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
Sunday 22 April 2007
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
300 (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!
When you see a Warner Brothers film, 99% of the time, you know how you feel about the film within about 20 seconds. Warner Brothers just about always change the logo's colour design depending on the film. 20 seconds into 300, I was ecstatic. The logo, in front of the dirty, cloudy sky looked beautiful.
20 seconds later, an old man stands holding a baby. He looks like the kind of guy who should be playing Moses. A gravely (yet distinct) voice begins talking about Spartan rituals. Basically, you have to be a really hard bastard from the point you're born. Or you're thrown from a cliff. As a baby.
Suddenly, the camera drops about 30 feet and you see the ground below the cliff is littered with skulls. Very small skulls. This really is a film that isn't afraid to cause controversy.
From this point in, we follow the growing up of future King of Sparta, Leonidas. Not once does the film drop its pace. Whether beating the living shite out of another warrior trainee or fighting a wolf, this film knows how to keep you on the edge.
Just when you think the film really can't get much cooler, it starts introducing characters that will not only stay with you until the end of the film, but as long as you remain a lover of ultra-violence.
Other than King Leonidas, you have Queen Gorgol, his wife. Very wise and happens to be the only speaking female character within the film.
Dilios; the narrator is very passionate about fighting. Other than narrating, he does very little for the first half of the film but has a crucial role towards the end.
Ephialtes; This deformed Spartan outcast is a hunchback and an example of what inspires 'beautiful disgust' which I'll come onto in a moment.
King Xerxes; In short, he's the baddie but he considers himself to be more of a deity than a king and tries to use his powers to tempt people.
Throughout the film, just about all the background is CG'd in. I'm not a massive fan of CG but like Sin City, 300 makes perfect use of it. The backgrounds are never anything short of astounding and throughout, I found myself wondering whether I should admire the action or the background.
Similarly, because the film plays about with mythology a lot, there are some great horrendous beasts in 300. But unlike films such as Harry Potter or Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 300 manages to create these great horrific creatures, but still make them seem absolutely beautiful to watch. There is not a moment in this film that is dull or ugly. Everything looks perfect.
Finally...the fighting.
What can one say?
It's a huge let down...
...
Just kidding. The violence in this is absolutely spectacular. Remember thinking Kill Bill was crazy? Then this is the film for you! The action is immense. Perfectly rehearsed and choreographed violence, mixed with great acting to make it seem as if it's unexpected make the action scenes in this film some of the best ever!
The editing takes a very unorthodox style that works uniquely. As King Leonidas runs through battle the action has been slowed down to basically make everything seem really cool. Then suddenly, as an opponent comes into view, the action speeds up really fast. Rather than draw back, slice, blood splatter, carry on running...it's all a case of running, death, running, death, running, death.
A 45 second steadicam shot following a soldier suddenly becomes a 3 minute blend of hyper violence and gore.
Throughout this film, very little real fake blood was used. It's mostly all CG'd in. It creates an effect similar to that in Sin City: the blood is obviously fake but looks remarkably pretty. In comparison to the obese amount of death, the amount of CG'd blood is just about right. The editors weren't generous. Nobody said "This will be the goriest film ever". They made it the most violent, but not the goriest. And for that reason, it seems 300 stands above other films that seem to attract teen audiences because of the obscene amounts of violence. 300 retains it's dignity, because it has no problem mixing fact with fiction, mixing depth with stupidity, and mixing fun with utter drama.
...
Screw it, if you're reading this review, you don't really care about any of this.
If you want to see sex, violence and humour, check it out!
5/5
When you see a Warner Brothers film, 99% of the time, you know how you feel about the film within about 20 seconds. Warner Brothers just about always change the logo's colour design depending on the film. 20 seconds into 300, I was ecstatic. The logo, in front of the dirty, cloudy sky looked beautiful.
20 seconds later, an old man stands holding a baby. He looks like the kind of guy who should be playing Moses. A gravely (yet distinct) voice begins talking about Spartan rituals. Basically, you have to be a really hard bastard from the point you're born. Or you're thrown from a cliff. As a baby.
Suddenly, the camera drops about 30 feet and you see the ground below the cliff is littered with skulls. Very small skulls. This really is a film that isn't afraid to cause controversy.
From this point in, we follow the growing up of future King of Sparta, Leonidas. Not once does the film drop its pace. Whether beating the living shite out of another warrior trainee or fighting a wolf, this film knows how to keep you on the edge.
Just when you think the film really can't get much cooler, it starts introducing characters that will not only stay with you until the end of the film, but as long as you remain a lover of ultra-violence.
Other than King Leonidas, you have Queen Gorgol, his wife. Very wise and happens to be the only speaking female character within the film.
Dilios; the narrator is very passionate about fighting. Other than narrating, he does very little for the first half of the film but has a crucial role towards the end.
Ephialtes; This deformed Spartan outcast is a hunchback and an example of what inspires 'beautiful disgust' which I'll come onto in a moment.
King Xerxes; In short, he's the baddie but he considers himself to be more of a deity than a king and tries to use his powers to tempt people.
Throughout the film, just about all the background is CG'd in. I'm not a massive fan of CG but like Sin City, 300 makes perfect use of it. The backgrounds are never anything short of astounding and throughout, I found myself wondering whether I should admire the action or the background.
Similarly, because the film plays about with mythology a lot, there are some great horrendous beasts in 300. But unlike films such as Harry Potter or Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 300 manages to create these great horrific creatures, but still make them seem absolutely beautiful to watch. There is not a moment in this film that is dull or ugly. Everything looks perfect.
Finally...the fighting.
What can one say?
It's a huge let down...
...
Just kidding. The violence in this is absolutely spectacular. Remember thinking Kill Bill was crazy? Then this is the film for you! The action is immense. Perfectly rehearsed and choreographed violence, mixed with great acting to make it seem as if it's unexpected make the action scenes in this film some of the best ever!
The editing takes a very unorthodox style that works uniquely. As King Leonidas runs through battle the action has been slowed down to basically make everything seem really cool. Then suddenly, as an opponent comes into view, the action speeds up really fast. Rather than draw back, slice, blood splatter, carry on running...it's all a case of running, death, running, death, running, death.
A 45 second steadicam shot following a soldier suddenly becomes a 3 minute blend of hyper violence and gore.
Throughout this film, very little real fake blood was used. It's mostly all CG'd in. It creates an effect similar to that in Sin City: the blood is obviously fake but looks remarkably pretty. In comparison to the obese amount of death, the amount of CG'd blood is just about right. The editors weren't generous. Nobody said "This will be the goriest film ever". They made it the most violent, but not the goriest. And for that reason, it seems 300 stands above other films that seem to attract teen audiences because of the obscene amounts of violence. 300 retains it's dignity, because it has no problem mixing fact with fiction, mixing depth with stupidity, and mixing fun with utter drama.
...
Screw it, if you're reading this review, you don't really care about any of this.
If you want to see sex, violence and humour, check it out!
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
