Chronicling the lives and trends of a group of addicts, Trainspotting is a raw, deep and honest look at the pros, cons and horrors of abusiveness to addiction.
As Renton (Ewan McGregor) and Spud (Ewen Bremner) hurl down the street with the energy of a Duracell bunny it’s apparent that there’s something very powerful about Trainspotting. As the Iggy Pop’s ‘Lust for Life’ pounds through your ears it may be difficult to realise at first. Is it this iconic choice of soundtrack? Could it be the pain that you feel along with the actors, who gurn and gasp as they push their way through the streets of Edinburgh?
Or could it in fact be the startlingly stirring voiceover provided by Ewan McGregor? Yeah, that would be it, though it is important that you remember something. This is the 1996 Ewan McGregor. Before Star Wars, or Moulin Rouge! and it was well before The Island. This is Ewan McGregor when he had to dive into toilets, and dig bodies. This is Ewan McGregor who didn’t have the luxury of multi-million dollar deals or stunt doubles. This is Ewan McGregor who is only a stone’s throw from the drug addled character he’s playing, and above everything else that shows.
One of the many initial criticisms of Trainspotting has been that it seems to be promoting drug use and it doesn’t take long to see why. The film starts off startlingly realistically with Renton sneering that he wouldn’t do drugs if he didn’t enjoy it. With this, we learn at breakneck speed that the world of drug abuse that we’ve been taught about and steered away from is like any other addiction and that to an extent, we, the average viewer, are no better than these people. So light-hearted is the first quarter of the film, common sense seems to leave and it’s not made entirely open why drugs are considered bad in society. But the enjoyable caper that you settle comfortably into doesn’t last for long and soon it’s apparent that director Danny Boyle is showing the good and the bad; the Heaven and the Hell. Whilst watching Trainspotting you’re in junkie limbo.
Among the themes of drugs, there are others relating to everyone. A core idea is the Choose Life movement, a phrase repeated throughout the film to perfectly nauseating effect. “Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television…” Both stark and hideously blunt, the truth about conformity in materialism soon sets in to make it apparent that ‘choosing life’ may well be exactly the opposite. On top of that, in case anybody is worried that they might not be able to relate to Renton’s drug issues, addiction on other levels is explored thoroughly. A commentary on how prescription pill popping is just as damning but seen as much less crude by society is but one.
Considering that Trainspotting isn’t quite an ensemble cast film, it’s surprising to what extent most of the main characters are explored. Before the end, qualities, problems, traits and secrets of just about all the major characters are exposed and examined. There is no character that could be accused of being a strict (or even slight) cliché.
Naturally, because Renton is an addict, you wouldn’t really trust him if he tried to tell you his life story in the pub and so frequently, he is played off as an unreliable narrator. There are numerous times that he exclaims that he will do something, usually get off the heroin, to no avail at all mostly because he simply hasn’t the power to do this. At around the 65 minute mark, you really come into a full opinion of who he is and how much control he does (or doesn’t) have over himself, his life and his addiction.
One of the main reasons Trainspotting excels at being such a disturbing film is that it doesn’t back down at the thought of having to push the envelope and employ some abstract ideas in order to truly get a message across. The most effective uses of these are without doubt when juxtaposition is used to take an innocent idea and put it in a horrifyingly grim environment. Not only does this create a spellbinding effect, but Boyle and his crew also raise the bar by taking advantage of these moments to create real suspense.
From a technical standpoint, the camerawork and cinematography are fluid, inventive and original. The music is interestingly diverse and always fitting.The story itself is nothing new but is written and executed in such a wild fashion that everything seems fresh rather than recycled. However, you can only go so far on recycled material and as the stakes are raised, the film starts to lose focus of what has throughout, felt like the most core theme of the film.Not drugs, not addiction, but friends. Despite the advertising and the views of the film-makers and the controversy the key idea of friends always being there for one another is what feels like the blood pumping throughout the body of this film to keep it moving and invigorated.
After all, with who else would you be able to ramble about the trivial knowledge you’ve garnered of James Bond over the years, shoot dogs with air rifles, recreate the legendary Beatles album walking across a road or refer to everything via your own personal favoured pop culture?
Trainspotting is a film for anyone who wants to take a trip to the dark side but also see the light that keeps people there. It’s a film for anyone who’s not afraid to cross the line. It’s a film for anyone who chooses life.
4/5
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Monday, 7 May 2007
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Life is good for Peter Parker (Toby Maguire). The city loves Spider-Man, he’s earning money, doing well in school and he’s planning to marry the love of his life Mary-Jane Watson (Kirstin Dunst). However, it seems that he’s still on the receiving end of much loathing from Harry Osborne (James Franco) who still believes Peter murdered his father and as new super-villain Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) enters the fray it doesn’t take long for everything to go wrong for Spidey.
It’s natural to feel scared when you get to the third film in a series. Quite frankly, they usually suck in comparison to the first and second. For every Goldfinger, there must be one hundred Superman III’s. For every Return of the King there must be one thousand The Godfather: Part III’s. And don’t get me started on the X-Men: The Last Stand. So how does Spider-Man 3 stand in comparison to the first two? It’s hard to explain, as rather than turning to greatness or downright awfulness it comes out as a bit of a mixed bag.
Firstly, we’ll start with what Spider-Man 3 does right. It seems as if the bad dialogue from the first film is never coming back as the writing throughout Spider-Man 3 is steady. The action scenes never fall short of pure genius and long gone are the frustrating ‘experimental’ transitions from Spider-Man 2. Unfortunately, you need to sit through about 30 minutes to really see this.The film starts out with some narration from your friendly neighbourhood photographer who masquerades as a super-hero whenever trouble arises: Peter Parker. Everything seems pretty good for about 10 minutes. We get the impression that everything is fine and dandy for Pete. And then everything starts to go wrong. We immediately see Harry walk out of the gas chamber that almost claimed his father’s life back in the first film as calm as can be and approach some altered Goblin gear. However the problem here is that there is no intricate preparation. This chemical almost killed Norman Osborne (who makes a brief appearance later, once more played by Willem Dafoe) and seems to have driven him insane, but for some reason it’s done nothing of the sort for Harry. So, he may have altered it. But this is the kid who depended upon Peter frequently in High School. Generally, the feeling is that the introduction of this New Goblin feels too rushed. Spider-Man 3 is a long film (clocking in at 1hour 28 minutes) but I can’t help but feel that 5 minutes preparation before jumping in would have been useful.
That said, there is no time wasted with the first action scene. Starting about 20 minutes in (as opposed to the first two not having set pieces this large for at least 40 minutes) it’s surprisingly dark. There’s little warning as to how dangerous it will get and the jokes that kept the second film rolling are remarkably scarce. Not that the lack of jokes are a bad thing. The scene has great pacing and really manages to build up suspense, which is rare so soon in a movie of this calibre.
On the subject of humour I think that it’s time we look at the key players of Spider-Man 3. All the regulars are back. J.K. Simmons is once more J. Jonah Jameson, the fierce Daily Bugle editor who appears to have been tamed, not by a super-hero, nor by his wife but by high blood sugar. Although, as ever, his scenes are scarce, in Spider-Man 3 we see a few newer sides to him. One of restrain, humility and honesty. Throughout the series, we’ve been seeing more to Jameson than is expected (trying to protect Parker from the Goblin in Spider-Man; admitting New York needs Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2) and here we learn that although he hates Spider-Man, he’s at least honest about any material he produces.
Naturally, it wouldn’t be a Spider-Man film if the king of cameos, Bruce Campbell didn’t show up. In what is easily the funniest scene in the film, Bruce is, as ever hilarious as the French Waiter. It really does go to show how a simple joke can eclipse entire movies (here’s looking at you Little Man). And how could I not mention the immortal Stan Lee. Once again picking up a cameo, this is the only one so far that he has referred to as his best cameo.
It may seem obvious to mention that the cinematography continues to move forward in new and exciting ways but it does. Most noticeably with the Super-Villains, the camera movements are vivid and rather exciting. Where the music is concerned, it really shows where long time composer Danny Elfman hasn’t been involved. Christopher Young does a good job but it shows where Elfman has helped.
The CG doesn’t immediately appear to have improved from Spider-Man 2 a great deal but when new villain, the Sandman appears it really shows where the $250 million went. It looks absolutely incredible. The individual grains of sand are perfectly visible and it seems absolutely astonishing to think that it was all done with computer effects rather than actually mutating an actor.
As everyone knows, the previous Spider-Man films have been above creating ‘evil’ characters as such. The Goblin was turned insane and Doc Ock was controlled by his ‘arms’. Thankfully, Raimi doesn’t take the easy option in Spider-Man 3. The Sandman’s completely aware of everything he does, but it seems that all he’s trying to do is save his daughter. The scene in which this is revealed is a very touching one and stands out as a glimmer of light amongst the overall dark subject matter of the film.
Naturally, everyone knows about the black suit already. As a metaphor, it works wonders to portray Peter’s continuing sins. It starts with pride, and who could blame him? With the whole city on his side, who wouldn’t be proud? But as Peter’s personality and responses darken, so does the suits attraction to him. Needless to say, it isn’t long until Peter Parker is in fully fledged ‘emo’ mode. However, regardless of the meaning the middle section of the film with Peter embracing his dark self feels a little overlong and a bit cheesy.
Maybe that’s why the final 30 minutes seem so great though.
Although the beginning is sketchy and the emo-mode scenes are pushing it slightly, the ending is just breathtaking. It’s a return to everything Spider-Man stands for and frankly just puts everything back in its place. To say anymore would be unfair but it is a serious contender for the title of greatest Super-Hero ending ever.
Spider-Man 3 is a rollercoaster that explores the characters well enough for the rushed beginning and awkward emo scenes to be forgiven. But the final 20 minutes are what really put it in its place as a Spider-Man film. Not as good as Spider-Man 2 but better than Spider-Man, this is a suitable end to a great trilogy.
4/5
It’s natural to feel scared when you get to the third film in a series. Quite frankly, they usually suck in comparison to the first and second. For every Goldfinger, there must be one hundred Superman III’s. For every Return of the King there must be one thousand The Godfather: Part III’s. And don’t get me started on the X-Men: The Last Stand. So how does Spider-Man 3 stand in comparison to the first two? It’s hard to explain, as rather than turning to greatness or downright awfulness it comes out as a bit of a mixed bag.
Firstly, we’ll start with what Spider-Man 3 does right. It seems as if the bad dialogue from the first film is never coming back as the writing throughout Spider-Man 3 is steady. The action scenes never fall short of pure genius and long gone are the frustrating ‘experimental’ transitions from Spider-Man 2. Unfortunately, you need to sit through about 30 minutes to really see this.The film starts out with some narration from your friendly neighbourhood photographer who masquerades as a super-hero whenever trouble arises: Peter Parker. Everything seems pretty good for about 10 minutes. We get the impression that everything is fine and dandy for Pete. And then everything starts to go wrong. We immediately see Harry walk out of the gas chamber that almost claimed his father’s life back in the first film as calm as can be and approach some altered Goblin gear. However the problem here is that there is no intricate preparation. This chemical almost killed Norman Osborne (who makes a brief appearance later, once more played by Willem Dafoe) and seems to have driven him insane, but for some reason it’s done nothing of the sort for Harry. So, he may have altered it. But this is the kid who depended upon Peter frequently in High School. Generally, the feeling is that the introduction of this New Goblin feels too rushed. Spider-Man 3 is a long film (clocking in at 1hour 28 minutes) but I can’t help but feel that 5 minutes preparation before jumping in would have been useful.
That said, there is no time wasted with the first action scene. Starting about 20 minutes in (as opposed to the first two not having set pieces this large for at least 40 minutes) it’s surprisingly dark. There’s little warning as to how dangerous it will get and the jokes that kept the second film rolling are remarkably scarce. Not that the lack of jokes are a bad thing. The scene has great pacing and really manages to build up suspense, which is rare so soon in a movie of this calibre.
On the subject of humour I think that it’s time we look at the key players of Spider-Man 3. All the regulars are back. J.K. Simmons is once more J. Jonah Jameson, the fierce Daily Bugle editor who appears to have been tamed, not by a super-hero, nor by his wife but by high blood sugar. Although, as ever, his scenes are scarce, in Spider-Man 3 we see a few newer sides to him. One of restrain, humility and honesty. Throughout the series, we’ve been seeing more to Jameson than is expected (trying to protect Parker from the Goblin in Spider-Man; admitting New York needs Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2) and here we learn that although he hates Spider-Man, he’s at least honest about any material he produces.
Naturally, it wouldn’t be a Spider-Man film if the king of cameos, Bruce Campbell didn’t show up. In what is easily the funniest scene in the film, Bruce is, as ever hilarious as the French Waiter. It really does go to show how a simple joke can eclipse entire movies (here’s looking at you Little Man). And how could I not mention the immortal Stan Lee. Once again picking up a cameo, this is the only one so far that he has referred to as his best cameo.
It may seem obvious to mention that the cinematography continues to move forward in new and exciting ways but it does. Most noticeably with the Super-Villains, the camera movements are vivid and rather exciting. Where the music is concerned, it really shows where long time composer Danny Elfman hasn’t been involved. Christopher Young does a good job but it shows where Elfman has helped.
The CG doesn’t immediately appear to have improved from Spider-Man 2 a great deal but when new villain, the Sandman appears it really shows where the $250 million went. It looks absolutely incredible. The individual grains of sand are perfectly visible and it seems absolutely astonishing to think that it was all done with computer effects rather than actually mutating an actor.
As everyone knows, the previous Spider-Man films have been above creating ‘evil’ characters as such. The Goblin was turned insane and Doc Ock was controlled by his ‘arms’. Thankfully, Raimi doesn’t take the easy option in Spider-Man 3. The Sandman’s completely aware of everything he does, but it seems that all he’s trying to do is save his daughter. The scene in which this is revealed is a very touching one and stands out as a glimmer of light amongst the overall dark subject matter of the film.
Naturally, everyone knows about the black suit already. As a metaphor, it works wonders to portray Peter’s continuing sins. It starts with pride, and who could blame him? With the whole city on his side, who wouldn’t be proud? But as Peter’s personality and responses darken, so does the suits attraction to him. Needless to say, it isn’t long until Peter Parker is in fully fledged ‘emo’ mode. However, regardless of the meaning the middle section of the film with Peter embracing his dark self feels a little overlong and a bit cheesy.
Maybe that’s why the final 30 minutes seem so great though.
Although the beginning is sketchy and the emo-mode scenes are pushing it slightly, the ending is just breathtaking. It’s a return to everything Spider-Man stands for and frankly just puts everything back in its place. To say anymore would be unfair but it is a serious contender for the title of greatest Super-Hero ending ever.
Spider-Man 3 is a rollercoaster that explores the characters well enough for the rushed beginning and awkward emo scenes to be forgiven. But the final 20 minutes are what really put it in its place as a Spider-Man film. Not as good as Spider-Man 2 but better than Spider-Man, this is a suitable end to a great trilogy.
4/5
Sunday, 6 May 2007
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Flash forward two years and life is no easier for Peter Parker (Toby Maguire). He’s still pining over Mary-Jane Watson (Kirstin Dunst), he’s getting no end of slack about his ‘friend the bug’ from Harry Osborne (James Franco) and as well as that he’s failing school with no money to support himself with. But at least he doesn’t have any super-villains to fight…right…?
That score rises up once again and suddenly, we’re back. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been since you may have seen Spider-Man, both the general feel and the ‘recap’ put you right back in the mood. The recap is shown via some wonderfully drawn out reconstructed images from the first film. It’s more fun than a flashback and better than nothing.
Something instantly different about Spider-Man 2 is that it instantly focuses on humour. Within Spider-Man, humour was there, but it was used mostly to show us more about the characters, or move the plot along. With this film, however, now that the ‘origin story’ is done and wrapped up, there’s time to play around. But as well as that, the opening scene, a hyper-active depiction of Pete’s job as a pizza delivery boy, shows that sometimes his life is just as epic as his alter-ego’s, which is always a good thing because we get to see what everybody wants: the ability to use super-powers for their own agenda. But never fear! Spider-Man is still not selfish, as we see when everyone’s favourite mutant arachnid saves a few children from a bus. It seems that pizza delivering isn’t all that Peter has on his hands either. All hell is breaking loose for him at the Daily Bugle, where he’s still trying to flog pictures of Spider-Man to loudmouthed arrogant (yet slightly noble) editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). I think it’s fair to say that (as in Spider-Man) J.K. Simmons steals just about every scene he’s in. In terms of sheer hilarity, the man hit’s the mark and flies off the scale. There seems to be an aura about him that just makes it impossible to keep a straight face. That or, as is commonly perceived, he is just a really fantastic actor.
It seems that like Peter, loving old Aunt May is also somewhat low on money. One of the first really strong scenes built on action alone is of May giving her broke nephew the last scrap of cash she has. Returning director Sam Raimi seems to know that he can up-the-ante and does so to full effect at the most conveniently distressing of times. On that note, it seems like some kind of miracle that it’s so easy to follow the plotlines (for there are a lot). Maybe it’s down to Raimi’s ability to blend everything together and give everything a reason for happening but somehow everything just fits.
Considering it’s been 3 years since the release, it almost feels bad to say that the CG still looks absolutely wonderful. Usually, effects are dated within 6 months but somehow Spider-Man 2 (which won an Academy Award for its effects) stands tall and proud, still looking beautiful.
As ever with Spider-Man the camera movements are fluidly creative and generally incredible. Due to the extreme nature of the plot (It’s a man with the attributes of a spider!) you need to be inventive with your camera movements and Spider-Man 2 doesn’t disappoint for a second. Danny Elfman’s score naturally is superb and finally, the whole dialogue problem is sorted out. There may not be a great deal of stand out lines, but it’s generally better than the first film.
A special note for the legendary Bruce Campbell who returns in yet another cameo. This time Bruce is a character credited only as ‘rude usher’. To say anymore would completely wreck every fibre of the scene but it’s easily one of the stand-out parts of just about any super-hero film.
Before long Peter is invited to meet a doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). One of the first impressions one might get are that he’s outspoken and opinionated (“Peter Parker: brilliant but lazy…”) but it doesn’t take long to learn that he is wise. Not just clever (as a scientist, that’s expected) but wise. However, as wise as he is who really holds a possibly cataclysmic experiment that has the potential to harness the power of the sun at the heart of New York?! Just destroy the city why don’t you…
Naturally, to harness the power of the sun, Octavius isn’t going to use his hands. We’ve gathered that the man is ambitious (overly so) but also wise. And so he crafted 4 metallic arms which connect themselves to his spinal column so he can control them. It all seems good until he puts the arms on, because it isn’t until that point that you truly see how much of a hideous spectacle they really are. Naturally, you can guess what happens…
As push comes to shove, we find ourselves in the midst of a ‘metal arm slaughter’ which is without doubt one of the most disturbing scenes ever committed to film. “But this is a children’s film,” you may cry “surely they’re clichéd as all hell?” I’m afraid not. There may not be any claret, but it’s a fine example of how suspense, great shots and set pieces have more effect than any bucket full of gore for your average teenage slasher addict ever will.
It seems rather petty to bring it up but one of the (admittedly) few problems with Spider-Man 2 is the transitions. It tries some new ones and frankly, they don’t work. I can’t imagine a star-wipe (or in this case spider-wipe) has ever worked in anything other than Star Wars. It seems that simple fades and cuts are best for the Spider-Man films.
The bank set piece is just plain coolness. The CG is smoking and remember those inventive, impressive camera movements? They’re flung into overdrive here. Generally, seeing Spider-Man [try to] dodge the car doors and bags of money thrown at him by Doc Ock is immense. Hell, seeing Ock throwing them is a remarkable in it’s own right. The design of the character is somewhat astonishing and makes for a great deal of creativity which is shown frequently. And if nothing else, the bank scene is great because once again, we’re treated to Mr Stan Lee saving someone once again. Looks like you don’t need super powers to be a hero.
As the film goes on it gets progressively darker, skilfully reflecting Pete’s perceptions on many the events and his responsibilities as Spider-Man.
One of the great things about Elfman’s score is that the cinematography and actors never have to push too far to show Pete’s pain in any kind of abstract way, but the score manages to create a strong emotion along with the acting in the context of the script.
The single biggest problem with the film has to be the inclusion of a song.Whoever decided ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ should have been inserted into the film needs to be kept away from films from now on. It doesn’t matter if it was Raimi or Elfman, it just doesn’t fit at all. It just feels really cringeworthy and not in a “Wow, I can’t believe they did that.” kind of way. It just feels embarrassing in comparison to the darker tone that had successfully been built up before it.
Despite that, though, the good far outweighs the bad and this is definitely a must for all the fans of the first.
Darker, deeper and a little dafter. Spider-Man 2 is a perfect example of how sequels should turn out and shows in being one of the better Super-Hero films out there.
5/5
That score rises up once again and suddenly, we’re back. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been since you may have seen Spider-Man, both the general feel and the ‘recap’ put you right back in the mood. The recap is shown via some wonderfully drawn out reconstructed images from the first film. It’s more fun than a flashback and better than nothing.
Something instantly different about Spider-Man 2 is that it instantly focuses on humour. Within Spider-Man, humour was there, but it was used mostly to show us more about the characters, or move the plot along. With this film, however, now that the ‘origin story’ is done and wrapped up, there’s time to play around. But as well as that, the opening scene, a hyper-active depiction of Pete’s job as a pizza delivery boy, shows that sometimes his life is just as epic as his alter-ego’s, which is always a good thing because we get to see what everybody wants: the ability to use super-powers for their own agenda. But never fear! Spider-Man is still not selfish, as we see when everyone’s favourite mutant arachnid saves a few children from a bus. It seems that pizza delivering isn’t all that Peter has on his hands either. All hell is breaking loose for him at the Daily Bugle, where he’s still trying to flog pictures of Spider-Man to loudmouthed arrogant (yet slightly noble) editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). I think it’s fair to say that (as in Spider-Man) J.K. Simmons steals just about every scene he’s in. In terms of sheer hilarity, the man hit’s the mark and flies off the scale. There seems to be an aura about him that just makes it impossible to keep a straight face. That or, as is commonly perceived, he is just a really fantastic actor.
It seems that like Peter, loving old Aunt May is also somewhat low on money. One of the first really strong scenes built on action alone is of May giving her broke nephew the last scrap of cash she has. Returning director Sam Raimi seems to know that he can up-the-ante and does so to full effect at the most conveniently distressing of times. On that note, it seems like some kind of miracle that it’s so easy to follow the plotlines (for there are a lot). Maybe it’s down to Raimi’s ability to blend everything together and give everything a reason for happening but somehow everything just fits.
Considering it’s been 3 years since the release, it almost feels bad to say that the CG still looks absolutely wonderful. Usually, effects are dated within 6 months but somehow Spider-Man 2 (which won an Academy Award for its effects) stands tall and proud, still looking beautiful.
As ever with Spider-Man the camera movements are fluidly creative and generally incredible. Due to the extreme nature of the plot (It’s a man with the attributes of a spider!) you need to be inventive with your camera movements and Spider-Man 2 doesn’t disappoint for a second. Danny Elfman’s score naturally is superb and finally, the whole dialogue problem is sorted out. There may not be a great deal of stand out lines, but it’s generally better than the first film.
A special note for the legendary Bruce Campbell who returns in yet another cameo. This time Bruce is a character credited only as ‘rude usher’. To say anymore would completely wreck every fibre of the scene but it’s easily one of the stand-out parts of just about any super-hero film.
Before long Peter is invited to meet a doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). One of the first impressions one might get are that he’s outspoken and opinionated (“Peter Parker: brilliant but lazy…”) but it doesn’t take long to learn that he is wise. Not just clever (as a scientist, that’s expected) but wise. However, as wise as he is who really holds a possibly cataclysmic experiment that has the potential to harness the power of the sun at the heart of New York?! Just destroy the city why don’t you…
Naturally, to harness the power of the sun, Octavius isn’t going to use his hands. We’ve gathered that the man is ambitious (overly so) but also wise. And so he crafted 4 metallic arms which connect themselves to his spinal column so he can control them. It all seems good until he puts the arms on, because it isn’t until that point that you truly see how much of a hideous spectacle they really are. Naturally, you can guess what happens…
As push comes to shove, we find ourselves in the midst of a ‘metal arm slaughter’ which is without doubt one of the most disturbing scenes ever committed to film. “But this is a children’s film,” you may cry “surely they’re clichéd as all hell?” I’m afraid not. There may not be any claret, but it’s a fine example of how suspense, great shots and set pieces have more effect than any bucket full of gore for your average teenage slasher addict ever will.
It seems rather petty to bring it up but one of the (admittedly) few problems with Spider-Man 2 is the transitions. It tries some new ones and frankly, they don’t work. I can’t imagine a star-wipe (or in this case spider-wipe) has ever worked in anything other than Star Wars. It seems that simple fades and cuts are best for the Spider-Man films.
The bank set piece is just plain coolness. The CG is smoking and remember those inventive, impressive camera movements? They’re flung into overdrive here. Generally, seeing Spider-Man [try to] dodge the car doors and bags of money thrown at him by Doc Ock is immense. Hell, seeing Ock throwing them is a remarkable in it’s own right. The design of the character is somewhat astonishing and makes for a great deal of creativity which is shown frequently. And if nothing else, the bank scene is great because once again, we’re treated to Mr Stan Lee saving someone once again. Looks like you don’t need super powers to be a hero.
As the film goes on it gets progressively darker, skilfully reflecting Pete’s perceptions on many the events and his responsibilities as Spider-Man.
One of the great things about Elfman’s score is that the cinematography and actors never have to push too far to show Pete’s pain in any kind of abstract way, but the score manages to create a strong emotion along with the acting in the context of the script.
The single biggest problem with the film has to be the inclusion of a song.Whoever decided ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ should have been inserted into the film needs to be kept away from films from now on. It doesn’t matter if it was Raimi or Elfman, it just doesn’t fit at all. It just feels really cringeworthy and not in a “Wow, I can’t believe they did that.” kind of way. It just feels embarrassing in comparison to the darker tone that had successfully been built up before it.
Despite that, though, the good far outweighs the bad and this is definitely a must for all the fans of the first.
Darker, deeper and a little dafter. Spider-Man 2 is a perfect example of how sequels should turn out and shows in being one of the better Super-Hero films out there.
5/5
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Spider-Man (2002)
When teenage science geek Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) is bitten by a genetically engineered ‘super-spider’, he suddenly finds he has many attributes of spiders; web-swinging, increased strength and a precognitive ‘spider-sense’. The question is, will he use these newfound abilities for his own personal gain, or for the good of the public?
As Spider-Man opens, a sweeping score courtesy of Danny Elfman settles. It creates an incredible feeling of power and suddenly, everything feels very epic. So imagine your surprise when the first you see of Spider-Man is of his alter-ego, Peter Parker: Teenage nerd.
Generally, it’s the normality of everything which is striking. Pete is a science-geek who pines after a girl who is completely out of his league. But then, who wouldn’t be pining after Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? She’s beautiful, kind and just has that sort of aura around her that just says: check me out, I may be a little shallow, but who isn’t?
Then of course we have Norman (Willem Dafoe) and Harry Osborne (James Franco). Norman is the caring but slightly ignorant father of Harry Osborne, as well as a brilliant scientist. Harry is Pete’s best friend, failure of lessons and son of Norman.
The chemistry throughout all the characters works well. Everyone seems to be quite happy in their own little mundane lives throughout the Big Apple. It’s strange to think that in a super-hero film, there has to be mass conflicts of interest however, for just about the first 15 minutes, everyone in Spider-Man is happy to…well, exist.
However, it doesn’t take long for that conflict to kick in. We learn Norman is losing his funding and he generally seems somewhat pissed off about that. See the thing about Norman is that he is brilliant but somewhat overly ambitious. The sort of guy who just takes things too far…
Now would be a great time to learn some more about Peter’s family. He lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). These two are pretty much the subject of some of the earliest (and best) humour of the film. It’s subtle, and it’s very honest in the way of which characters are saying what but it works wonders. Uncle Ben, is essentially the comedian, whereas Aunt May is the voice of reason. It’s a good coupling and it works well.
The great thing about having Sam Raimi directing a motion picture, like Spider-Man is that having worked on low budget horror flicks (The Evil Dead) he knows what can be very scary and how far to go. He exploits that to the max in the scene where Peter begins to change into Spider-Man as a creepy montage of DNA and Spiders occurs. Generally, this isn’t the best film for Arachnophobics…
Meanwhile back at school everything is portrayed incredibly well. Raimi doesn’t opt to take the simplistic approach of looking at school as a hyper-stereotypical place of “Oh my gawds…” and cheerleaders. Everything seems generally real. The one slight problem is that the local bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello) seems slightly on the edge.
The computer effects have aged since 2002 but can be given the benefit of the doubt now. They certainly don’t render the film unwatchable and still get across the principle of what is portrayed.
Spider-Mans only obvious fault has to be the writing. It is usually pretty good, but sometimes it just fails terribly. There are lines that are supposed to tug at the heart-strings but never manage to do anything other than make you wonder who wrote those terrible lines, such as Peter saying “Sometimes…you know people…” whilst trying to convince her she’s a good actor.
When it comes to the wrestling ring, Raimi manages to catch a wonderfully tacky and gritty environment. Naturally, for a character as over the top as the Ring side announcer, you need a great actor. But not too great. Which is why I see that the only man for the job was Bruce Campbell! He isn’t around for much, but when he’s pulling off the worlds worst Elvis impression, he is funny. Almost too funny.
A great thing about Spider-Man is that it has no problem with making Peter seem really, really dark when required. When everything kicks off and Peter goes crazy, Toby’s performance and the tone of the film really sends one of those immense chills down your spine.I can’t stress enough how much I think the studio hit the jackpot with Toby Maguire as Spider-Man.
Obviously, with a project such as Spider-Man, it would be insane not to have some incredible shots. When the camera swings down and up through the traffic of New York in a first person shot looking at everything from Spider-Man’s point of view it’s one of those great shots that just has you feeling exilerated for hours on end.
A special notice here to J.K. Simmons for his unforgettable and hysterical portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson, editor in chief of the Daily Bugle (“If we can geta picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can sure get a picture of this weirdo!”) In spite of just about anything that’s happening on screen, Jameson is, always has been and always will be my favorite character from the Spider-Man series.
Despite the subject matter of criminality, it’s all handled fairly light-heartedly. It’s quite shocking when people start dieing, but Spider-Man’s wit and general ass-kickery just makes everyone feel at home. As ever, when the first real set piece comes in, we’re treated to a brief glimpse of the one and only Mr Stan Lee, head of Marvel comics. Adding Spider-Man to the long list of cameos he has done must have been a great experience, especially seeing he had the honour of saving someone (he’s now my hero).
Naturally, I’m not ending this review without a mention of the upside down kiss in the rain. It’s a great moment of cinematography and whoever came up with the idea deserves a raise. Whoever decided they’d have her cheat on her boyfriend, however deserves to be fired. Unless of course the idea is to give a hint that she doesn’t care about him? Think about it…
The final few scenes say just about everything youi’d ned to know about the film. It sums up the plot, the action and the characters really well. You get a great feel for everyone and everything and it shows how much effort was put into making it.
Overall, the direction brings out the best performances in what is essentially a flawed script when it comes to dialogue. But there are also some amazing set pieces and great conventions put into effect really well.
4/5
As Spider-Man opens, a sweeping score courtesy of Danny Elfman settles. It creates an incredible feeling of power and suddenly, everything feels very epic. So imagine your surprise when the first you see of Spider-Man is of his alter-ego, Peter Parker: Teenage nerd.
Generally, it’s the normality of everything which is striking. Pete is a science-geek who pines after a girl who is completely out of his league. But then, who wouldn’t be pining after Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? She’s beautiful, kind and just has that sort of aura around her that just says: check me out, I may be a little shallow, but who isn’t?
Then of course we have Norman (Willem Dafoe) and Harry Osborne (James Franco). Norman is the caring but slightly ignorant father of Harry Osborne, as well as a brilliant scientist. Harry is Pete’s best friend, failure of lessons and son of Norman.
The chemistry throughout all the characters works well. Everyone seems to be quite happy in their own little mundane lives throughout the Big Apple. It’s strange to think that in a super-hero film, there has to be mass conflicts of interest however, for just about the first 15 minutes, everyone in Spider-Man is happy to…well, exist.
However, it doesn’t take long for that conflict to kick in. We learn Norman is losing his funding and he generally seems somewhat pissed off about that. See the thing about Norman is that he is brilliant but somewhat overly ambitious. The sort of guy who just takes things too far…
Now would be a great time to learn some more about Peter’s family. He lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). These two are pretty much the subject of some of the earliest (and best) humour of the film. It’s subtle, and it’s very honest in the way of which characters are saying what but it works wonders. Uncle Ben, is essentially the comedian, whereas Aunt May is the voice of reason. It’s a good coupling and it works well.
The great thing about having Sam Raimi directing a motion picture, like Spider-Man is that having worked on low budget horror flicks (The Evil Dead) he knows what can be very scary and how far to go. He exploits that to the max in the scene where Peter begins to change into Spider-Man as a creepy montage of DNA and Spiders occurs. Generally, this isn’t the best film for Arachnophobics…
Meanwhile back at school everything is portrayed incredibly well. Raimi doesn’t opt to take the simplistic approach of looking at school as a hyper-stereotypical place of “Oh my gawds…” and cheerleaders. Everything seems generally real. The one slight problem is that the local bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello) seems slightly on the edge.
The computer effects have aged since 2002 but can be given the benefit of the doubt now. They certainly don’t render the film unwatchable and still get across the principle of what is portrayed.
Spider-Mans only obvious fault has to be the writing. It is usually pretty good, but sometimes it just fails terribly. There are lines that are supposed to tug at the heart-strings but never manage to do anything other than make you wonder who wrote those terrible lines, such as Peter saying “Sometimes…you know people…” whilst trying to convince her she’s a good actor.
When it comes to the wrestling ring, Raimi manages to catch a wonderfully tacky and gritty environment. Naturally, for a character as over the top as the Ring side announcer, you need a great actor. But not too great. Which is why I see that the only man for the job was Bruce Campbell! He isn’t around for much, but when he’s pulling off the worlds worst Elvis impression, he is funny. Almost too funny.
A great thing about Spider-Man is that it has no problem with making Peter seem really, really dark when required. When everything kicks off and Peter goes crazy, Toby’s performance and the tone of the film really sends one of those immense chills down your spine.I can’t stress enough how much I think the studio hit the jackpot with Toby Maguire as Spider-Man.
Obviously, with a project such as Spider-Man, it would be insane not to have some incredible shots. When the camera swings down and up through the traffic of New York in a first person shot looking at everything from Spider-Man’s point of view it’s one of those great shots that just has you feeling exilerated for hours on end.
A special notice here to J.K. Simmons for his unforgettable and hysterical portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson, editor in chief of the Daily Bugle (“If we can geta picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can sure get a picture of this weirdo!”) In spite of just about anything that’s happening on screen, Jameson is, always has been and always will be my favorite character from the Spider-Man series.
Despite the subject matter of criminality, it’s all handled fairly light-heartedly. It’s quite shocking when people start dieing, but Spider-Man’s wit and general ass-kickery just makes everyone feel at home. As ever, when the first real set piece comes in, we’re treated to a brief glimpse of the one and only Mr Stan Lee, head of Marvel comics. Adding Spider-Man to the long list of cameos he has done must have been a great experience, especially seeing he had the honour of saving someone (he’s now my hero).
Naturally, I’m not ending this review without a mention of the upside down kiss in the rain. It’s a great moment of cinematography and whoever came up with the idea deserves a raise. Whoever decided they’d have her cheat on her boyfriend, however deserves to be fired. Unless of course the idea is to give a hint that she doesn’t care about him? Think about it…
The final few scenes say just about everything youi’d ned to know about the film. It sums up the plot, the action and the characters really well. You get a great feel for everyone and everything and it shows how much effort was put into making it.
Overall, the direction brings out the best performances in what is essentially a flawed script when it comes to dialogue. But there are also some amazing set pieces and great conventions put into effect really well.
4/5
Fight Club (1999)
When a mindless consumer (Edward Norton) begins finding it difficult to sleep, he begins going to therapy sessions for problems he doesn’t have. But when suddenly, his flat explodes whilst he’s away on business he finds himself with nowhere to go. In a fleeting moment of insanity, he calls a man he’d met on a plane earlier that day: Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), and as they shun a life of consumerism, they find a new way of living: Fight Club.
As Fight Club opens to a CG journey from the microscopic cells on the Narrators head to the barrel of the gun in his mouth, it seems no wonder that the film failed tremendously at the box-office. It’s too unconventional too fast and as such is, too much to take so soon, which is why it’s nice for everything to conform slightly. However, for every time Fight Club adheres to the pre-determined rules, it breaks a few more.
Edward Norton’s narrator is suitably unemotional in his voice-over. Both the way that everything is spoken, and the actual dialogue itself is obscenely clever. It’s gripping, clever and really reflects everything that the average person doesn’t like to be reminded about themselves. The very fact that they are consumers. And in that alone, the narrator is: us.
The conventionalism within Fight Club soon wears off, but it happens in such a way that the audience doesn’t mind. For a short time, there doesn’t seem to be a plot. The Narrator struggles to find any comfort with merely being a white-collar everyman so he tries to remedy it. He goes to a number of support groups for the (usually terminally) ill where he finds that he can survive with a mixture of human interaction and consumerism, a balance. To relate back to the Narrators coffee table, you have to have the both the Yin & Yang sides of things.
As much as Fight club is fuelled by testosterone, it’d be ridiculous to assume there are no female leads. Firstly there’s Bob (Meatloaf). Bob sounds very predominantly like a man, so why is he put down as a female lead? “Bob has bitch tits” drawls the Narrator whilst weeping into bob’s disturbingly heavy chest. Admittedly, that’s overly harsh. I just didn’t want Helena Bonham Carter to feel alone as the only female lead. Marla Singer is in short, a bitch. She appears to find catharsis in the same support groups as the Narrator. Naturally, being awoken to the shallow nature of his little game, the Narrator looks to get rid of her as much as possible and decides to trade therapy groups. It seems sick because it is. It’s one of many times that Fight Club displays an ability to embrace controversy as if it were something to be proud of. And what with the execution of such controversial acts, everyone behind the making of Fight Club should be proud.
The film, in stark similarity to the narration, is very blunt. It’s a real world with most of the colours being dark and dank as opposed to a bright colour filled land of happiness and joy. People are cruel and selfish, none less so than Tyler Durden. Tyler is just that kind of guy who you love even though you know you shouldn’t. He is straight to the point and embraces his humanity, not totally dissimilar to the way in which the film embraces controversy (controversy, he is usually the instigator of).
Where the Narrator thinks about what he does, Tyler just rolls with it. He is that guy who is so off the cuff that he doesn’t even try to condone what he does. He will give reasons for it, but never once will he say that he’s doing the right thing. In that respect it seems to an extent that Tyler Durden is so fucking sly that he could run for president. In a similar respect, he is a character that everyone wants to be and because everyone wants to be him, he’s a character unrestricted by the burden of logic and sanity.
With Tyler comes a quirky sense of humour that despite bordering on absurdity never makes the final leap and so helps the viewers to relate to the characters. The dialogue is compelling, funny and at times completely and utterly disturbing.
There are times where Fight Club will delve into great detail to help the viewer come to a state of premature nirvana (in relation to the film) only for such a scene to be followed by another in which as little is revealed as possible. The entire film is very confusing at times and in between the random facts (“You can swallow a pint of blood before you get sick.”) and the unrelentless fighting, you get a slow but steady evolution. Not only with the plot and the characters, but with yourself. Remember: you are the Narrator, and as the Narrator evolves (mostly into Tyler) so do you.
The strange thing about evolving into Tyler however is that as you evolve into him, you’d expect to gain a greater knowledge of him. As soon as you think you know something about Tyler he is just as likely to throw it in your face as he is to replicate such an action.
Fight Club throughout has an insane science to it. There is a slight religious subtext but nothing to be taken too seriously. The characters are the focus of the story but you never quite get a full portrait of anyone. And overall, at the most light-hearted of moments is when everything seems the scariest. Fight Club is a mixed bag of emotion and a lucky dip of contradiction.
The cinematography is interesting. There are times when the camera actions and editing seem standard but naturally, in a film like Fight Club, that doesn’t last for very long. There’s something captivating about how everything plays out. It’s possibly in the way that it never quite misses an opportunity to display great dialogue or plot. On top of that the music throughout is 100%, sometimes in the most embarrassingly catchy way.
Brad Pitt is brilliant as the coolest guy alive (honestly, is he actually even acting?) just as Edward Norton is great as a hollow shell that follows the crowds.
There are a few key points throughout that really stay with you for a long time afterwards. Firstly is the breaking of the fourth wall. It’s done a good 3 or 4 times throughout the film and sometimes it makes you wonder if a character really is talking to you. It never gives a distinct answer but it’s all up to a specific individual really.
Second are a few scenes that turn everything on it’s head and give off the overall impression that ALL HELL HAS BROKEN LOOSE!
But that only happens a few times, so there’s really no need to fret.
It’s strange how many different views Fight Club brings up that you were probably never going to think about if you hadn’t seen it.Sacrifice is everything.Everything is nothing.Nothing is knowing yourself.To know yourself you need to sacrifice.
Sometimes it does seem that the film is so close to emo. The lack of conformity, the moving away from the crowds and the general truthfulness of it all.
Maybe that’s the point. Or maybe the point is to stop worrying about the point…
Conformity is bad from Tylers point of view.Tyler is bad from conformity’s point of view.But whatever your opinion, it’s pointless to deny that Tyler is an infection, a self replicating virus. Sooner than later, everyone is Tyler and it’s certainly worth checking Fight Club out just to experience this.
5/5
As Fight Club opens to a CG journey from the microscopic cells on the Narrators head to the barrel of the gun in his mouth, it seems no wonder that the film failed tremendously at the box-office. It’s too unconventional too fast and as such is, too much to take so soon, which is why it’s nice for everything to conform slightly. However, for every time Fight Club adheres to the pre-determined rules, it breaks a few more.
Edward Norton’s narrator is suitably unemotional in his voice-over. Both the way that everything is spoken, and the actual dialogue itself is obscenely clever. It’s gripping, clever and really reflects everything that the average person doesn’t like to be reminded about themselves. The very fact that they are consumers. And in that alone, the narrator is: us.
The conventionalism within Fight Club soon wears off, but it happens in such a way that the audience doesn’t mind. For a short time, there doesn’t seem to be a plot. The Narrator struggles to find any comfort with merely being a white-collar everyman so he tries to remedy it. He goes to a number of support groups for the (usually terminally) ill where he finds that he can survive with a mixture of human interaction and consumerism, a balance. To relate back to the Narrators coffee table, you have to have the both the Yin & Yang sides of things.
As much as Fight club is fuelled by testosterone, it’d be ridiculous to assume there are no female leads. Firstly there’s Bob (Meatloaf). Bob sounds very predominantly like a man, so why is he put down as a female lead? “Bob has bitch tits” drawls the Narrator whilst weeping into bob’s disturbingly heavy chest. Admittedly, that’s overly harsh. I just didn’t want Helena Bonham Carter to feel alone as the only female lead. Marla Singer is in short, a bitch. She appears to find catharsis in the same support groups as the Narrator. Naturally, being awoken to the shallow nature of his little game, the Narrator looks to get rid of her as much as possible and decides to trade therapy groups. It seems sick because it is. It’s one of many times that Fight Club displays an ability to embrace controversy as if it were something to be proud of. And what with the execution of such controversial acts, everyone behind the making of Fight Club should be proud.
The film, in stark similarity to the narration, is very blunt. It’s a real world with most of the colours being dark and dank as opposed to a bright colour filled land of happiness and joy. People are cruel and selfish, none less so than Tyler Durden. Tyler is just that kind of guy who you love even though you know you shouldn’t. He is straight to the point and embraces his humanity, not totally dissimilar to the way in which the film embraces controversy (controversy, he is usually the instigator of).
Where the Narrator thinks about what he does, Tyler just rolls with it. He is that guy who is so off the cuff that he doesn’t even try to condone what he does. He will give reasons for it, but never once will he say that he’s doing the right thing. In that respect it seems to an extent that Tyler Durden is so fucking sly that he could run for president. In a similar respect, he is a character that everyone wants to be and because everyone wants to be him, he’s a character unrestricted by the burden of logic and sanity.
With Tyler comes a quirky sense of humour that despite bordering on absurdity never makes the final leap and so helps the viewers to relate to the characters. The dialogue is compelling, funny and at times completely and utterly disturbing.
There are times where Fight Club will delve into great detail to help the viewer come to a state of premature nirvana (in relation to the film) only for such a scene to be followed by another in which as little is revealed as possible. The entire film is very confusing at times and in between the random facts (“You can swallow a pint of blood before you get sick.”) and the unrelentless fighting, you get a slow but steady evolution. Not only with the plot and the characters, but with yourself. Remember: you are the Narrator, and as the Narrator evolves (mostly into Tyler) so do you.
The strange thing about evolving into Tyler however is that as you evolve into him, you’d expect to gain a greater knowledge of him. As soon as you think you know something about Tyler he is just as likely to throw it in your face as he is to replicate such an action.
Fight Club throughout has an insane science to it. There is a slight religious subtext but nothing to be taken too seriously. The characters are the focus of the story but you never quite get a full portrait of anyone. And overall, at the most light-hearted of moments is when everything seems the scariest. Fight Club is a mixed bag of emotion and a lucky dip of contradiction.
The cinematography is interesting. There are times when the camera actions and editing seem standard but naturally, in a film like Fight Club, that doesn’t last for very long. There’s something captivating about how everything plays out. It’s possibly in the way that it never quite misses an opportunity to display great dialogue or plot. On top of that the music throughout is 100%, sometimes in the most embarrassingly catchy way.
Brad Pitt is brilliant as the coolest guy alive (honestly, is he actually even acting?) just as Edward Norton is great as a hollow shell that follows the crowds.
There are a few key points throughout that really stay with you for a long time afterwards. Firstly is the breaking of the fourth wall. It’s done a good 3 or 4 times throughout the film and sometimes it makes you wonder if a character really is talking to you. It never gives a distinct answer but it’s all up to a specific individual really.
Second are a few scenes that turn everything on it’s head and give off the overall impression that ALL HELL HAS BROKEN LOOSE!
But that only happens a few times, so there’s really no need to fret.
It’s strange how many different views Fight Club brings up that you were probably never going to think about if you hadn’t seen it.Sacrifice is everything.Everything is nothing.Nothing is knowing yourself.To know yourself you need to sacrifice.
Sometimes it does seem that the film is so close to emo. The lack of conformity, the moving away from the crowds and the general truthfulness of it all.
Maybe that’s the point. Or maybe the point is to stop worrying about the point…
Conformity is bad from Tylers point of view.Tyler is bad from conformity’s point of view.But whatever your opinion, it’s pointless to deny that Tyler is an infection, a self replicating virus. Sooner than later, everyone is Tyler and it’s certainly worth checking Fight Club out just to experience this.
5/5
Monday, 16 April 2007
Lost In Translation (2003)
When has-been movie star Bob Harris (Bill Murray) travels to Japan to scrape a small fortune for a whisky advert, he finds comfort in Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a newlywed many years his junior who shares the aimlessness that has dominated his life.
What sort of film opens on an image of Scarlett Johansson’s ass? I mean, don’t get me wrong, Scarlett is a complete and utter babe but it just seems…strange. I’m unsure what Director Sofia Coppola was attempting to achieve. Maybe something artsy? Or maybe she just wanted something other than credits to captivate the audience…
Bob Harris sits in the back of a Japanese taxi sliding down the highway parallel to the absurdly bright town of Tokyo. Slowly, some gentle and soothing music kicks in and alters the tone of the scene massively. The pounding city lights blur past the taxi juxtapose the calm music to create an entirely different mood. May seem like a small point, but it’s one of the more beautiful transitions ever committed to film.
It’s a simple thing to film, but there is something unsettlingly hysterical about seeing Bill Murray in an elevator surrounded by Japanese men all of whom are at least a foot shorter than him. It’s really nice to see film-makers having fun with culture, something that just about everybody has been afraid to do for a long time in the fears that it could spark of some major international incident. From remarkably low shower heads to a running machine that cannot be stopped, it seems that Bob samples everything that could be different from what he’s used to in the west and watches it fall apart in front of him.
However, once again, a series of darkly lit establishing shots with some slow (and frankly depressing) music manage to set up a mournful slow mood for when necessary.
Charlotte however seems to have everything working for her but possibly in too well a way. She immediately seems unappreciated by her photographer husband and her reasons for coming to Japan are as simple as “I had nothing better to do.” Seeking fulfilment, Charlotte makes her way to a nearby shrine and watches a number of monks and nuns engaging in some kind of ritual, but as she later states she feels nothing. She’s numb.
It seems only too perfect then that Bob is having the same issue, albeit along with a few other problems. There are a few memorable scenes, one of which involves a hooker trying to, for lack of a better word, force Bob to have sex with her. It really is one of the funniest scenes ever, as the woman rolls around on the ground screeching “Oh, no Mr. Harris, I just want you to rip my stockings.”, whilst tripping him over. It’s up amongst the funniest intercultural exchanges ever.
It really takes a while for Bob and Charlotte to truly notice each other. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson seem to have under-acting down to an art form and when they do meet, that under-acting really makes the raw dialogue feel more natural. Sometimes what they are saying breaches the realms of believability slightly but there isn’t a line within the entire film that goes so far as to feel ‘romantic’ as such.
Something great about the film is that it feels real. It’s very unconventional, in the way of the script and the simplistic techniques in the way of shots and angles, but it’s a realistic idea and one that, although at first hard to comprehend, is perfectly plausible. There really is something strange about the unconventional realism that Sofia Coppola seems to be trying to employ.
Rather than using metaphorical situations and strategies, Lost in Translation uses more realistic techniques in order to convey depth. Rather than delving too deep, everything is shown as it is, and as such although the film is set in a different country and culture to the primary audience, the idea of real events really keeps the feeling of depth around.
The idea of being in another culture is used very well and is seen as a way for the two leads to realise what they dislike around their lives, and this of course makes them feel more and more distant from those around them. It’s a great idea for these two people, decades apart in age, to bond through their distance and to feel comfortable as they are in a similar position to each other. Although not once throughout the entire film is there a ‘threat’ as such, but despite that there is the deep sincere feeling that both Bob and Charlotte are saving each other, if not only from wandering through the rest of their lives aimlessly.
Every film has its flaws, and it’s a shame to say that Lost in Translation loses its appeal pretty quickly, not because it gets repetitive but because about 40 minutes is the subtle quiet humour is abruptly shifted to a loud scenic night life. There’s certainly a fun atmosphere all around these scenes but it’s in such contrast to what the film was for so long that it feels very much out of place. Another major flaw, revolving around this problem is that the camera actions don’t reflect the craziness of the Tokyo nightlife. The shots and angles are very much in the same vein as the slow funny scenes as earlier on and generally, it doesn’t fit. That said, the music throughout the film, although not to my own tastes is superb in terms of reflecting the on screen action or creating juxtaposition to match the context of the situation. And also when the plot moves away from the ‘fun night life’ scenes, the cinematography begins reflecting what the moods of the characters are and the direction the story is going.
It seems that the more the film progresses so do the characters. It’s very much a character driven film and there isn’t a great deal of plot to follow. Sometimes the characters are happy to just know each other and that is the sort of feeling which really helps the film move forward,
A great example of a character driven film with subtly but hysterical humour. However, it does begin to trail off at times, so can seem a bit long around the middle.
3/5
What sort of film opens on an image of Scarlett Johansson’s ass? I mean, don’t get me wrong, Scarlett is a complete and utter babe but it just seems…strange. I’m unsure what Director Sofia Coppola was attempting to achieve. Maybe something artsy? Or maybe she just wanted something other than credits to captivate the audience…
Bob Harris sits in the back of a Japanese taxi sliding down the highway parallel to the absurdly bright town of Tokyo. Slowly, some gentle and soothing music kicks in and alters the tone of the scene massively. The pounding city lights blur past the taxi juxtapose the calm music to create an entirely different mood. May seem like a small point, but it’s one of the more beautiful transitions ever committed to film.
It’s a simple thing to film, but there is something unsettlingly hysterical about seeing Bill Murray in an elevator surrounded by Japanese men all of whom are at least a foot shorter than him. It’s really nice to see film-makers having fun with culture, something that just about everybody has been afraid to do for a long time in the fears that it could spark of some major international incident. From remarkably low shower heads to a running machine that cannot be stopped, it seems that Bob samples everything that could be different from what he’s used to in the west and watches it fall apart in front of him.
However, once again, a series of darkly lit establishing shots with some slow (and frankly depressing) music manage to set up a mournful slow mood for when necessary.
Charlotte however seems to have everything working for her but possibly in too well a way. She immediately seems unappreciated by her photographer husband and her reasons for coming to Japan are as simple as “I had nothing better to do.” Seeking fulfilment, Charlotte makes her way to a nearby shrine and watches a number of monks and nuns engaging in some kind of ritual, but as she later states she feels nothing. She’s numb.
It seems only too perfect then that Bob is having the same issue, albeit along with a few other problems. There are a few memorable scenes, one of which involves a hooker trying to, for lack of a better word, force Bob to have sex with her. It really is one of the funniest scenes ever, as the woman rolls around on the ground screeching “Oh, no Mr. Harris, I just want you to rip my stockings.”, whilst tripping him over. It’s up amongst the funniest intercultural exchanges ever.
It really takes a while for Bob and Charlotte to truly notice each other. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson seem to have under-acting down to an art form and when they do meet, that under-acting really makes the raw dialogue feel more natural. Sometimes what they are saying breaches the realms of believability slightly but there isn’t a line within the entire film that goes so far as to feel ‘romantic’ as such.
Something great about the film is that it feels real. It’s very unconventional, in the way of the script and the simplistic techniques in the way of shots and angles, but it’s a realistic idea and one that, although at first hard to comprehend, is perfectly plausible. There really is something strange about the unconventional realism that Sofia Coppola seems to be trying to employ.
Rather than using metaphorical situations and strategies, Lost in Translation uses more realistic techniques in order to convey depth. Rather than delving too deep, everything is shown as it is, and as such although the film is set in a different country and culture to the primary audience, the idea of real events really keeps the feeling of depth around.
The idea of being in another culture is used very well and is seen as a way for the two leads to realise what they dislike around their lives, and this of course makes them feel more and more distant from those around them. It’s a great idea for these two people, decades apart in age, to bond through their distance and to feel comfortable as they are in a similar position to each other. Although not once throughout the entire film is there a ‘threat’ as such, but despite that there is the deep sincere feeling that both Bob and Charlotte are saving each other, if not only from wandering through the rest of their lives aimlessly.
Every film has its flaws, and it’s a shame to say that Lost in Translation loses its appeal pretty quickly, not because it gets repetitive but because about 40 minutes is the subtle quiet humour is abruptly shifted to a loud scenic night life. There’s certainly a fun atmosphere all around these scenes but it’s in such contrast to what the film was for so long that it feels very much out of place. Another major flaw, revolving around this problem is that the camera actions don’t reflect the craziness of the Tokyo nightlife. The shots and angles are very much in the same vein as the slow funny scenes as earlier on and generally, it doesn’t fit. That said, the music throughout the film, although not to my own tastes is superb in terms of reflecting the on screen action or creating juxtaposition to match the context of the situation. And also when the plot moves away from the ‘fun night life’ scenes, the cinematography begins reflecting what the moods of the characters are and the direction the story is going.
It seems that the more the film progresses so do the characters. It’s very much a character driven film and there isn’t a great deal of plot to follow. Sometimes the characters are happy to just know each other and that is the sort of feeling which really helps the film move forward,
A great example of a character driven film with subtly but hysterical humour. However, it does begin to trail off at times, so can seem a bit long around the middle.
3/5
Sunday, 15 April 2007
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
When the Nazis plan to use the mystical Jewish artefact the Ark of the Covenant for their own means, the United States Government recruits Archaeologist and University Professor Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) to retrieve it first.
As Raiders opens we are treated to what one can only assume is some kind of dark and damp Amazon jungle. After travelling a little, a dark figure stops to look at a map. Suddenly, the score rises and a figure creeps behind him with a gun. At seemingly the last moment, faster than you can blink: whip, crack boom! The gun is on the floor and Indiana Jones steps into the light. It’s a grim opening for what is surely one of the most light-hearted, albeit violent, action-adventures of all time.
The opening adventure is one that has been imitated repeatedly but certainly never matched. From the spiders, to the spiked fence to the giant ball chasing Indy through the narrow passage ways. Quite frankly there is no denying that Indiana Jones can pull off some thrilling heroics. Quite simply, he’s a cool guy who everyone loves. There are points where even his enemies seem to like him. But he is in their way. And they are Nazis…but more on that later.
It seems clear within minutes of meeting Indy that he is a very human hero. When captured and surrounded by an arrogant French rival and lots of tribes-people pointing arrows at him, the only way he can manage to escape is to slip away when everyone is stunned by the beauty of a golden idol the aforementioned Frenchman Dr. Belloq (Paul Freeman) holds up to show how wonderful he is. Mere minutes later, when in the seemingly safe confines of a plane, he freaks out stupendously when realising he’s near enough sat on a snake. See, if there’s one thing about Indy, it’s that he hates snakes. But all this is why Indy is such a loveable character. He often finds himself in quite absurd situations and at such times he makes no attempt to seem suave. He generally panics and tries the first thing that comes to mind as opposed to sitting down and working out a strategy. At one point when asked what he’s going to do, he even says “I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go along.”
There are many things about Indy that have just changed cinema. One of the most famous is of course the red line travelling across the map whenever Indy travels somewhere. This is not only an interesting and unconventional way to add in a short interlude, but also saves needless conversation in order to determine where our beloved professor is going.
It seems strange when reading that this great adventurer unafraid to kill just about anyone in his way is a University professor teaching kids about archaeology, but for some reason on film it just delivers. Maybe it’s the secret fantasy everybody has harvested about leading some secret double life. Maybe it’s just the great writing and fabulous direction (courtesy of George Lucas, Philip Kaufman, Laurence Kasdan and Steven Spielberg respectively).
Maybe, Harrison Ford could just pass off as both. Who knows, but when in practise, Indy never fails to delight.
Naturally in a film this big, you need a girl and in Raiders, that girl is Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), a chick almost as hard as Indy himself. She can certainly knock back the shots and defend herself. Cue, what simply must be the greatest bar brawl ever. An early sign of greatness within Raiders is that it’s unafraid to venture into the grounds of, essentially, making fun of itself. There are so many daft moments that generally should feel out of place, but because of the simplicity of the whole film (it really is reminiscent of those old television adventure serials at times) everything just slots into place.
In a similar fashion to the cliff-hangers that would end each episode in an adventure serial, there are a number of crazy twists in Raiders which are put simply, shocking. Despite the simplistic approach to making Raiders, Spielberg and Lucas clearly have no problem in breaking a lot of pre-determined rules.
Throughout Raiders, music is used fabulously. Naturally, it would, seeing as it’s a John Williams composition. But it succeeds in doing something very few scores can do: even at the more boring talky bits (none of them are boring but some are obviously more interesting than others), the music manages to help keep you on the edge of your seats. Rather than increase the tension at slow points in the plot, it speeds the slow bits of story up. That’s not to say that suspense isn’t used. The act of building up suspense is matched only by the practise of breaking it in Raiders and it is broken a lot. Sometimes via comedy, sometimes via horror and frequently by pure hardcore adrenaline pumped action.
If nothing else, Raiders can quite happily boast the greatest action scenes ever. At some points in the film, it doesn’t stop for air. It is just spectacular set piece after spectacular set piece. And given Indy is an archaeologist, he certainly doesn’t appear to be afraid of destroying things. Whether it’s pushing baskets down to find someone or knocking a wall over with an ancient statue, Indy will do whatever it takes to find what he wants and that may be what makes the adventure atmosphere so energetic that it puts the audience on a natural high.
With a great cast, better set pieces and what is often over-looked as the greatest twist ending ever, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a simple film with remarkable humour, action and general fun. Certainly a classic.
5/5
As Raiders opens we are treated to what one can only assume is some kind of dark and damp Amazon jungle. After travelling a little, a dark figure stops to look at a map. Suddenly, the score rises and a figure creeps behind him with a gun. At seemingly the last moment, faster than you can blink: whip, crack boom! The gun is on the floor and Indiana Jones steps into the light. It’s a grim opening for what is surely one of the most light-hearted, albeit violent, action-adventures of all time.
The opening adventure is one that has been imitated repeatedly but certainly never matched. From the spiders, to the spiked fence to the giant ball chasing Indy through the narrow passage ways. Quite frankly there is no denying that Indiana Jones can pull off some thrilling heroics. Quite simply, he’s a cool guy who everyone loves. There are points where even his enemies seem to like him. But he is in their way. And they are Nazis…but more on that later.
It seems clear within minutes of meeting Indy that he is a very human hero. When captured and surrounded by an arrogant French rival and lots of tribes-people pointing arrows at him, the only way he can manage to escape is to slip away when everyone is stunned by the beauty of a golden idol the aforementioned Frenchman Dr. Belloq (Paul Freeman) holds up to show how wonderful he is. Mere minutes later, when in the seemingly safe confines of a plane, he freaks out stupendously when realising he’s near enough sat on a snake. See, if there’s one thing about Indy, it’s that he hates snakes. But all this is why Indy is such a loveable character. He often finds himself in quite absurd situations and at such times he makes no attempt to seem suave. He generally panics and tries the first thing that comes to mind as opposed to sitting down and working out a strategy. At one point when asked what he’s going to do, he even says “I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go along.”
There are many things about Indy that have just changed cinema. One of the most famous is of course the red line travelling across the map whenever Indy travels somewhere. This is not only an interesting and unconventional way to add in a short interlude, but also saves needless conversation in order to determine where our beloved professor is going.
It seems strange when reading that this great adventurer unafraid to kill just about anyone in his way is a University professor teaching kids about archaeology, but for some reason on film it just delivers. Maybe it’s the secret fantasy everybody has harvested about leading some secret double life. Maybe it’s just the great writing and fabulous direction (courtesy of George Lucas, Philip Kaufman, Laurence Kasdan and Steven Spielberg respectively).
Maybe, Harrison Ford could just pass off as both. Who knows, but when in practise, Indy never fails to delight.
Naturally in a film this big, you need a girl and in Raiders, that girl is Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), a chick almost as hard as Indy himself. She can certainly knock back the shots and defend herself. Cue, what simply must be the greatest bar brawl ever. An early sign of greatness within Raiders is that it’s unafraid to venture into the grounds of, essentially, making fun of itself. There are so many daft moments that generally should feel out of place, but because of the simplicity of the whole film (it really is reminiscent of those old television adventure serials at times) everything just slots into place.
In a similar fashion to the cliff-hangers that would end each episode in an adventure serial, there are a number of crazy twists in Raiders which are put simply, shocking. Despite the simplistic approach to making Raiders, Spielberg and Lucas clearly have no problem in breaking a lot of pre-determined rules.
Throughout Raiders, music is used fabulously. Naturally, it would, seeing as it’s a John Williams composition. But it succeeds in doing something very few scores can do: even at the more boring talky bits (none of them are boring but some are obviously more interesting than others), the music manages to help keep you on the edge of your seats. Rather than increase the tension at slow points in the plot, it speeds the slow bits of story up. That’s not to say that suspense isn’t used. The act of building up suspense is matched only by the practise of breaking it in Raiders and it is broken a lot. Sometimes via comedy, sometimes via horror and frequently by pure hardcore adrenaline pumped action.
If nothing else, Raiders can quite happily boast the greatest action scenes ever. At some points in the film, it doesn’t stop for air. It is just spectacular set piece after spectacular set piece. And given Indy is an archaeologist, he certainly doesn’t appear to be afraid of destroying things. Whether it’s pushing baskets down to find someone or knocking a wall over with an ancient statue, Indy will do whatever it takes to find what he wants and that may be what makes the adventure atmosphere so energetic that it puts the audience on a natural high.
With a great cast, better set pieces and what is often over-looked as the greatest twist ending ever, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a simple film with remarkable humour, action and general fun. Certainly a classic.
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
