels a little bland. On top of that the direction doesn’t seem to exist. It almost feels as if everyone on set knew what they were doing and so director Jonathan Demme just sat back and watched them do it.
Despite this, the scenes with Beckett’s family are delightful and you almost feel as if you’re being welcomed into the family’s home thanks to the clever plot device of looking at things from the perspective of a handheld camera.
The opera scene is also very powerful and a very unconventional method of throwing in lighting to reflect the actors moods as opposed to what would be realistic really makes the scene strong.
Generally, the themes throughout the film are very strong and the entire cast (primary and supporting) are beyond perfect. It just seems to be let down slightly by the writing and direction.
Worth seeing for the performances, or if you want what I can only assume was a vaguely accurate portrayal of prejudice towards homosexuality and AID’s victims, but suffers as a film.
3/5
When Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) contracts AID’s and is promptly fired by his conservative law firm, he sets out to prove that he was fired because of his sexual orientation with the help of a homophobic small time lawyer.
Philadelphia starts out quite well. Everything seems happy, and generally, the mood is quite similar. Generally, there’s a positive atmosphere. We get to meet Mr Beckett, played to perfection (as ever) by Tom Hanks. Everything seems pretty perfect. But then suddenly, we find out that Beckett has AID’s. and about the same time he is revealed to have AID’s, he’s revealed to have been fired from a job he obviously excels at (he stays up working ‘till 10 fer chrissakes!) Obviously, something isn’t right.
Getting straight to the point: this film is now officially a period piece. I know that some people are still homophobic, but Philadelphia deals with homophobia in the early 90’s and the crisis of AID’s which just about everyone is now completely aware is very bad.
So, Beckett thinks he has a case, but because he’s dying of AID’s and everyone in the early 90’s was scared to death of anyone with this disease (or at least that’s what the film is trying to portray) he can’t get a lawyer. Naturally, he’s going to go to the token black lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) last. There’s this really fantastic scene where Beckett goes to Millers office and he has to say the words “I have AID’s…” That one moment in the entire film is completely priceless as both Hanks and Washington’s reactions are spot on.
Naturally, Miller is just as scared as everyone else is so he says no and this gives us the chance to explore a few other examples of prejudice. It’s only when Miller is thinks about the prejudice he throws towards Beckett that he realises, being black, he’s likely to be judged in exactly the same way. The best scene in the film is set in a library when Miller realises how the librarian feels about him as he walks past. And in the very same scene, is the most accurate portrayal of prejudice against gays when Beckett is asked if he’d ‘feel more comfortable’ in a private reading room. Once again, Hanks plays the role to perfection and the whole scene is incredibly awkward.
Everything plays out perfectly up until the trial. The scenes are interesting and the performances are great. But when the trial begins, the film unfortunately begins to fall apart.
Don’t get me wrong, the trial scenes are superb. They really strengthen my idea of Washington as a great actor. But because the film is about Beckett, and he really isn’t in a position to be saying much throughout the trial scenes, he has a lot of scenes devoted solely to him towards the end. In the early 90’s, seeing that a gay man was the same as any other individual would have been a great move to make, and would have put the film-makers in the gay rights activists good books. But it really does feel in these scenes like they’ve tried to hard. Tom Hanks cannot perform badly, but generally when not in court, the films writing seems shoddy. The screenplay is commendable only for the issues it raises because other than that, it feels a little bland. On top of that the direction doesn’t seem to exist. It almost feels as if everyone on set knew what they were doing and so director Jonathan Demme just sat back and watched them do it.
Despite this, the scenes with Beckett’s family are delightful and you almost feel as if you’re being welcomed into the family’s home thanks to the clever plot device of looking at things from the perspective of a handheld camera.
The opera scene is also very powerful and a very unconventional method of throwing in lighting to reflect the actors moods as opposed to what would be realistic really makes the scene strong.
Generally, the themes throughout the film are very strong and the entire cast (primary and supporting) are beyond perfect. It just seems to be let down slightly by the writing and direction.
Worth seeing for the performances, or if you want what I can only assume was a vaguely accurate portrayal of prejudice towards homosexuality and AID’s victims, but suffers as a film.
3/5
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
The Deer Hunter is a dark tale following the lives of a group of friends through their lives from marriage, to war, to death. Showing a grim and far more horrifying side to the Vietnam War than most others, this is a film that takes the violence and embraces it as an inevitable part of life.
Knowing that The Deer Hunter was a film about the war in Vietnam, the opening is surprising. It begins on a cold blue morning and shows some men working in a factory. There is no glamour put to their work. It’s a factory where the men work for their money. As a group of men leave the factory, they say their goodbyes to their colleagues and wander of down to the bar for a drink. The following 40 minutes are some of the strangest ever committed to celluloid. Put simply, it’s a wedding and an after party. But considering it’s a film that is about Vietnam, it feels remarkably out of place. It is more than likely just my expectations getting the better of me.
When looked at in its own right, the wedding is superbly played out. It’s apparent from the start that the town is quite a small one and this feeling of cosiness is emphasised superbly by some establishing shots showing everyone is focused on the wedding. Generally, the point is that it works.
When the after party kicks in, the film starts to seem more like a comedy than anything. Short of a scuffle between a couple of characters, it really is quite funny. Whilst watching the after-party and wedding scenes, it quite frankly does seem a little aimless. It feels almost as if it’s about to start dragging but when this happens, it suddenly manages to kick out something new to set somebody giggling.
Despite the feeling of aimlessness, the extended use of such a celebratory event does manage to grab hold of the audience and whether you like it or not, you start to care for the characters. That and any film that has Robert De Niro running down a street in just his underpants is destined for greatness.
As a slight interlude from the wedding there’s a few examples of genius location scouting. The mountains, for the titled Deer Hunt, are sheer awesomeness. The scenery is beautiful and it is very nearly difficult to keep track of the plot with such a fantastical locale constantly grabbing your attention.
There are few scenes in the film with really great dialogue because the film itself is generally such a realistic example of the Vietnam War. But there is one scene that is thoroughly believable up in the mountains with, what will forever be pondered as the greatest line in the movie: “Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain't something else. This is this. From now on, you're on your own.”
On paper, it’s a ridiculous line, but with De Niro speaking, it’s foolproof.
Michael Cimino thoroughly deserved his Best Director Oscar for this film as well. The aforementioned scene is just one example of perfect tension building, a convention of film which is relied upon heavily in this film and never fails to actually thrill the audience. Hell, it doesn’t thrill you, it actually scares you.
When Vietnam finally appears on screen, it doesn’t disappoint. Moments in, it shows exactly what the Americans where facing when a Vietnamese soldier finds a family in a hole and drops a grenade in there before running off. There’s no preparation for it and is so harsh it really grasps the audience. When you then see Michael Vronosky (Robert De Niro) torch the soldier alive, it really is visually powerful. It’s shocking partially because the film shows the brutality of the death so well, but mostly because for the past hour the audience has gotten used to Michael being a fun drunken fool, not a killing machine. The juxtaposition is completely undeniable and very hard to watch.
The tension is really built up throughout the Russian Roulette scenes. Quite simply, it has got to be up among the most disturbing pieces of cinema ever. That tension that Cimino knows how to drive up is pushed into over-drive. It really makes you wonder whether the real horror within the war was even within the conflict.
Christopher Walken is remarkable in The Deer Hunter. Even if you hadn’t felt anything throughout the film, his scenes really force you to feel something. The man oozes potential and he exploits that to an unbelievably stunning effect. It’s really no wonder that he’s one of the most respected actors in Hollywood today having put films such as this under his belt.
A deep theme within The Deer Hunter is the effect of the war on the soldiers as they return home. Whether it was handled well and how hard it must be to return straight to the comfort of one’s home after all the horror of the fighting. How as much as somebody might want things to be normal, people change their opinions of them and how everything would change.
In terms of film-making, the lighting throughout it superb to the extent that I was wondering if Candy Suxx was going to burst in with a machine gun and a rocket launcher strapped to her back. The music had a very unconventional approach and it certainly felt as if less was more. The music had a power to it which was that it took a back seat to the emotion of the characters.
The final scenes are nothing short of incredible as a brief look at the seedy side of Vietnam outside of the war and a climax to be remembered for decades to come. It really is quite harrowing and is actually an unpleasant experience to sit through.
Finally there is the ending which although unnecessary provides a real ending. It’s quiet and it’s painful, but there’s a raw happiness to it.
Harrowing and painful tale about the effects of the Vietnam War on people, as well as an honest look at the lives of people from before the war right through to their ways of coping upon returning home. Unbelievably powerful, if not a little long at the beginning. Worth seeing, but only for those who can stomach some real unpleasantness.
4/5
The Deer Hunter is a dark tale following the lives of a group of friends through their lives from marriage, to war, to death. Showing a grim and far more horrifying side to the Vietnam War than most others, this is a film that takes the violence and embraces it as an inevitable part of life.
Knowing that The Deer Hunter was a film about the war in Vietnam, the opening is surprising. It begins on a cold blue morning and shows some men working in a factory. There is no glamour put to their work. It’s a factory where the men work for their money. As a group of men leave the factory, they say their goodbyes to their colleagues and wander of down to the bar for a drink. The following 40 minutes are some of the strangest ever committed to celluloid. Put simply, it’s a wedding and an after party. But considering it’s a film that is about Vietnam, it feels remarkably out of place. It is more than likely just my expectations getting the better of me.
When looked at in its own right, the wedding is superbly played out. It’s apparent from the start that the town is quite a small one and this feeling of cosiness is emphasised superbly by some establishing shots showing everyone is focused on the wedding. Generally, the point is that it works.
When the after party kicks in, the film starts to seem more like a comedy than anything. Short of a scuffle between a couple of characters, it really is quite funny. Whilst watching the after-party and wedding scenes, it quite frankly does seem a little aimless. It feels almost as if it’s about to start dragging but when this happens, it suddenly manages to kick out something new to set somebody giggling.
Despite the feeling of aimlessness, the extended use of such a celebratory event does manage to grab hold of the audience and whether you like it or not, you start to care for the characters. That and any film that has Robert De Niro running down a street in just his underpants is destined for greatness.
As a slight interlude from the wedding there’s a few examples of genius location scouting. The mountains, for the titled Deer Hunt, are sheer awesomeness. The scenery is beautiful and it is very nearly difficult to keep track of the plot with such a fantastical locale constantly grabbing your attention.
There are few scenes in the film with really great dialogue because the film itself is generally such a realistic example of the Vietnam War. But there is one scene that is thoroughly believable up in the mountains with, what will forever be pondered as the greatest line in the movie: “Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain't something else. This is this. From now on, you're on your own.”
On paper, it’s a ridiculous line, but with De Niro speaking, it’s foolproof.
Michael Cimino thoroughly deserved his Best Director Oscar for this film as well. The aforementioned scene is just one example of perfect tension building, a convention of film which is relied upon heavily in this film and never fails to actually thrill the audience. Hell, it doesn’t thrill you, it actually scares you.
When Vietnam finally appears on screen, it doesn’t disappoint. Moments in, it shows exactly what the Americans where facing when a Vietnamese soldier finds a family in a hole and drops a grenade in there before running off. There’s no preparation for it and is so harsh it really grasps the audience. When you then see Michael Vronosky (Robert De Niro) torch the soldier alive, it really is visually powerful. It’s shocking partially because the film shows the brutality of the death so well, but mostly because for the past hour the audience has gotten used to Michael being a fun drunken fool, not a killing machine. The juxtaposition is completely undeniable and very hard to watch.
The tension is really built up throughout the Russian Roulette scenes. Quite simply, it has got to be up among the most disturbing pieces of cinema ever. That tension that Cimino knows how to drive up is pushed into over-drive. It really makes you wonder whether the real horror within the war was even within the conflict.
Christopher Walken is remarkable in The Deer Hunter. Even if you hadn’t felt anything throughout the film, his scenes really force you to feel something. The man oozes potential and he exploits that to an unbelievably stunning effect. It’s really no wonder that he’s one of the most respected actors in Hollywood today having put films such as this under his belt.
A deep theme within The Deer Hunter is the effect of the war on the soldiers as they return home. Whether it was handled well and how hard it must be to return straight to the comfort of one’s home after all the horror of the fighting. How as much as somebody might want things to be normal, people change their opinions of them and how everything would change.
In terms of film-making, the lighting throughout it superb to the extent that I was wondering if Candy Suxx was going to burst in with a machine gun and a rocket launcher strapped to her back. The music had a very unconventional approach and it certainly felt as if less was more. The music had a power to it which was that it took a back seat to the emotion of the characters.
The final scenes are nothing short of incredible as a brief look at the seedy side of Vietnam outside of the war and a climax to be remembered for decades to come. It really is quite harrowing and is actually an unpleasant experience to sit through.
Finally there is the ending which although unnecessary provides a real ending. It’s quiet and it’s painful, but there’s a raw happiness to it.
Harrowing and painful tale about the effects of the Vietnam War on people, as well as an honest look at the lives of people from before the war right through to their ways of coping upon returning home. Unbelievably powerful, if not a little long at the beginning. Worth seeing, but only for those who can stomach some real unpleasantness.
4/5
Tuesday 10 April 2007
Sunshine (2007)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Sunshine is the latest collaboration between director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland which follows the journey of the crew of spaceship Icarus II 50 years in the future on their quest to fire a nuclear bomb into the dying sun in order to reignite it.
Given a considerable amount of thought, the sun is certainly a beautiful thing. The closest star anyone has ever known, and the only one we will ever be so close to in our own lifetimes. It is known and shown by science to be the giver of all life and as such, appears to be living up to its status within many cultures as God. So what if this star, this bringer of all life, this eerily beautiful clump of gas began to die? What would we do? Within Sunshine, the suggested idea is that an Atom bomb the size of Manhattan Island be fired directly into the sun, so as to recreate the Big Bang and save us all. In theory it’s foolproof. But something that really ensures that the audience is enticed is that throughout the film it’s made obvious that it is only theoretical. There is no way to know whether or not it’d work than to try and so throughout Sunshine a very big fear stands out. Even if they succeed with their mission, it could make no difference whatsoever. The Sun could still die out, implode and destroy all of the earth and all life on it. And as well as all this, couldn’t someone have thought of a more encouraging name than Icarus?
Sunshine, frankly boasts what I have no shame in endorsing as the greatest use of computer generated imagery ever. Absolutely every time the sun is shown, it seems apparent that much time has been put into perfecting them. Also, these images are something that I feel has to be seen on the big screen to truly be appreciated. When that great beautiful star appears in front of you, you can’t help but feel as if the light is burning away all that you are unsure of. Essentially, the Sun is standing its ground. The Sun is god. On top of everything else, the magnificent music works with the visuals in order to create a mood that cannot fail to inspire emotion. The perfect clash of exquisite images and emotional music within the a scene in which a character called Keneda ‘meets the sunshine’ and has made its way to the top of my great movie moments list.
The cast in Sunshine is absolutely fantastic. Made up of a few general unknowns and a few A-List Hollywood stars (Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans & Michelle Yeoh) but despite the differing fame status none of them let the film down. The cast itself is definitely an ensemble and it is nice to see a film not flaunt the biggest star as much as it can.
It would be ridiculous to disregard the blatantly obvious themes bought up in Sunshine. The increasing necessity on machines is one that appears multiple times and given that this is a film about the Sun a more apparent idea, science vs. religion is one that is played upon heavily. Overall, the biggest problem within the film appears to be that it doesn’t quite know what its message is. There are clearly quite a few but instead of letting a few stand out, it seems that many are included as fillers instead of giving the same effectiveness as the final overpowering message.
Overall, with a film that can cause as much debate as this one, I think it’s worth seeing just to see where you stand on the whole issue. On top of that though, it’s just a really well made film. It has a great script, terrific direction, some incredible imagery and a stunning cast. The best film of the year so far.
5/5
Sunshine is the latest collaboration between director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland which follows the journey of the crew of spaceship Icarus II 50 years in the future on their quest to fire a nuclear bomb into the dying sun in order to reignite it.
Given a considerable amount of thought, the sun is certainly a beautiful thing. The closest star anyone has ever known, and the only one we will ever be so close to in our own lifetimes. It is known and shown by science to be the giver of all life and as such, appears to be living up to its status within many cultures as God. So what if this star, this bringer of all life, this eerily beautiful clump of gas began to die? What would we do? Within Sunshine, the suggested idea is that an Atom bomb the size of Manhattan Island be fired directly into the sun, so as to recreate the Big Bang and save us all. In theory it’s foolproof. But something that really ensures that the audience is enticed is that throughout the film it’s made obvious that it is only theoretical. There is no way to know whether or not it’d work than to try and so throughout Sunshine a very big fear stands out. Even if they succeed with their mission, it could make no difference whatsoever. The Sun could still die out, implode and destroy all of the earth and all life on it. And as well as all this, couldn’t someone have thought of a more encouraging name than Icarus?
Sunshine, frankly boasts what I have no shame in endorsing as the greatest use of computer generated imagery ever. Absolutely every time the sun is shown, it seems apparent that much time has been put into perfecting them. Also, these images are something that I feel has to be seen on the big screen to truly be appreciated. When that great beautiful star appears in front of you, you can’t help but feel as if the light is burning away all that you are unsure of. Essentially, the Sun is standing its ground. The Sun is god. On top of everything else, the magnificent music works with the visuals in order to create a mood that cannot fail to inspire emotion. The perfect clash of exquisite images and emotional music within the a scene in which a character called Keneda ‘meets the sunshine’ and has made its way to the top of my great movie moments list.
The cast in Sunshine is absolutely fantastic. Made up of a few general unknowns and a few A-List Hollywood stars (Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans & Michelle Yeoh) but despite the differing fame status none of them let the film down. The cast itself is definitely an ensemble and it is nice to see a film not flaunt the biggest star as much as it can.
It would be ridiculous to disregard the blatantly obvious themes bought up in Sunshine. The increasing necessity on machines is one that appears multiple times and given that this is a film about the Sun a more apparent idea, science vs. religion is one that is played upon heavily. Overall, the biggest problem within the film appears to be that it doesn’t quite know what its message is. There are clearly quite a few but instead of letting a few stand out, it seems that many are included as fillers instead of giving the same effectiveness as the final overpowering message.
Overall, with a film that can cause as much debate as this one, I think it’s worth seeing just to see where you stand on the whole issue. On top of that though, it’s just a really well made film. It has a great script, terrific direction, some incredible imagery and a stunning cast. The best film of the year so far.
5/5
Sunday 8 April 2007
The Italian Job (1969)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Shortly after being released from prison, conman Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) learns that his partner in a job they were going to pull off has been killed. In order to exact his revenge, Charlie decides that with the help of some colleagues and an elderly prison inmate, Mr Bridger (Noël Coward) he’s going to pull off the heist and secure that he and his accomplices find themselves $4 million richer.
As The Italian Job opens, we see a beautiful red car glide in and out of the country lanes, elegantly. The grass is green, the sky is blue and Matt Monro is singing on the radio. As the red car enters a dark tunnel everything disappears when suddenly a screeching of the tires is heard and an explosion is seen. In the grimmest scene in the movie, we see the shambled wreckage of the car pushed down a hill and a man in black throws a funeral reef down after it.
In strict contrast to this, however, we are introduced to Charlie Croker, happy go lucky inmate being let out of prison. He’s a bundle of smiles as he leave, saying goodbye to everyone and generally, just being a happy chappy. Within moments of leaving however, he’s quick to realise that he is in a stolen car. This is when you learn most about Charlie. He may be happy, but he’s clever.
The Italian Job is a unique film because really, it has no depth. It’s pretty much the simplest example of sit back and enjoy as there is. Croker is the only character explored at all really, and all we learn is that, despite the quick, clever, British wit is that he’s a clever boy who loves his girl. Not that the last part matters at all. You could easily take away Charlie’s girlfriend and the plot would be completely unaffected. But that’s the beauty of The Italian Job. Rather than follow the old method which is everything happens to get you to the end of the film, there are many things that are thrown in just for fun. Whether it be the scenes with Charlie’s girlfriend, or about 90% of the 30 minute job and escape which makes up the final third of the film. Most of the pointless scenes have inspired many remarkable quotes such as:”You wouldn’t hit a fella with no trousers on, would ya?””You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
And of course, the now famous “Self Preservation Society”
Ok, so the last one was a song, but if you think I’m getting through this review without mentioning that song (Getta Bloomin’ Move On) you’re wrong.
The film, throughout is quite laidback and mellow. Hell, even during the climactic final chase scene, one of the characters actually in the mini is eating. The one thing that I think lets the film down is that the very first scene shows a darkness which isn’t exploited throughout the rest of the film. But then again, if I had my way, it’d probably be a completely different film and not one that I’d quote at every available opportunity.Generally, I feel that The Italian Job is an example of Michael Caine standing out in a fun film. And don’t get me started on the 16 minute mini chase. Quite simply, what I feel is the greatest example of Car chase choreography in the history of motion pictures.
In the end, you’ll either love the british wit or you won’t. But wortha try if you like cars, Michael Caine or cliff-hangers…
4/5
Shortly after being released from prison, conman Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) learns that his partner in a job they were going to pull off has been killed. In order to exact his revenge, Charlie decides that with the help of some colleagues and an elderly prison inmate, Mr Bridger (Noël Coward) he’s going to pull off the heist and secure that he and his accomplices find themselves $4 million richer.
As The Italian Job opens, we see a beautiful red car glide in and out of the country lanes, elegantly. The grass is green, the sky is blue and Matt Monro is singing on the radio. As the red car enters a dark tunnel everything disappears when suddenly a screeching of the tires is heard and an explosion is seen. In the grimmest scene in the movie, we see the shambled wreckage of the car pushed down a hill and a man in black throws a funeral reef down after it.
In strict contrast to this, however, we are introduced to Charlie Croker, happy go lucky inmate being let out of prison. He’s a bundle of smiles as he leave, saying goodbye to everyone and generally, just being a happy chappy. Within moments of leaving however, he’s quick to realise that he is in a stolen car. This is when you learn most about Charlie. He may be happy, but he’s clever.
The Italian Job is a unique film because really, it has no depth. It’s pretty much the simplest example of sit back and enjoy as there is. Croker is the only character explored at all really, and all we learn is that, despite the quick, clever, British wit is that he’s a clever boy who loves his girl. Not that the last part matters at all. You could easily take away Charlie’s girlfriend and the plot would be completely unaffected. But that’s the beauty of The Italian Job. Rather than follow the old method which is everything happens to get you to the end of the film, there are many things that are thrown in just for fun. Whether it be the scenes with Charlie’s girlfriend, or about 90% of the 30 minute job and escape which makes up the final third of the film. Most of the pointless scenes have inspired many remarkable quotes such as:”You wouldn’t hit a fella with no trousers on, would ya?””You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
And of course, the now famous “Self Preservation Society”
Ok, so the last one was a song, but if you think I’m getting through this review without mentioning that song (Getta Bloomin’ Move On) you’re wrong.
The film, throughout is quite laidback and mellow. Hell, even during the climactic final chase scene, one of the characters actually in the mini is eating. The one thing that I think lets the film down is that the very first scene shows a darkness which isn’t exploited throughout the rest of the film. But then again, if I had my way, it’d probably be a completely different film and not one that I’d quote at every available opportunity.Generally, I feel that The Italian Job is an example of Michael Caine standing out in a fun film. And don’t get me started on the 16 minute mini chase. Quite simply, what I feel is the greatest example of Car chase choreography in the history of motion pictures.
In the end, you’ll either love the british wit or you won’t. But wortha try if you like cars, Michael Caine or cliff-hangers…
4/5
Saturday 7 April 2007
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
After the Civil War in Spain, a young girl called Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) moves to a countryside mill with her pregnant mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to meet Captain Vidal (Sergi López) whom Carmen has recently married. Whilst there, Ofelia must cope with the constant threat of guerrila Replican rebels and Vidals cruel facist views as well as the three mystical tasks she must complete in order to take her place as Princess of a legendary kingdom.
Wow! My first subtitled review! Tempted to write it in Spanish, just to make a point…
Pan’s Labyrinth is a film which I feel was very much falsely advertised. I rented it thinking it was a fantasy film and nothing else, but was very wrong. Notice how in the description I don’t mention the fantasy element very much? That’s because most of the film is actually about the Vidal’s sadism and struggle to resist the rebels. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
As ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ starts the telling of a fairytale is begun. It tells of a princess who is lost seemingly forever. And then we see Ofelia. Although Ofelia seems innocent, she also seems curious. Within minutes of the film, we have a few really interesting camera shots flying all over the place (one which looks incredible is basically following a CG insect as it crawls around a tree).
On meeting Captain Vidal, there is immediately a negative vibe. The man seems to be a perfectionist from the start, noting as a few cars pull up that they are 15 minutes late. When Ofelia, his step daughter offers to shake his hand, he grabs hold of it and makes sure she knows it’s the wrong one. It seems that Del Toro (the director) is trying to make it apparent that Carmen is not with Vidal out of love, but out of necessity for protection. This soon becomes apparent when he brutally murders two townspeople for simply speaking out against him. It is very evident before any notion of real fantasy enters the film that if this is a fairy tale, it is almost certainly for adults.
Soon, almost juxtaposing the disturbing murder, we’re treated to some trendy CG work as a bug somehow seamlessly morphs into a fairy. It’s not long after that we’re treated to the labyrinth and what seemed to be the marketing departments biggest centre point: the faun. The faun (played by Doug Jones) is an incredible creature. The way it moves is truly unique and it speaks with such emotion that it seems as if the creature were real. After fulfilling its purpose, and telling Ofelia of her supposed past, the faun backs away and descends into darkness in a completely simplistic and yet creepily effective way.
Back at the realistic side of life, as the film progresses we get to learn more of some characters. It seems early on in the film that the only person Vidal is particularly kind to is a maid called Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) with whom he frequently establishes bodily contact by placing his hand on her shoulder. Frequently, though really it is never established specifically and barely even hinted at, I found myself believing that the two had at some point prior to the films timeline engaged in some kind of affair, possibly even having something to do with Vidal raping her.
Although that may not be concrete, it seems that every new scene with Vidal is a scene where we learn something new about him. This is how movies really should be: learning about the characters.
Whether we learn that Vidal thinks he’s better than the guerrillas he is fighting or whether we learn that he thinks he’s better than his own wife, we always learn something. But something that is frequent throughout is that we slowly unravel the extent of his sadistic mind. One scene, in particular stands out whilst displaying this: After a beautifully shot shootout between the fascist army and the Republicans, Vidal offers their prisoner the opportunity to leave the mill he is being held at without torture or death if he can count to three, knowing full well that the prisoner cannot help but stutter. It seems to me that Vidal is nothing short of a psychologist’s wet dream.
Whenever CG is used within Pan’s Labyrinth, it is used wonderfully. Other than the fairies that frequent the screen, there is also the Book of Crossroads which, in a similar fashion to the Marauders Map of the Harry Potter films, has the ink slowly spread itself on the page only when necessary.
The only thing more beautiful than the CG is the sets which are absolutely incredible. The cavern beneath the labyrinth is a wonder to behold and the only thing more delicious within the entirety of the film is The Pale Man’s lair. This is essentially an old slightly gothic room with a long table full of food a crackling fire, which lightens up the entire room making it glister a warm golden and some spectacularly carved pillars.
Unfortunately, however when this scene in the film comes, you’ll be unable to admire the incredible sets because you will be absolutely terrified. The Pale Man himself is a horrifying creature to behold. Remarkably thin, (and obviously pale) this creature not only has no eyes, but has no place within his head for eyes. And yet, despite this he rests a pair of eyes on a plate in front of him as he sits calmly and does nothing. At first, I thought the eyes were on the plate in front of him because he had collected somebody else’s eyes, knowing he could never have his own. However, when he began moving, I realised he had eyes in front of him, not because there was nowhere within his head to put them but because he could slip them into his hands. When The Pale Man moves, he is not even remotely elegant and the way he moves is as if all his limbs and joints are all rusted. His body movements are only matched in horror by the noise that he makes. Quite frankly, The Pale Man chase is one of the scariest pieces of cinema ever made.
As Ofelia goes on her adventures, she meets the faun numerous times. Each time, their relationship deepens and strains. Guillermo del Toro truly founded a great and memorable creature when he gave this specific faun its personality. With every single meeting the faun gets more aggressive towards Ofelia, but also, quite creepily, more close to her. At least 3 points within the film, the faun displays signs, supposedly of affection, that seem disturbingly reminiscent of modern day paedophiles way of treating children.
Despite everything else, all the mysticism and confusion, all the war and hate, that Ofelia and the fauns relationship represents how easy it is to convince a child of something and to have them embrace you into their lives.
So if you haven’t already picked up, this is a dark film.
But just because it doesn’t offer a happy ever after to every character, doesn’t stop it from potentially being the greatest fairy tale of all time.
An incredible film that is dark, scary and fantastical. With solid performances all around, great use of CG and make up, solid direction and an ending far more mesmerising than any fairy tale up to this one, Pan’s Labyrinth is a must, not only to any fan of cinema, but to any adult who wants to get in touch with their inner child without being treated like one.
4.5/5
After the Civil War in Spain, a young girl called Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) moves to a countryside mill with her pregnant mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to meet Captain Vidal (Sergi López) whom Carmen has recently married. Whilst there, Ofelia must cope with the constant threat of guerrila Replican rebels and Vidals cruel facist views as well as the three mystical tasks she must complete in order to take her place as Princess of a legendary kingdom.
Wow! My first subtitled review! Tempted to write it in Spanish, just to make a point…
Pan’s Labyrinth is a film which I feel was very much falsely advertised. I rented it thinking it was a fantasy film and nothing else, but was very wrong. Notice how in the description I don’t mention the fantasy element very much? That’s because most of the film is actually about the Vidal’s sadism and struggle to resist the rebels. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
As ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ starts the telling of a fairytale is begun. It tells of a princess who is lost seemingly forever. And then we see Ofelia. Although Ofelia seems innocent, she also seems curious. Within minutes of the film, we have a few really interesting camera shots flying all over the place (one which looks incredible is basically following a CG insect as it crawls around a tree).
On meeting Captain Vidal, there is immediately a negative vibe. The man seems to be a perfectionist from the start, noting as a few cars pull up that they are 15 minutes late. When Ofelia, his step daughter offers to shake his hand, he grabs hold of it and makes sure she knows it’s the wrong one. It seems that Del Toro (the director) is trying to make it apparent that Carmen is not with Vidal out of love, but out of necessity for protection. This soon becomes apparent when he brutally murders two townspeople for simply speaking out against him. It is very evident before any notion of real fantasy enters the film that if this is a fairy tale, it is almost certainly for adults.
Soon, almost juxtaposing the disturbing murder, we’re treated to some trendy CG work as a bug somehow seamlessly morphs into a fairy. It’s not long after that we’re treated to the labyrinth and what seemed to be the marketing departments biggest centre point: the faun. The faun (played by Doug Jones) is an incredible creature. The way it moves is truly unique and it speaks with such emotion that it seems as if the creature were real. After fulfilling its purpose, and telling Ofelia of her supposed past, the faun backs away and descends into darkness in a completely simplistic and yet creepily effective way.
Back at the realistic side of life, as the film progresses we get to learn more of some characters. It seems early on in the film that the only person Vidal is particularly kind to is a maid called Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) with whom he frequently establishes bodily contact by placing his hand on her shoulder. Frequently, though really it is never established specifically and barely even hinted at, I found myself believing that the two had at some point prior to the films timeline engaged in some kind of affair, possibly even having something to do with Vidal raping her.
Although that may not be concrete, it seems that every new scene with Vidal is a scene where we learn something new about him. This is how movies really should be: learning about the characters.
Whether we learn that Vidal thinks he’s better than the guerrillas he is fighting or whether we learn that he thinks he’s better than his own wife, we always learn something. But something that is frequent throughout is that we slowly unravel the extent of his sadistic mind. One scene, in particular stands out whilst displaying this: After a beautifully shot shootout between the fascist army and the Republicans, Vidal offers their prisoner the opportunity to leave the mill he is being held at without torture or death if he can count to three, knowing full well that the prisoner cannot help but stutter. It seems to me that Vidal is nothing short of a psychologist’s wet dream.
Whenever CG is used within Pan’s Labyrinth, it is used wonderfully. Other than the fairies that frequent the screen, there is also the Book of Crossroads which, in a similar fashion to the Marauders Map of the Harry Potter films, has the ink slowly spread itself on the page only when necessary.
The only thing more beautiful than the CG is the sets which are absolutely incredible. The cavern beneath the labyrinth is a wonder to behold and the only thing more delicious within the entirety of the film is The Pale Man’s lair. This is essentially an old slightly gothic room with a long table full of food a crackling fire, which lightens up the entire room making it glister a warm golden and some spectacularly carved pillars.
Unfortunately, however when this scene in the film comes, you’ll be unable to admire the incredible sets because you will be absolutely terrified. The Pale Man himself is a horrifying creature to behold. Remarkably thin, (and obviously pale) this creature not only has no eyes, but has no place within his head for eyes. And yet, despite this he rests a pair of eyes on a plate in front of him as he sits calmly and does nothing. At first, I thought the eyes were on the plate in front of him because he had collected somebody else’s eyes, knowing he could never have his own. However, when he began moving, I realised he had eyes in front of him, not because there was nowhere within his head to put them but because he could slip them into his hands. When The Pale Man moves, he is not even remotely elegant and the way he moves is as if all his limbs and joints are all rusted. His body movements are only matched in horror by the noise that he makes. Quite frankly, The Pale Man chase is one of the scariest pieces of cinema ever made.
As Ofelia goes on her adventures, she meets the faun numerous times. Each time, their relationship deepens and strains. Guillermo del Toro truly founded a great and memorable creature when he gave this specific faun its personality. With every single meeting the faun gets more aggressive towards Ofelia, but also, quite creepily, more close to her. At least 3 points within the film, the faun displays signs, supposedly of affection, that seem disturbingly reminiscent of modern day paedophiles way of treating children.
Despite everything else, all the mysticism and confusion, all the war and hate, that Ofelia and the fauns relationship represents how easy it is to convince a child of something and to have them embrace you into their lives.
So if you haven’t already picked up, this is a dark film.
But just because it doesn’t offer a happy ever after to every character, doesn’t stop it from potentially being the greatest fairy tale of all time.
An incredible film that is dark, scary and fantastical. With solid performances all around, great use of CG and make up, solid direction and an ending far more mesmerising than any fairy tale up to this one, Pan’s Labyrinth is a must, not only to any fan of cinema, but to any adult who wants to get in touch with their inner child without being treated like one.
4.5/5
I ♥ Huckabees (2004)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
Friday 6 April 2007
Garden State (2004)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
Thursday 5 April 2007
Serenity (2005)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Ok...Just a warning. This is kind of my favourite film, so you may find the following opinions to be extremely biased. But in my defence, it's not my favourite film for nothing...
In 2002 a TV show called Firefly was released to the world. It was a monumentous failure. Some feel it was Fox's fault. Some feel it wasn't advertised well. But many thought it was a great show. Firefly had lot of mysteries never explained and in an attempt to solve these mysteries, Joss Whedon (Firefly creator) has bought us Serenity.
Let's look at what Serenity is. It's a sci-fi film. First, let me start with a lecture. If you don't want to read, just skip this paragraph.
Science Fiction is such a popular subject because it's the biggest genre going. There is no such film as just Science Fiction. For example: Star Wars? Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Blade Runner? Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller.Serenity? Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure/Thriller with elements of comedy.
See the pattern? Sci-Fi is broad and I personally think that Serenity is a perfect example of this.
Because nowadays CG is a big problem in Hollywood, I'm going to address it first. Many people believe it's used far too much. Given the most recent films considered by the public to be Science-Fiction, the computer animation within Serenity is surprisingly kept to a minimum. CG is used only where it is going to be helpful towards the plot, as opposed to remarkably pointless scenes that show off the tech. Hell, there's even a scene that uses models but it looks great. Generally the entirety of the film is remarkably pretty. Not only is the CG used well but the cinematography is absolutely superb. The lighting delivers something that not even the greatest porno on earth could deliver (and that's good). All in all: this is a pretty film.
The plot in itself isn't really anything particularly new. Generally it's a continuation of the Firefly plot. But don't let that put you off. It's generally explained to you through the characters conversations (a really good plot device. within Serenity).
Adding to that is something I love about this flick. The way characters talk. You have to realise that Serenity is set 500 years in the future and so people speak differently. This different way of speaking means that there are many simple yet endlessly quotable lines throughout the whole film ("We might experience some slight turbulence and then...explode.")
But as I was saying about the plot. Not overtly original but the way that the plot fits into the 'verse is an incredible thing to watch. It's not totally dissimilar to how J.R.R Tolkein made sure that every aspect of The Lord of the Rings fit into the grand scheme of Middle Earth.
Much of the film feels very old, but it almost seems as if this is the point. Serenity (the ship within the film) is an old heap of junk that should be collapsing and so it seems like Serenity (the film itself) should fall apart at any minute. It's strange to realise that nothing within the film feels new because it isn't supposed to.
Just a final few words before I come to my quick snappy synopsis, if you don't like Serenity the first time, I advise you watch it again. At first I wasn't a big fan but now it's one of my favourite films. Just give i a couple of viewings and see if anything sticks.
Oh and don't forget to watch Firefly, the show Serenity is based on and is a sequel to.
So, final message? Serenity is a funny, depressing, action packed, space drama that deserves a few viewings before a final judgement is passed. Check it out. And Firefly, too.
5/5
Ok...Just a warning. This is kind of my favourite film, so you may find the following opinions to be extremely biased. But in my defence, it's not my favourite film for nothing...
In 2002 a TV show called Firefly was released to the world. It was a monumentous failure. Some feel it was Fox's fault. Some feel it wasn't advertised well. But many thought it was a great show. Firefly had lot of mysteries never explained and in an attempt to solve these mysteries, Joss Whedon (Firefly creator) has bought us Serenity.
Let's look at what Serenity is. It's a sci-fi film. First, let me start with a lecture. If you don't want to read, just skip this paragraph.
Science Fiction is such a popular subject because it's the biggest genre going. There is no such film as just Science Fiction. For example: Star Wars? Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Blade Runner? Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller.Serenity? Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure/Thriller with elements of comedy.
See the pattern? Sci-Fi is broad and I personally think that Serenity is a perfect example of this.
Because nowadays CG is a big problem in Hollywood, I'm going to address it first. Many people believe it's used far too much. Given the most recent films considered by the public to be Science-Fiction, the computer animation within Serenity is surprisingly kept to a minimum. CG is used only where it is going to be helpful towards the plot, as opposed to remarkably pointless scenes that show off the tech. Hell, there's even a scene that uses models but it looks great. Generally the entirety of the film is remarkably pretty. Not only is the CG used well but the cinematography is absolutely superb. The lighting delivers something that not even the greatest porno on earth could deliver (and that's good). All in all: this is a pretty film.
The plot in itself isn't really anything particularly new. Generally it's a continuation of the Firefly plot. But don't let that put you off. It's generally explained to you through the characters conversations (a really good plot device. within Serenity).
Adding to that is something I love about this flick. The way characters talk. You have to realise that Serenity is set 500 years in the future and so people speak differently. This different way of speaking means that there are many simple yet endlessly quotable lines throughout the whole film ("We might experience some slight turbulence and then...explode.")
But as I was saying about the plot. Not overtly original but the way that the plot fits into the 'verse is an incredible thing to watch. It's not totally dissimilar to how J.R.R Tolkein made sure that every aspect of The Lord of the Rings fit into the grand scheme of Middle Earth.
Much of the film feels very old, but it almost seems as if this is the point. Serenity (the ship within the film) is an old heap of junk that should be collapsing and so it seems like Serenity (the film itself) should fall apart at any minute. It's strange to realise that nothing within the film feels new because it isn't supposed to.
Just a final few words before I come to my quick snappy synopsis, if you don't like Serenity the first time, I advise you watch it again. At first I wasn't a big fan but now it's one of my favourite films. Just give i a couple of viewings and see if anything sticks.
Oh and don't forget to watch Firefly, the show Serenity is based on and is a sequel to.
So, final message? Serenity is a funny, depressing, action packed, space drama that deserves a few viewings before a final judgement is passed. Check it out. And Firefly, too.
5/5
Wild Hogs (2007)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
