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
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Sunday, 8 April 2007
The Italian Job (1969)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Shortly after being released from prison, conman Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) learns that his partner in a job they were going to pull off has been killed. In order to exact his revenge, Charlie decides that with the help of some colleagues and an elderly prison inmate, Mr Bridger (Noël Coward) he’s going to pull off the heist and secure that he and his accomplices find themselves $4 million richer.
As The Italian Job opens, we see a beautiful red car glide in and out of the country lanes, elegantly. The grass is green, the sky is blue and Matt Monro is singing on the radio. As the red car enters a dark tunnel everything disappears when suddenly a screeching of the tires is heard and an explosion is seen. In the grimmest scene in the movie, we see the shambled wreckage of the car pushed down a hill and a man in black throws a funeral reef down after it.
In strict contrast to this, however, we are introduced to Charlie Croker, happy go lucky inmate being let out of prison. He’s a bundle of smiles as he leave, saying goodbye to everyone and generally, just being a happy chappy. Within moments of leaving however, he’s quick to realise that he is in a stolen car. This is when you learn most about Charlie. He may be happy, but he’s clever.
The Italian Job is a unique film because really, it has no depth. It’s pretty much the simplest example of sit back and enjoy as there is. Croker is the only character explored at all really, and all we learn is that, despite the quick, clever, British wit is that he’s a clever boy who loves his girl. Not that the last part matters at all. You could easily take away Charlie’s girlfriend and the plot would be completely unaffected. But that’s the beauty of The Italian Job. Rather than follow the old method which is everything happens to get you to the end of the film, there are many things that are thrown in just for fun. Whether it be the scenes with Charlie’s girlfriend, or about 90% of the 30 minute job and escape which makes up the final third of the film. Most of the pointless scenes have inspired many remarkable quotes such as:”You wouldn’t hit a fella with no trousers on, would ya?””You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
And of course, the now famous “Self Preservation Society”
Ok, so the last one was a song, but if you think I’m getting through this review without mentioning that song (Getta Bloomin’ Move On) you’re wrong.
The film, throughout is quite laidback and mellow. Hell, even during the climactic final chase scene, one of the characters actually in the mini is eating. The one thing that I think lets the film down is that the very first scene shows a darkness which isn’t exploited throughout the rest of the film. But then again, if I had my way, it’d probably be a completely different film and not one that I’d quote at every available opportunity.Generally, I feel that The Italian Job is an example of Michael Caine standing out in a fun film. And don’t get me started on the 16 minute mini chase. Quite simply, what I feel is the greatest example of Car chase choreography in the history of motion pictures.
In the end, you’ll either love the british wit or you won’t. But wortha try if you like cars, Michael Caine or cliff-hangers…
4/5
Shortly after being released from prison, conman Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) learns that his partner in a job they were going to pull off has been killed. In order to exact his revenge, Charlie decides that with the help of some colleagues and an elderly prison inmate, Mr Bridger (Noël Coward) he’s going to pull off the heist and secure that he and his accomplices find themselves $4 million richer.
As The Italian Job opens, we see a beautiful red car glide in and out of the country lanes, elegantly. The grass is green, the sky is blue and Matt Monro is singing on the radio. As the red car enters a dark tunnel everything disappears when suddenly a screeching of the tires is heard and an explosion is seen. In the grimmest scene in the movie, we see the shambled wreckage of the car pushed down a hill and a man in black throws a funeral reef down after it.
In strict contrast to this, however, we are introduced to Charlie Croker, happy go lucky inmate being let out of prison. He’s a bundle of smiles as he leave, saying goodbye to everyone and generally, just being a happy chappy. Within moments of leaving however, he’s quick to realise that he is in a stolen car. This is when you learn most about Charlie. He may be happy, but he’s clever.
The Italian Job is a unique film because really, it has no depth. It’s pretty much the simplest example of sit back and enjoy as there is. Croker is the only character explored at all really, and all we learn is that, despite the quick, clever, British wit is that he’s a clever boy who loves his girl. Not that the last part matters at all. You could easily take away Charlie’s girlfriend and the plot would be completely unaffected. But that’s the beauty of The Italian Job. Rather than follow the old method which is everything happens to get you to the end of the film, there are many things that are thrown in just for fun. Whether it be the scenes with Charlie’s girlfriend, or about 90% of the 30 minute job and escape which makes up the final third of the film. Most of the pointless scenes have inspired many remarkable quotes such as:”You wouldn’t hit a fella with no trousers on, would ya?””You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
And of course, the now famous “Self Preservation Society”
Ok, so the last one was a song, but if you think I’m getting through this review without mentioning that song (Getta Bloomin’ Move On) you’re wrong.
The film, throughout is quite laidback and mellow. Hell, even during the climactic final chase scene, one of the characters actually in the mini is eating. The one thing that I think lets the film down is that the very first scene shows a darkness which isn’t exploited throughout the rest of the film. But then again, if I had my way, it’d probably be a completely different film and not one that I’d quote at every available opportunity.Generally, I feel that The Italian Job is an example of Michael Caine standing out in a fun film. And don’t get me started on the 16 minute mini chase. Quite simply, what I feel is the greatest example of Car chase choreography in the history of motion pictures.
In the end, you’ll either love the british wit or you won’t. But wortha try if you like cars, Michael Caine or cliff-hangers…
4/5
Saturday, 7 April 2007
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
After the Civil War in Spain, a young girl called Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) moves to a countryside mill with her pregnant mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to meet Captain Vidal (Sergi López) whom Carmen has recently married. Whilst there, Ofelia must cope with the constant threat of guerrila Replican rebels and Vidals cruel facist views as well as the three mystical tasks she must complete in order to take her place as Princess of a legendary kingdom.
Wow! My first subtitled review! Tempted to write it in Spanish, just to make a point…
Pan’s Labyrinth is a film which I feel was very much falsely advertised. I rented it thinking it was a fantasy film and nothing else, but was very wrong. Notice how in the description I don’t mention the fantasy element very much? That’s because most of the film is actually about the Vidal’s sadism and struggle to resist the rebels. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
As ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ starts the telling of a fairytale is begun. It tells of a princess who is lost seemingly forever. And then we see Ofelia. Although Ofelia seems innocent, she also seems curious. Within minutes of the film, we have a few really interesting camera shots flying all over the place (one which looks incredible is basically following a CG insect as it crawls around a tree).
On meeting Captain Vidal, there is immediately a negative vibe. The man seems to be a perfectionist from the start, noting as a few cars pull up that they are 15 minutes late. When Ofelia, his step daughter offers to shake his hand, he grabs hold of it and makes sure she knows it’s the wrong one. It seems that Del Toro (the director) is trying to make it apparent that Carmen is not with Vidal out of love, but out of necessity for protection. This soon becomes apparent when he brutally murders two townspeople for simply speaking out against him. It is very evident before any notion of real fantasy enters the film that if this is a fairy tale, it is almost certainly for adults.
Soon, almost juxtaposing the disturbing murder, we’re treated to some trendy CG work as a bug somehow seamlessly morphs into a fairy. It’s not long after that we’re treated to the labyrinth and what seemed to be the marketing departments biggest centre point: the faun. The faun (played by Doug Jones) is an incredible creature. The way it moves is truly unique and it speaks with such emotion that it seems as if the creature were real. After fulfilling its purpose, and telling Ofelia of her supposed past, the faun backs away and descends into darkness in a completely simplistic and yet creepily effective way.
Back at the realistic side of life, as the film progresses we get to learn more of some characters. It seems early on in the film that the only person Vidal is particularly kind to is a maid called Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) with whom he frequently establishes bodily contact by placing his hand on her shoulder. Frequently, though really it is never established specifically and barely even hinted at, I found myself believing that the two had at some point prior to the films timeline engaged in some kind of affair, possibly even having something to do with Vidal raping her.
Although that may not be concrete, it seems that every new scene with Vidal is a scene where we learn something new about him. This is how movies really should be: learning about the characters.
Whether we learn that Vidal thinks he’s better than the guerrillas he is fighting or whether we learn that he thinks he’s better than his own wife, we always learn something. But something that is frequent throughout is that we slowly unravel the extent of his sadistic mind. One scene, in particular stands out whilst displaying this: After a beautifully shot shootout between the fascist army and the Republicans, Vidal offers their prisoner the opportunity to leave the mill he is being held at without torture or death if he can count to three, knowing full well that the prisoner cannot help but stutter. It seems to me that Vidal is nothing short of a psychologist’s wet dream.
Whenever CG is used within Pan’s Labyrinth, it is used wonderfully. Other than the fairies that frequent the screen, there is also the Book of Crossroads which, in a similar fashion to the Marauders Map of the Harry Potter films, has the ink slowly spread itself on the page only when necessary.
The only thing more beautiful than the CG is the sets which are absolutely incredible. The cavern beneath the labyrinth is a wonder to behold and the only thing more delicious within the entirety of the film is The Pale Man’s lair. This is essentially an old slightly gothic room with a long table full of food a crackling fire, which lightens up the entire room making it glister a warm golden and some spectacularly carved pillars.
Unfortunately, however when this scene in the film comes, you’ll be unable to admire the incredible sets because you will be absolutely terrified. The Pale Man himself is a horrifying creature to behold. Remarkably thin, (and obviously pale) this creature not only has no eyes, but has no place within his head for eyes. And yet, despite this he rests a pair of eyes on a plate in front of him as he sits calmly and does nothing. At first, I thought the eyes were on the plate in front of him because he had collected somebody else’s eyes, knowing he could never have his own. However, when he began moving, I realised he had eyes in front of him, not because there was nowhere within his head to put them but because he could slip them into his hands. When The Pale Man moves, he is not even remotely elegant and the way he moves is as if all his limbs and joints are all rusted. His body movements are only matched in horror by the noise that he makes. Quite frankly, The Pale Man chase is one of the scariest pieces of cinema ever made.
As Ofelia goes on her adventures, she meets the faun numerous times. Each time, their relationship deepens and strains. Guillermo del Toro truly founded a great and memorable creature when he gave this specific faun its personality. With every single meeting the faun gets more aggressive towards Ofelia, but also, quite creepily, more close to her. At least 3 points within the film, the faun displays signs, supposedly of affection, that seem disturbingly reminiscent of modern day paedophiles way of treating children.
Despite everything else, all the mysticism and confusion, all the war and hate, that Ofelia and the fauns relationship represents how easy it is to convince a child of something and to have them embrace you into their lives.
So if you haven’t already picked up, this is a dark film.
But just because it doesn’t offer a happy ever after to every character, doesn’t stop it from potentially being the greatest fairy tale of all time.
An incredible film that is dark, scary and fantastical. With solid performances all around, great use of CG and make up, solid direction and an ending far more mesmerising than any fairy tale up to this one, Pan’s Labyrinth is a must, not only to any fan of cinema, but to any adult who wants to get in touch with their inner child without being treated like one.
4.5/5
After the Civil War in Spain, a young girl called Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) moves to a countryside mill with her pregnant mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to meet Captain Vidal (Sergi López) whom Carmen has recently married. Whilst there, Ofelia must cope with the constant threat of guerrila Replican rebels and Vidals cruel facist views as well as the three mystical tasks she must complete in order to take her place as Princess of a legendary kingdom.
Wow! My first subtitled review! Tempted to write it in Spanish, just to make a point…
Pan’s Labyrinth is a film which I feel was very much falsely advertised. I rented it thinking it was a fantasy film and nothing else, but was very wrong. Notice how in the description I don’t mention the fantasy element very much? That’s because most of the film is actually about the Vidal’s sadism and struggle to resist the rebels. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
As ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ starts the telling of a fairytale is begun. It tells of a princess who is lost seemingly forever. And then we see Ofelia. Although Ofelia seems innocent, she also seems curious. Within minutes of the film, we have a few really interesting camera shots flying all over the place (one which looks incredible is basically following a CG insect as it crawls around a tree).
On meeting Captain Vidal, there is immediately a negative vibe. The man seems to be a perfectionist from the start, noting as a few cars pull up that they are 15 minutes late. When Ofelia, his step daughter offers to shake his hand, he grabs hold of it and makes sure she knows it’s the wrong one. It seems that Del Toro (the director) is trying to make it apparent that Carmen is not with Vidal out of love, but out of necessity for protection. This soon becomes apparent when he brutally murders two townspeople for simply speaking out against him. It is very evident before any notion of real fantasy enters the film that if this is a fairy tale, it is almost certainly for adults.
Soon, almost juxtaposing the disturbing murder, we’re treated to some trendy CG work as a bug somehow seamlessly morphs into a fairy. It’s not long after that we’re treated to the labyrinth and what seemed to be the marketing departments biggest centre point: the faun. The faun (played by Doug Jones) is an incredible creature. The way it moves is truly unique and it speaks with such emotion that it seems as if the creature were real. After fulfilling its purpose, and telling Ofelia of her supposed past, the faun backs away and descends into darkness in a completely simplistic and yet creepily effective way.
Back at the realistic side of life, as the film progresses we get to learn more of some characters. It seems early on in the film that the only person Vidal is particularly kind to is a maid called Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) with whom he frequently establishes bodily contact by placing his hand on her shoulder. Frequently, though really it is never established specifically and barely even hinted at, I found myself believing that the two had at some point prior to the films timeline engaged in some kind of affair, possibly even having something to do with Vidal raping her.
Although that may not be concrete, it seems that every new scene with Vidal is a scene where we learn something new about him. This is how movies really should be: learning about the characters.
Whether we learn that Vidal thinks he’s better than the guerrillas he is fighting or whether we learn that he thinks he’s better than his own wife, we always learn something. But something that is frequent throughout is that we slowly unravel the extent of his sadistic mind. One scene, in particular stands out whilst displaying this: After a beautifully shot shootout between the fascist army and the Republicans, Vidal offers their prisoner the opportunity to leave the mill he is being held at without torture or death if he can count to three, knowing full well that the prisoner cannot help but stutter. It seems to me that Vidal is nothing short of a psychologist’s wet dream.
Whenever CG is used within Pan’s Labyrinth, it is used wonderfully. Other than the fairies that frequent the screen, there is also the Book of Crossroads which, in a similar fashion to the Marauders Map of the Harry Potter films, has the ink slowly spread itself on the page only when necessary.
The only thing more beautiful than the CG is the sets which are absolutely incredible. The cavern beneath the labyrinth is a wonder to behold and the only thing more delicious within the entirety of the film is The Pale Man’s lair. This is essentially an old slightly gothic room with a long table full of food a crackling fire, which lightens up the entire room making it glister a warm golden and some spectacularly carved pillars.
Unfortunately, however when this scene in the film comes, you’ll be unable to admire the incredible sets because you will be absolutely terrified. The Pale Man himself is a horrifying creature to behold. Remarkably thin, (and obviously pale) this creature not only has no eyes, but has no place within his head for eyes. And yet, despite this he rests a pair of eyes on a plate in front of him as he sits calmly and does nothing. At first, I thought the eyes were on the plate in front of him because he had collected somebody else’s eyes, knowing he could never have his own. However, when he began moving, I realised he had eyes in front of him, not because there was nowhere within his head to put them but because he could slip them into his hands. When The Pale Man moves, he is not even remotely elegant and the way he moves is as if all his limbs and joints are all rusted. His body movements are only matched in horror by the noise that he makes. Quite frankly, The Pale Man chase is one of the scariest pieces of cinema ever made.
As Ofelia goes on her adventures, she meets the faun numerous times. Each time, their relationship deepens and strains. Guillermo del Toro truly founded a great and memorable creature when he gave this specific faun its personality. With every single meeting the faun gets more aggressive towards Ofelia, but also, quite creepily, more close to her. At least 3 points within the film, the faun displays signs, supposedly of affection, that seem disturbingly reminiscent of modern day paedophiles way of treating children.
Despite everything else, all the mysticism and confusion, all the war and hate, that Ofelia and the fauns relationship represents how easy it is to convince a child of something and to have them embrace you into their lives.
So if you haven’t already picked up, this is a dark film.
But just because it doesn’t offer a happy ever after to every character, doesn’t stop it from potentially being the greatest fairy tale of all time.
An incredible film that is dark, scary and fantastical. With solid performances all around, great use of CG and make up, solid direction and an ending far more mesmerising than any fairy tale up to this one, Pan’s Labyrinth is a must, not only to any fan of cinema, but to any adult who wants to get in touch with their inner child without being treated like one.
4.5/5
I ♥ Huckabees (2004)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
Friday, 6 April 2007
Garden State (2004)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Serenity (2005)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Ok...Just a warning. This is kind of my favourite film, so you may find the following opinions to be extremely biased. But in my defence, it's not my favourite film for nothing...
In 2002 a TV show called Firefly was released to the world. It was a monumentous failure. Some feel it was Fox's fault. Some feel it wasn't advertised well. But many thought it was a great show. Firefly had lot of mysteries never explained and in an attempt to solve these mysteries, Joss Whedon (Firefly creator) has bought us Serenity.
Let's look at what Serenity is. It's a sci-fi film. First, let me start with a lecture. If you don't want to read, just skip this paragraph.
Science Fiction is such a popular subject because it's the biggest genre going. There is no such film as just Science Fiction. For example: Star Wars? Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Blade Runner? Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller.Serenity? Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure/Thriller with elements of comedy.
See the pattern? Sci-Fi is broad and I personally think that Serenity is a perfect example of this.
Because nowadays CG is a big problem in Hollywood, I'm going to address it first. Many people believe it's used far too much. Given the most recent films considered by the public to be Science-Fiction, the computer animation within Serenity is surprisingly kept to a minimum. CG is used only where it is going to be helpful towards the plot, as opposed to remarkably pointless scenes that show off the tech. Hell, there's even a scene that uses models but it looks great. Generally the entirety of the film is remarkably pretty. Not only is the CG used well but the cinematography is absolutely superb. The lighting delivers something that not even the greatest porno on earth could deliver (and that's good). All in all: this is a pretty film.
The plot in itself isn't really anything particularly new. Generally it's a continuation of the Firefly plot. But don't let that put you off. It's generally explained to you through the characters conversations (a really good plot device. within Serenity).
Adding to that is something I love about this flick. The way characters talk. You have to realise that Serenity is set 500 years in the future and so people speak differently. This different way of speaking means that there are many simple yet endlessly quotable lines throughout the whole film ("We might experience some slight turbulence and then...explode.")
But as I was saying about the plot. Not overtly original but the way that the plot fits into the 'verse is an incredible thing to watch. It's not totally dissimilar to how J.R.R Tolkein made sure that every aspect of The Lord of the Rings fit into the grand scheme of Middle Earth.
Much of the film feels very old, but it almost seems as if this is the point. Serenity (the ship within the film) is an old heap of junk that should be collapsing and so it seems like Serenity (the film itself) should fall apart at any minute. It's strange to realise that nothing within the film feels new because it isn't supposed to.
Just a final few words before I come to my quick snappy synopsis, if you don't like Serenity the first time, I advise you watch it again. At first I wasn't a big fan but now it's one of my favourite films. Just give i a couple of viewings and see if anything sticks.
Oh and don't forget to watch Firefly, the show Serenity is based on and is a sequel to.
So, final message? Serenity is a funny, depressing, action packed, space drama that deserves a few viewings before a final judgement is passed. Check it out. And Firefly, too.
5/5
Ok...Just a warning. This is kind of my favourite film, so you may find the following opinions to be extremely biased. But in my defence, it's not my favourite film for nothing...
In 2002 a TV show called Firefly was released to the world. It was a monumentous failure. Some feel it was Fox's fault. Some feel it wasn't advertised well. But many thought it was a great show. Firefly had lot of mysteries never explained and in an attempt to solve these mysteries, Joss Whedon (Firefly creator) has bought us Serenity.
Let's look at what Serenity is. It's a sci-fi film. First, let me start with a lecture. If you don't want to read, just skip this paragraph.
Science Fiction is such a popular subject because it's the biggest genre going. There is no such film as just Science Fiction. For example: Star Wars? Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Blade Runner? Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller.Serenity? Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure/Thriller with elements of comedy.
See the pattern? Sci-Fi is broad and I personally think that Serenity is a perfect example of this.
Because nowadays CG is a big problem in Hollywood, I'm going to address it first. Many people believe it's used far too much. Given the most recent films considered by the public to be Science-Fiction, the computer animation within Serenity is surprisingly kept to a minimum. CG is used only where it is going to be helpful towards the plot, as opposed to remarkably pointless scenes that show off the tech. Hell, there's even a scene that uses models but it looks great. Generally the entirety of the film is remarkably pretty. Not only is the CG used well but the cinematography is absolutely superb. The lighting delivers something that not even the greatest porno on earth could deliver (and that's good). All in all: this is a pretty film.
The plot in itself isn't really anything particularly new. Generally it's a continuation of the Firefly plot. But don't let that put you off. It's generally explained to you through the characters conversations (a really good plot device. within Serenity).
Adding to that is something I love about this flick. The way characters talk. You have to realise that Serenity is set 500 years in the future and so people speak differently. This different way of speaking means that there are many simple yet endlessly quotable lines throughout the whole film ("We might experience some slight turbulence and then...explode.")
But as I was saying about the plot. Not overtly original but the way that the plot fits into the 'verse is an incredible thing to watch. It's not totally dissimilar to how J.R.R Tolkein made sure that every aspect of The Lord of the Rings fit into the grand scheme of Middle Earth.
Much of the film feels very old, but it almost seems as if this is the point. Serenity (the ship within the film) is an old heap of junk that should be collapsing and so it seems like Serenity (the film itself) should fall apart at any minute. It's strange to realise that nothing within the film feels new because it isn't supposed to.
Just a final few words before I come to my quick snappy synopsis, if you don't like Serenity the first time, I advise you watch it again. At first I wasn't a big fan but now it's one of my favourite films. Just give i a couple of viewings and see if anything sticks.
Oh and don't forget to watch Firefly, the show Serenity is based on and is a sequel to.
So, final message? Serenity is a funny, depressing, action packed, space drama that deserves a few viewings before a final judgement is passed. Check it out. And Firefly, too.
5/5
Wild Hogs (2007)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
