Petie Jacksons, li'l Petersberg.
Guy has made lots of films, suddenly jumping into the limelight, of course, with the LOTR flicks, he adapted the books as much as an adaptation could be, that and Watchmen. He then brought out King Kong, at which point all hope was lost of some classic Jackson appearing, the bloated 3 hours paced slower than snails, not since The Frighteners has Jackson been on top form. So, The Lovely Bones, another book adaptation, does it get back to the harsher, quality films, given it's difficult subject matter?
The tale of Susie Salmon, 14 years old living in the 70's, who is, in the book raped and murdered, only murdered in the film. Her family, devastated, falls apart trying to either get over it, or find the killer as she lives in the 'Inbetween' where she can have anything she loves, but wants to help the family.
Now, the first 30 minutes, the characterisation of Susie and the Salmons is fantastic, Saorise Ronan is impeccable once more, Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz aren't as bad as usual, Susan Sarandon is unnecessary, but moreso later, and Stanley Tucci as the odd neighbour is brilliant.
We are given people to care about and, although early one Susie tells us her fate, we still watch, hoping it doesn't happen.
As Tucci gets Susie into his shack, the sense of forthcoming violence is painful, well handled and freaky. We never see anything, but what is implied isn't nice.
However, after that, as the fantasy sequences of the inbetween appear, the awful CGi from Weta's slowly degrading output, the ridiculous addition of another murder victim, random moments where Susie enters her house, only her house in the inbetween, it all feels too far fetched, we no longer care, it's just bulk. The family's plight is well done for the most part, the addition of detective Christopher Moltisanti, or Michael Imperioli, trying to help the investigation, there's a sense of detection leading to what we know that never gets there, as Weisz can't take it anymore and scarpers, Wahlberg tries to work with his children in finding who did it and Sarandon stops by to a Mrs. Doubtfire housework montage, comedy, really?
The problem is, we know where they need to go, but they never get there, and as sad as the events are, we can't care when we're watching the girl having fun after death as well. In addition, the jumping forward of years so suddenly takes us out of it completely, whilst it couldn't be done in a series of weeks, some subtitles to inform us would have been nice, not poorly executed dialogue informing us.
It's a shame that a solid cast has suffered such a terrible fate in a film where the elongated 2 hour runtime never gets anything more than a ho-hum response, there's not enough tension, there's no real sadness, it's just a dull and poorly made look at the afterlfe and life, or something, and it fails.
4/10
Thursday 28 January 2010
It's one of them fancy French films that's sweeping the awardses.
Un Prophete is very long.
It's not one of those 150 minute flicks that feels shorter, in fact, it feels a lot longer than it should.
This is mainly because it's a story that takes place over years. And I use the word story rather kindly, gibbon that it's as generic as a prison movie gets and doesn't feel as interested in a story as much as a random slew of vignettes to which a premise is tied together with it.
I recently watched the fantastic 4 hour epic Mesrine starring Vincent Cassel, so I was excited to see some more French crime. The reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and yet I feared it would be a Let The Right One In again, and it was. Both films add nothing to the genre and are far too dull to be satisfying, the only reason that LTROI and A Prophet have gotten better reviews than Twilight and any number of cliched drug dealing action films are because they are in a foreign language, if you can't hear the acting as much as read the script, you feel arty, right? Well, fine, feel arty, but I like good scripts to cap off good acting, neither of those rose above middle of the road, sometimes painful dialogue came about, or appallingly stupid plot twists, but most of all, the lack of anything engaging in the way of characters, especially in such a long effort, is horrible.
Our lead, Malik, starts off as a 19 year old going to jail for hitting a cop, he denies the cop aspect, not the 19 year old aspect, despite clearly being far too old for that. He goes in, gets beaten up, then some Italian-esque gangster group who are also freedom fighters make him kill a witness, the only person at the start who seems to care, and he's in to the group.
Up until this point I was trying hard to get into the film, I started feeling interested. But then we jump to a title saying "1 year later" and it all goes away, there's a small scene, and then we jump, without being informed, 2 more years. We're confused and annoyed at this point, and then we get a sideline of a drug enterprise story which runs through the rest of the film.
It's like it's tying not to break boundaries, every prison cliche you can think of is here, the mean authority, the violent inmates, aspects of homosexuality in the showers, smuggling drugs into the camp, it's never more than anything else ever made, the social realism is bland and predictable, the characters unengaging and annoying, this is simply a misfire on all accounts, an awful film.
3/10
It's not one of those 150 minute flicks that feels shorter, in fact, it feels a lot longer than it should.
This is mainly because it's a story that takes place over years. And I use the word story rather kindly, gibbon that it's as generic as a prison movie gets and doesn't feel as interested in a story as much as a random slew of vignettes to which a premise is tied together with it.
I recently watched the fantastic 4 hour epic Mesrine starring Vincent Cassel, so I was excited to see some more French crime. The reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and yet I feared it would be a Let The Right One In again, and it was. Both films add nothing to the genre and are far too dull to be satisfying, the only reason that LTROI and A Prophet have gotten better reviews than Twilight and any number of cliched drug dealing action films are because they are in a foreign language, if you can't hear the acting as much as read the script, you feel arty, right? Well, fine, feel arty, but I like good scripts to cap off good acting, neither of those rose above middle of the road, sometimes painful dialogue came about, or appallingly stupid plot twists, but most of all, the lack of anything engaging in the way of characters, especially in such a long effort, is horrible.
Our lead, Malik, starts off as a 19 year old going to jail for hitting a cop, he denies the cop aspect, not the 19 year old aspect, despite clearly being far too old for that. He goes in, gets beaten up, then some Italian-esque gangster group who are also freedom fighters make him kill a witness, the only person at the start who seems to care, and he's in to the group.
Up until this point I was trying hard to get into the film, I started feeling interested. But then we jump to a title saying "1 year later" and it all goes away, there's a small scene, and then we jump, without being informed, 2 more years. We're confused and annoyed at this point, and then we get a sideline of a drug enterprise story which runs through the rest of the film.
It's like it's tying not to break boundaries, every prison cliche you can think of is here, the mean authority, the violent inmates, aspects of homosexuality in the showers, smuggling drugs into the camp, it's never more than anything else ever made, the social realism is bland and predictable, the characters unengaging and annoying, this is simply a misfire on all accounts, an awful film.
3/10
8 Enter, only 1 leaves, it's the wrestling event of the academic diary.
Exam is an independent English film whose biggest stars are Jimi Mistry and Colin Salmon.
Wait, why are you leaving, don't go.
Alright, so, the premise is 8 people have made it through some tough challenges to win a high powered job in a firm that deals with a virus afflicting most people, I won't go into the rest, most of the film is exposition for it, and they sit in a room, are given a set of rules, then turn over their test papers, 80 minutes on the clock. It's blank.
They begin to talk to each other, discuss what is going on, one early on rightly claims it to be "a big mindfuck", and then we have a mix of exposition on the company and the characters' reasons for being there, and attempts to find out the question on the paper, through UV lights, water, glass. Eventually of course, two people are tied up and civilisation comes crashing down before it. And there's still 20 minutes to go.
The film moves at a hectic pace and keeps you interested, unsure how it'll work on second viewing, but it's tense, well made and interesting, the characters illicit reactions from you and you're engaged wholeheartedly with the piece. The biggest problem is when the exam is over, the long 15 minutes of revelations about the exam, the people behind it, et. all, ruining the mystery with line after line and flashback after flashback, it's a shame that some of the mystery could have been saved, given to us as thoughts we can put together, not treating us like imbeciles after a smart opening hour and change.
However, that said,t he majority is superb, strong acting talent, well crafted ideas, a wonderful set and the film looks fantastic, if that ending wasn't so annoying, I'd give this higher marks, but as a first feature, Stuart Hazeldine still knocks it out of the park, cracking work.
8/10
Wait, why are you leaving, don't go.
Alright, so, the premise is 8 people have made it through some tough challenges to win a high powered job in a firm that deals with a virus afflicting most people, I won't go into the rest, most of the film is exposition for it, and they sit in a room, are given a set of rules, then turn over their test papers, 80 minutes on the clock. It's blank.
They begin to talk to each other, discuss what is going on, one early on rightly claims it to be "a big mindfuck", and then we have a mix of exposition on the company and the characters' reasons for being there, and attempts to find out the question on the paper, through UV lights, water, glass. Eventually of course, two people are tied up and civilisation comes crashing down before it. And there's still 20 minutes to go.
The film moves at a hectic pace and keeps you interested, unsure how it'll work on second viewing, but it's tense, well made and interesting, the characters illicit reactions from you and you're engaged wholeheartedly with the piece. The biggest problem is when the exam is over, the long 15 minutes of revelations about the exam, the people behind it, et. all, ruining the mystery with line after line and flashback after flashback, it's a shame that some of the mystery could have been saved, given to us as thoughts we can put together, not treating us like imbeciles after a smart opening hour and change.
However, that said,t he majority is superb, strong acting talent, well crafted ideas, a wonderful set and the film looks fantastic, if that ending wasn't so annoying, I'd give this higher marks, but as a first feature, Stuart Hazeldine still knocks it out of the park, cracking work.
8/10
Teenage Mutant Ninja Assassins! Killers in a Half Shell.
People are assassinated, that's a gibbon, it's life, people like to take it away.
But they're so boring about it. Load sniper, fire, brains everywhere, yawn.
What is needed to reinvigorate murder is some pizazz, some finesse, more blood and guts.
What is needed, is Ninja.
So, Ninja Assassins.
Sounds awesome right, kick ass awesomeness, like, mind blowing crazy cool awesomeness.
And that's what James McTiegue and The Wachowski 'Brothers' want you to believe as you enter the film, where we begin on a man telling a story of a ninja killing everyone but him, for his heart is on the other side of his body. As a ninja kills them and stabs him but good, it's full of blood and guts, alas completely and abhorrently CGI, but it seems fun and silly.
However, after that the real film begins. Naomie HArris once more suffers through a shitty script, this time as an Interpol agent working with another to find out the mysterious tribes of ninjas who kill for 200 pounds of gold. Of course investigating is dangerous, and when Korean pop star and Speed Racer actor Rain enters as Badsassin, the naughty ninja who betrayed the evil family who forced his painful childhood, they fight and do stuff for an hour, interlaced with more terrible CGI and a cheesy backstory of childhood love and pain right out of Ong Bak 2.
At about 1 hour into the film I realised I shouldn't try anymore, instead, just laugh at how bad the film gets, it descends quickly and stays there, and the flights of fancy it has in continuity (Old 'father' is slashed and has a scar on his face, later, he's untouchably fast) and physics (ninjas clearly hate gravity) and there are plenty of issues here too. Like, why are the ninjas whispering loudly when 30 of them enter a room to kill one person. Or why are all the other ninjas, trained in the same manner and clearly better than the lead, being killed so easily.
The film never explains, instead, just generic action with horrendous CGI and dull plotting, shambles.
4/10
But they're so boring about it. Load sniper, fire, brains everywhere, yawn.
What is needed to reinvigorate murder is some pizazz, some finesse, more blood and guts.
What is needed, is Ninja.
So, Ninja Assassins.
Sounds awesome right, kick ass awesomeness, like, mind blowing crazy cool awesomeness.
And that's what James McTiegue and The Wachowski 'Brothers' want you to believe as you enter the film, where we begin on a man telling a story of a ninja killing everyone but him, for his heart is on the other side of his body. As a ninja kills them and stabs him but good, it's full of blood and guts, alas completely and abhorrently CGI, but it seems fun and silly.
However, after that the real film begins. Naomie HArris once more suffers through a shitty script, this time as an Interpol agent working with another to find out the mysterious tribes of ninjas who kill for 200 pounds of gold. Of course investigating is dangerous, and when Korean pop star and Speed Racer actor Rain enters as Badsassin, the naughty ninja who betrayed the evil family who forced his painful childhood, they fight and do stuff for an hour, interlaced with more terrible CGI and a cheesy backstory of childhood love and pain right out of Ong Bak 2.
At about 1 hour into the film I realised I shouldn't try anymore, instead, just laugh at how bad the film gets, it descends quickly and stays there, and the flights of fancy it has in continuity (Old 'father' is slashed and has a scar on his face, later, he's untouchably fast) and physics (ninjas clearly hate gravity) and there are plenty of issues here too. Like, why are the ninjas whispering loudly when 30 of them enter a room to kill one person. Or why are all the other ninjas, trained in the same manner and clearly better than the lead, being killed so easily.
The film never explains, instead, just generic action with horrendous CGI and dull plotting, shambles.
4/10
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Paul Ross' Black Book of Eli
After the last two post-apocalyptic flicks, Daybreakers and The Road, my hopes for The Book Of Eli were low, yes there's Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis and Gary Oldman, but the plot about the last bible being protected and lots of random action seemed like it was going to suck.
So I was very happy when about 50 minutes in I was enjoying the story, the characters, including 2 really neat scenes with Tom Waits, the action and the whole piece seemed to work well. Denzel kicked ass, was fun to watch, generally awesome, Mila Kunis was as good as ever, Oldman really came off as a Dafoe like presence, evil and crazy in the classic Oldman style, not the recent subdued status, it was fun to watch him ham it up.
The action is top notch, whilst one scene in an old house clearly rips off Bad Boys II (When you rip off something of that calibre, questions are raised), it's fun, light and breezy, gun fights are well done, sword fighting has some nice limb chopping action, nice moments like the first hit, a decapitation, tell you we're gonna be in a fun film, no Bat screaming jump scares, no monochrome, it's dark in a bright way, and wants you to be entertained, classic blockbuster action.
Whilst the ending, a long series of stupid twists and dull moments in Alcatraz, doesn't work, and detracts from the body, the rest of the film is fantastic, even if it's a bit too bible happy, or that they seem to present Eli's name reveal in a bit of a twist-ish moment, though it's in the freaking title...
Still, it's loud, fun and has great action, nice distraction.
7/10
So I was very happy when about 50 minutes in I was enjoying the story, the characters, including 2 really neat scenes with Tom Waits, the action and the whole piece seemed to work well. Denzel kicked ass, was fun to watch, generally awesome, Mila Kunis was as good as ever, Oldman really came off as a Dafoe like presence, evil and crazy in the classic Oldman style, not the recent subdued status, it was fun to watch him ham it up.
The action is top notch, whilst one scene in an old house clearly rips off Bad Boys II (When you rip off something of that calibre, questions are raised), it's fun, light and breezy, gun fights are well done, sword fighting has some nice limb chopping action, nice moments like the first hit, a decapitation, tell you we're gonna be in a fun film, no Bat screaming jump scares, no monochrome, it's dark in a bright way, and wants you to be entertained, classic blockbuster action.
Whilst the ending, a long series of stupid twists and dull moments in Alcatraz, doesn't work, and detracts from the body, the rest of the film is fantastic, even if it's a bit too bible happy, or that they seem to present Eli's name reveal in a bit of a twist-ish moment, though it's in the freaking title...
Still, it's loud, fun and has great action, nice distraction.
7/10
Ah Fack It's an East LahnDahn Gangsta Flick!
44 Inch Chest has a cast of great British talents, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Ian McShane, Stephen Dilahunt and Tom Wilkinson.
Together they are very very foul mouthed group of friends who work together to get Winstone's cheating wife's man into a wardrobe and then conspire as to how to kill him.
And that is literally it.
That's the film. Winstone cries, Everyone uses the c-word in place of punctuation and a mix of flash backs, fantasy moments and right now scenes don't add anything to a premise that is as unremarkably dull as it is loudly vulgar for no reason.
The writers from Sexy Beast, an acclaimed British crime drama, work this one note idea into a somehow 90 minute film, a small length that feels like it goes on for ages.
So for the length of time we have 3 settings, in the room, be it real or a real feeling fantasy, including 'comic' banter in the mind of Winstone(!), the stairwell where 4 of the 5 men await the murder and inside Winstone's home, pre-during and post fight.
So we have a wife beater, a gay gambler, an old swearing man, an aging man living with his mother and a slightly younger, well dressed man, none of them have any character or intrigue.
An absolute waste, not one good thing.
1/10
Together they are very very foul mouthed group of friends who work together to get Winstone's cheating wife's man into a wardrobe and then conspire as to how to kill him.
And that is literally it.
That's the film. Winstone cries, Everyone uses the c-word in place of punctuation and a mix of flash backs, fantasy moments and right now scenes don't add anything to a premise that is as unremarkably dull as it is loudly vulgar for no reason.
The writers from Sexy Beast, an acclaimed British crime drama, work this one note idea into a somehow 90 minute film, a small length that feels like it goes on for ages.
So for the length of time we have 3 settings, in the room, be it real or a real feeling fantasy, including 'comic' banter in the mind of Winstone(!), the stairwell where 4 of the 5 men await the murder and inside Winstone's home, pre-during and post fight.
So we have a wife beater, a gay gambler, an old swearing man, an aging man living with his mother and a slightly younger, well dressed man, none of them have any character or intrigue.
An absolute waste, not one good thing.
1/10
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's, oh, yes, it is a plane.
Jason Reitman.
Man.
He made an amazing film.
JK Simmons, Sam Elliot, David Koechner, Robert Duvall, Rob Lowe, Adam Brody, Aaron Eckhart all knocked it for six in THank You For Smoking, not one weak link in that hysterical film that never was intended to be the biting satire reviewers hoped for, and as such dismissed it due to the fact. No, it was the story of a suave, charismatic man leading a PR campaign on smoking whilst balancing his son and a bitch of a reporter trying to expose secrets.
This was a fantastic debut, one of those films you can watch again and again and laugh at the same wonderfully delivered subtle lines. The script, based on a book, was also written by Mr. Reitman Jr.
And then there was Juno. This was a film that turned the tide on Smoking, maybe it was a feat of luck that Smoking was any good. A script by now official hack job Academy Award winner Diablo Cody, using the most cringeworthy attempts at 'music' in a ho hum tale of annoying slut Ellen Page as she carries a baby to term, alongside same schtick different day Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, Jennifer eugh Garner, Allison Janney (Woo) and, once more for good measure, JK Simmons, it was a film that was so up itself in the appalling humour, references beyond a kid's age aren't funny, especially if they're only references in a Guy Ritchie-esque phrasing with the lack of coherent consistency or entertaining rhythm of saying things, it's just a horrible film.
For 2 years now I was wondering if it was a one off or a steep decline that will continue with Reitman film 3.
That film is Up In The Air.
Based on a book, co-written script by Jason Reitman.
Starring George Clooney of all people, with additions of JK, Elliot, Bateman and Danny McBride, it's a film that looks at a man who spends his life in airports and hotels, to which reviewers were disappointed it wasn't a sharply pointed satire on air travel.
Yup, you guessed it, we're back safely in the holy heavens of category 1, this is Thank You For Smoking good.
It's very funny at times, Clooney being as charismatic as ever delivering some fantastic one-liners, the film can really hit the comedy out of the park. But the best thing is, with the aide of two wonderful female companions on his journey, in the guise of Vera Farmiga's female Clooney and Anna Kendrick as a young business graduate of Cornell (Rid did i doo! Nard Dog!) who is trying to change the way that Clooney's outside hiring to lay people off company works, no traveling, all on webcams.
Between the three of them, some semblance of a heart begins to appear, and it's not just coincidence, after the opening 20 minutes we are slowly leaning in to Clooney's Ryan Bingham in his home life, slight hints of family, being a big build up to a sister of his' wedding.
As we learn more and see just how alone he is when he isn't in his element, we connect, and hard.
And that's when the film REALLY gets going, without being synthetic or forceful, the subtle details allow us to care so much more for Bingham, and even the young woman trying to make him stop doing what he loves, when she bursts into tears all of a sudden, we care. Not because the music swells and the close ups make us, but because we're into the story, we like the characters in some small way at the very least, so we want to care, and do.
A testament to Reitman not pressuring anything, taking it nice and cool in that respect, most filmmakers would spend far too long on that kind of moment.
In addition to that, the moments where Clooney and his new friend do things together, visit his high school, go to his sister's wedding, watch Young MC sing Bust A Move, and Clooney even says it, high point of the film, it's nice to see the relationship grow.
Of course, meanly, we then get a twist that makes everything so so so unfair, but I guess what are ya gonna do, had to happen.
The one complaint I have is that the last 10 minutes slow to a halt too early and then keep trudging forward, after an hour and change of excellent work, for it to slow too quickly is a real shame, but, well, it's still great.
10/10
Mr. Reitman is back!
Man.
He made an amazing film.
JK Simmons, Sam Elliot, David Koechner, Robert Duvall, Rob Lowe, Adam Brody, Aaron Eckhart all knocked it for six in THank You For Smoking, not one weak link in that hysterical film that never was intended to be the biting satire reviewers hoped for, and as such dismissed it due to the fact. No, it was the story of a suave, charismatic man leading a PR campaign on smoking whilst balancing his son and a bitch of a reporter trying to expose secrets.
This was a fantastic debut, one of those films you can watch again and again and laugh at the same wonderfully delivered subtle lines. The script, based on a book, was also written by Mr. Reitman Jr.
And then there was Juno. This was a film that turned the tide on Smoking, maybe it was a feat of luck that Smoking was any good. A script by now official hack job Academy Award winner Diablo Cody, using the most cringeworthy attempts at 'music' in a ho hum tale of annoying slut Ellen Page as she carries a baby to term, alongside same schtick different day Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, Jennifer eugh Garner, Allison Janney (Woo) and, once more for good measure, JK Simmons, it was a film that was so up itself in the appalling humour, references beyond a kid's age aren't funny, especially if they're only references in a Guy Ritchie-esque phrasing with the lack of coherent consistency or entertaining rhythm of saying things, it's just a horrible film.
For 2 years now I was wondering if it was a one off or a steep decline that will continue with Reitman film 3.
That film is Up In The Air.
Based on a book, co-written script by Jason Reitman.
Starring George Clooney of all people, with additions of JK, Elliot, Bateman and Danny McBride, it's a film that looks at a man who spends his life in airports and hotels, to which reviewers were disappointed it wasn't a sharply pointed satire on air travel.
Yup, you guessed it, we're back safely in the holy heavens of category 1, this is Thank You For Smoking good.
It's very funny at times, Clooney being as charismatic as ever delivering some fantastic one-liners, the film can really hit the comedy out of the park. But the best thing is, with the aide of two wonderful female companions on his journey, in the guise of Vera Farmiga's female Clooney and Anna Kendrick as a young business graduate of Cornell (Rid did i doo! Nard Dog!) who is trying to change the way that Clooney's outside hiring to lay people off company works, no traveling, all on webcams.
Between the three of them, some semblance of a heart begins to appear, and it's not just coincidence, after the opening 20 minutes we are slowly leaning in to Clooney's Ryan Bingham in his home life, slight hints of family, being a big build up to a sister of his' wedding.
As we learn more and see just how alone he is when he isn't in his element, we connect, and hard.
And that's when the film REALLY gets going, without being synthetic or forceful, the subtle details allow us to care so much more for Bingham, and even the young woman trying to make him stop doing what he loves, when she bursts into tears all of a sudden, we care. Not because the music swells and the close ups make us, but because we're into the story, we like the characters in some small way at the very least, so we want to care, and do.
A testament to Reitman not pressuring anything, taking it nice and cool in that respect, most filmmakers would spend far too long on that kind of moment.
In addition to that, the moments where Clooney and his new friend do things together, visit his high school, go to his sister's wedding, watch Young MC sing Bust A Move, and Clooney even says it, high point of the film, it's nice to see the relationship grow.
Of course, meanly, we then get a twist that makes everything so so so unfair, but I guess what are ya gonna do, had to happen.
The one complaint I have is that the last 10 minutes slow to a halt too early and then keep trudging forward, after an hour and change of excellent work, for it to slow too quickly is a real shame, but, well, it's still great.
10/10
Mr. Reitman is back!
Sex, Drugs and then Rock and Roll dude, was just following the code.
I knew nothing of Ian Dury going in to Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll, short of the fact that he claimed to have hailed from my home town of Upminster, despite being a lie.
Exiting the cinema I think I was as nonplussed if not more.
Despite a cracking series of performances from the likes of Andy Serkis, Naomie Harris, Toby Jones and Bill Milner, the biopic neither gets into much of the man's life from beginning to end, nor into the music enough, the latter I am thankful for, because it was, judging by the film, neither interesting nor tonal. Then again, I was informed that Notorious misjudged BIG's talents by making him out like a complete cunt as well, so, perhaps the film missed Mr. Dury's good aspects in the face of soapdish Eastenders stuff mixed with Mighty Boosh visuals.
I'll never know.
However, the film's biggest problems are that the songs are poorly intertwined, having nothing to do with the film, just for the 'fans', it's ridiculous, and doesn't help the film's second biggest fault, the pacing. Meandering through series of events in the man's life, mostly mundane as hell, the film never really gets fast to anything interesting, and for the most part spends too long jumping to Serkis playing Dury giving some sort of on stage presentation of his life, similar to last year's awful Bronson, and the life of a Polio stricken child's disability, a child afflicted should surely be cause for some sort of interesting sequence or some emotional resonance no? Nope.
The film decides to be passive in everything, moments just occur, we never give a flying monkeys because the film clearly has no time to care, instead just wants to look at moments that happened, and we know they happened because they are simply too boring to make up. An atrocious piece of work whose only saviour is the plethora of British actors involved doing more than quality work.
5/10
Exiting the cinema I think I was as nonplussed if not more.
Despite a cracking series of performances from the likes of Andy Serkis, Naomie Harris, Toby Jones and Bill Milner, the biopic neither gets into much of the man's life from beginning to end, nor into the music enough, the latter I am thankful for, because it was, judging by the film, neither interesting nor tonal. Then again, I was informed that Notorious misjudged BIG's talents by making him out like a complete cunt as well, so, perhaps the film missed Mr. Dury's good aspects in the face of soapdish Eastenders stuff mixed with Mighty Boosh visuals.
I'll never know.
However, the film's biggest problems are that the songs are poorly intertwined, having nothing to do with the film, just for the 'fans', it's ridiculous, and doesn't help the film's second biggest fault, the pacing. Meandering through series of events in the man's life, mostly mundane as hell, the film never really gets fast to anything interesting, and for the most part spends too long jumping to Serkis playing Dury giving some sort of on stage presentation of his life, similar to last year's awful Bronson, and the life of a Polio stricken child's disability, a child afflicted should surely be cause for some sort of interesting sequence or some emotional resonance no? Nope.
The film decides to be passive in everything, moments just occur, we never give a flying monkeys because the film clearly has no time to care, instead just wants to look at moments that happened, and we know they happened because they are simply too boring to make up. An atrocious piece of work whose only saviour is the plethora of British actors involved doing more than quality work.
5/10
Three films about fucking walking!
"The Road is fucking hard
The Road is fucking tough
There's no question that,
It is rough rough stuff"
(Jables and Kage, The D, 2001)
The Road is the second big Cormac McCarthy adaptation in the last few years, and up against the Coen's work on No Country, a film considered by most to be an absolute masterpiece (It's great, just not as great as There Will Be Blood) John Hillcoat has the odds stacked high against him.
A depressing tale of post-apocalypse America, savage cannibal gangs roaming the roads, our heroes a Man and Boy walking to the coast, trying to survive, limited food, no sun, no animals. Oh, yeah, and every scene has to be completely deserted with large elements of destruction.
And it's absolutely bleak and harrowing.
Think you're up for that? Well, somehow Hillcoat pulls off a miracle. The film, whilst slow to start, really kicks into gear, suddenly out of nowhere you realise you're nervous about the survival of the pair against the cannibals, be it on a small road or in a house where they appear to be centred on.
And yet that's not the predominant plot of the film. It's a father and son walking, the father teaching the son how to live and what to do so that the boy is ready to go alone one day, the horror aspects don't creep in often, but they're forceful enough to be both memorable and haunting throughout scenes, at the happiest moments your mind still wanders to the outside, humanity's last gleaming.
Whilst the film goes back to the first day of the end of the world and then years later, focussing on the relationship between Man and Wife (Charlize Theron in a throwaway role), the best stuff is the majority, the threats of the 'present' day issues. Though the look at Theron's Mother wanting to die to escape the hell they are in, over staying with her family, and wishing she never had Boy, bringing him into such a world, the power is lost in these moments, Theron's character just comes off like a bitch, and we care vastly more for Viggo Mortenson's Man.
Mortenson is absolutely fantastic in this, as is his screen son Kodi Smit-Mcphee, another young talent that's not annoying (Kids these days, why did my generation have the shit actors, the Freddie Highmores, the Hayley Joel Osments, the Little Annie Skywalkers?) and the relationship between them never comes across as fabricated, it felt like we were watching a father and son, emotionless and struggling through a bleak existence.
And yet when cameo appearances from Robert Duvall, Michael K. Williams and Guy Pierce (Who is having a resurgence as the 5 minute appearance guy) make their way into the character's lives for a few minutes, they never overshadow, overwhelm or feel out of place, working perfectly with the morality, the inhumanity and the nature that these people have lived with for years.
The production design in this film is immense, I went and had a look at where they filmed, shocked to find it was only one small segment of unused road, not a whole state's worth of wilderness, it's mindbogling and amazingly done, the CGI blends effortlessly with the practical elements living off a sense of depth in the destruction that's never showing off, nor anything more than set, no big action for the destruction. The film looks absolutely gorgeous, one of the finest looking films I've seen for months, and for something that feels predominantly monochromatic, that's no mean feat, especially when they have to portray the sun as being gone too.
As near a perfect film as you can get, it's tense, well crafted, emotionally affecting, well acted and interesting. Not something you can enjoy in an entertaining sense, but it still deserves more attention that it's received.
10/10
The Road is fucking tough
There's no question that,
It is rough rough stuff"
(Jables and Kage, The D, 2001)
The Road is the second big Cormac McCarthy adaptation in the last few years, and up against the Coen's work on No Country, a film considered by most to be an absolute masterpiece (It's great, just not as great as There Will Be Blood) John Hillcoat has the odds stacked high against him.
A depressing tale of post-apocalypse America, savage cannibal gangs roaming the roads, our heroes a Man and Boy walking to the coast, trying to survive, limited food, no sun, no animals. Oh, yeah, and every scene has to be completely deserted with large elements of destruction.
And it's absolutely bleak and harrowing.
Think you're up for that? Well, somehow Hillcoat pulls off a miracle. The film, whilst slow to start, really kicks into gear, suddenly out of nowhere you realise you're nervous about the survival of the pair against the cannibals, be it on a small road or in a house where they appear to be centred on.
And yet that's not the predominant plot of the film. It's a father and son walking, the father teaching the son how to live and what to do so that the boy is ready to go alone one day, the horror aspects don't creep in often, but they're forceful enough to be both memorable and haunting throughout scenes, at the happiest moments your mind still wanders to the outside, humanity's last gleaming.
Whilst the film goes back to the first day of the end of the world and then years later, focussing on the relationship between Man and Wife (Charlize Theron in a throwaway role), the best stuff is the majority, the threats of the 'present' day issues. Though the look at Theron's Mother wanting to die to escape the hell they are in, over staying with her family, and wishing she never had Boy, bringing him into such a world, the power is lost in these moments, Theron's character just comes off like a bitch, and we care vastly more for Viggo Mortenson's Man.
Mortenson is absolutely fantastic in this, as is his screen son Kodi Smit-Mcphee, another young talent that's not annoying (Kids these days, why did my generation have the shit actors, the Freddie Highmores, the Hayley Joel Osments, the Little Annie Skywalkers?) and the relationship between them never comes across as fabricated, it felt like we were watching a father and son, emotionless and struggling through a bleak existence.
And yet when cameo appearances from Robert Duvall, Michael K. Williams and Guy Pierce (Who is having a resurgence as the 5 minute appearance guy) make their way into the character's lives for a few minutes, they never overshadow, overwhelm or feel out of place, working perfectly with the morality, the inhumanity and the nature that these people have lived with for years.
The production design in this film is immense, I went and had a look at where they filmed, shocked to find it was only one small segment of unused road, not a whole state's worth of wilderness, it's mindbogling and amazingly done, the CGI blends effortlessly with the practical elements living off a sense of depth in the destruction that's never showing off, nor anything more than set, no big action for the destruction. The film looks absolutely gorgeous, one of the finest looking films I've seen for months, and for something that feels predominantly monochromatic, that's no mean feat, especially when they have to portray the sun as being gone too.
As near a perfect film as you can get, it's tense, well crafted, emotionally affecting, well acted and interesting. Not something you can enjoy in an entertaining sense, but it still deserves more attention that it's received.
10/10
These vampires don't sparkle, they esplode!
Daybreakers.
Look at the trailer.
Ethan Hawke is a vampire, Willem Dafoe isn't, Sam Neil is a CEO, they live in a world where humans are endangered.
There's vamp vs human fighting.
AWESOME! Right?
Yeah...
Well...
When a film begins by using a bat's scream as a jump scare, then at the end, oh, and one in the middle for no reason, you begin to question, is this just gonna be stupid moments like that, no relation to a plot, just loud noises from silence to 'scare' people?
Mostly yes, that and some poor dialogue that tries to resemble a plot and then disappears 40 minutes in and changed for series of events that contain vampires running around with guns hunting humans, and then a finale.
And none of these moments seem to have anything useful or relevant after a more slow burn of an opening 40 minutes where it almost tried to make you care about the characters.
Of course, the worst offense is suddenly leaving bad ass Willem Dafoe out, only for him to re-appear as some sort of cheap back up with horrible lines, nothing bad or assy about his presentation, and all round fail here is saved by 3 very cool actors, what a shame as the potential outweighs the end result.
3/10
Look at the trailer.
Ethan Hawke is a vampire, Willem Dafoe isn't, Sam Neil is a CEO, they live in a world where humans are endangered.
There's vamp vs human fighting.
AWESOME! Right?
Yeah...
Well...
When a film begins by using a bat's scream as a jump scare, then at the end, oh, and one in the middle for no reason, you begin to question, is this just gonna be stupid moments like that, no relation to a plot, just loud noises from silence to 'scare' people?
Mostly yes, that and some poor dialogue that tries to resemble a plot and then disappears 40 minutes in and changed for series of events that contain vampires running around with guns hunting humans, and then a finale.
And none of these moments seem to have anything useful or relevant after a more slow burn of an opening 40 minutes where it almost tried to make you care about the characters.
Of course, the worst offense is suddenly leaving bad ass Willem Dafoe out, only for him to re-appear as some sort of cheap back up with horrible lines, nothing bad or assy about his presentation, and all round fail here is saved by 3 very cool actors, what a shame as the potential outweighs the end result.
3/10
Hey, you know those horrible thoughts of old people doing it...
Nancy Meyers is a complete and utter hack, I say this having only seen one of her directed works, and never have, nor will ever, find any interest in seeing any of her works. She's a female Tony Gilroy, can't even do simple goals, like, say, develop interesting characters in a well crafted, simple plot full of wit and charm.
It's Complicated, with it's leads in Meryl Streep (Dull in this role), Alec Baldwin (Still not great, look, 30 Rock sucks now people), Steve Martin (Same as Baldwin) and John Kraninski (Ah, he's awesome, the character is not) should have at least had enough to get to a 3-4/10 rating. But this tale of 50-odd year old ex-husband and wife having an affair has nothing. It's hollow, poorly structured, cliched to all get out, not a single character is interesting or likeable or new, the 'jokes' relay the chick-flick audiences with poorly handled slapstick that doesn't back up with additional smarts to allow the humour to work, or the zany-ness to make the ouchie pain comedy work, instead real people falling over? No thanks. Add to that humour of saying things like penis, how frakking hysterical.
No, not one point in this 2 hour epic of a 'comedy' that, thankfully, was a free screening, did I find myself enjoying it. The film looked like it could have at the very least been a nice looking silent film, sans falling over moments, the music was so annoyingly bland it's a shame that Hans Zimmer was behind it, and so soon after the interesting work on Sherlock Holmes too.
Just.... No.
It's neither Complicated nor Competent.
1/10
It's Complicated, with it's leads in Meryl Streep (Dull in this role), Alec Baldwin (Still not great, look, 30 Rock sucks now people), Steve Martin (Same as Baldwin) and John Kraninski (Ah, he's awesome, the character is not) should have at least had enough to get to a 3-4/10 rating. But this tale of 50-odd year old ex-husband and wife having an affair has nothing. It's hollow, poorly structured, cliched to all get out, not a single character is interesting or likeable or new, the 'jokes' relay the chick-flick audiences with poorly handled slapstick that doesn't back up with additional smarts to allow the humour to work, or the zany-ness to make the ouchie pain comedy work, instead real people falling over? No thanks. Add to that humour of saying things like penis, how frakking hysterical.
No, not one point in this 2 hour epic of a 'comedy' that, thankfully, was a free screening, did I find myself enjoying it. The film looked like it could have at the very least been a nice looking silent film, sans falling over moments, the music was so annoyingly bland it's a shame that Hans Zimmer was behind it, and so soon after the interesting work on Sherlock Holmes too.
Just.... No.
It's neither Complicated nor Competent.
1/10
Judi Dench in a bawdy French showgirl musical number!
We all know how awesome Daniel Day Lewis is. If you've not seen any recent work, skip Gangs of New York, which was merely a rehearsal, and sit down for 3 hours and love There Will Be Blood instead, playing a demonic character he's engaging, charismatic, charming, evil and fun to watch, in any other film he's the character you wish was in it more, in that, he's the guy you want to watch for the 2 hour 40 minute runtime happily.
And now Day Lewis is back in the zeitgeist, he's somehow been involved in a Rob Marshall film. Yeah, that guy what did Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha.
But not only is Day Lewis in it, doing a simple, understated Italian accent and having songs where he talks, not sings, Shatner style, there's Judi Dench, who tries Italian, just comes out as English with some flair, and she sings too. Yes, be warned viewers, Judi Dench on the mic.
But she's not all, Penelope Cruz, fresh from winning an Oscar for crying and screaming in Spanish for 20 minutes in a POS Woodsy Allen flick, appears to do some sensual rumblings in low cut attire, which is funny considering she's hardly attractive at the best of times, Nicole Kidman has about 5 minutes and does frak all, Sophia Loren appears as Day Lewis' zombie mother every so often, the effects are truly stunning, she must have spent days in the make-up trailer, looks like she's genuinely decomposing.
Marion Coutillard is saddled with the wife role where she has to cry, look beautiful and get little to do, poor thing, and then there's Fergie. When Fergie is the best singer you have, it's time to re-assess the project. And she's only in it for one song.
Oh yeah, and Goldie Hawn. Wait, what? Kate Hudson? God she's old now. I though Hawn looked good for her age, now, eugh.
So, what's the plot? Some italian director making a film that he knows not the plot or anything about, only got the actors, nothing else. Seems very meta, in fact, perhaps that's why the film falls flat the whole time, it's purely a giant in-joke, Marshall made a film that is the outcome of the proposed idea.
Because there is nothing in this film, Day Lewis, Couitllard and Dench are great, but they have nothing to do, the other actors, not so much.
It's a completely lifeless, soul sucking 2 hours with no memorable or well made songs, awful dancing, appallingly dry atmosphere and nothing redeemable.
However, don't forget, the numerical title, 9, is out on DVD soon, and a far superior effort all round.
2/10
And now Day Lewis is back in the zeitgeist, he's somehow been involved in a Rob Marshall film. Yeah, that guy what did Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha.
But not only is Day Lewis in it, doing a simple, understated Italian accent and having songs where he talks, not sings, Shatner style, there's Judi Dench, who tries Italian, just comes out as English with some flair, and she sings too. Yes, be warned viewers, Judi Dench on the mic.
But she's not all, Penelope Cruz, fresh from winning an Oscar for crying and screaming in Spanish for 20 minutes in a POS Woodsy Allen flick, appears to do some sensual rumblings in low cut attire, which is funny considering she's hardly attractive at the best of times, Nicole Kidman has about 5 minutes and does frak all, Sophia Loren appears as Day Lewis' zombie mother every so often, the effects are truly stunning, she must have spent days in the make-up trailer, looks like she's genuinely decomposing.
Marion Coutillard is saddled with the wife role where she has to cry, look beautiful and get little to do, poor thing, and then there's Fergie. When Fergie is the best singer you have, it's time to re-assess the project. And she's only in it for one song.
Oh yeah, and Goldie Hawn. Wait, what? Kate Hudson? God she's old now. I though Hawn looked good for her age, now, eugh.
So, what's the plot? Some italian director making a film that he knows not the plot or anything about, only got the actors, nothing else. Seems very meta, in fact, perhaps that's why the film falls flat the whole time, it's purely a giant in-joke, Marshall made a film that is the outcome of the proposed idea.
Because there is nothing in this film, Day Lewis, Couitllard and Dench are great, but they have nothing to do, the other actors, not so much.
It's a completely lifeless, soul sucking 2 hours with no memorable or well made songs, awful dancing, appallingly dry atmosphere and nothing redeemable.
However, don't forget, the numerical title, 9, is out on DVD soon, and a far superior effort all round.
2/10
Tuesday 12 January 2010
Spider-Man Begin Again
So, Sam Raimi is no more.
Tobey Maguire, the face of geek chic from 2002 to 2006, is now just another actor, Kirsten Dunst is, well, James Franco, poor guy, and Dylan Baker, they got screwed over didn't they.
Yes, if you need that rock pushed over to see the Sun again it'll be a shock to the system to hear, mere hours after the 'confirmation' of John Malkovich as Vulture in Spidey 4, that project was cancelled, the creative team kicked out and in it's place, Sony are going for a new origin story of Spider-Man, in 2012, the world will end, and doing the destruction will be a retconning of one of the biggest film series in recent history, one full of critical acclaim, fanboy love, and worst of all, isn't even a decade old yet.
You may stop me right now and say But Andrew, how about The Punisher, that had big actors, but they did a change up, hell, look at Hulk, then look at 2008" And I'd say, 1, shut up, this is my piece, and 2, they weren't well received, be it financially, critically or both.
Whilst I found Tom Jane's Punisher well done, or Eric Bana a good actor, the films ultimately were wrong for the franchise, and myself, I'm glad that these changes occurred, the Ray Stevenson Punisher was nastier, more silly and much more violent, perfect, whereas the Ed Norton Hulk had a well rounded plot, needing only 3 action scenes, great cast, and lots of fun.
But if the Daredevil reboot ever starts going, I'll throw a hissy fit there, I find, and me only, Daredevil to be more than just a solid flick, I think it's one of the best superhero films ever made, it's not revolutionary, but it knew the formula, abided by it well, and made it entertaining, unlike, say, Iron Man, which just did everything in a ridiculously slow and dull manner like a kid doing paint by numbers whilst having already done the image yesterday, and today he's distracted by bigger, shinier CGI.
I wish I could say "I'll reserve judgement" for this Spider-Man idea, but lets face it, the great stuff comes out of ideas that were going no where, aren't anywhere near as close to our hearts, do you remember Spider-Man when it first came out? I sure as hell do.
Spider-Man was the first film I saw in the cinema without an adult, my first independent film, if you will. It was action packed, funny, scary, well acted, well shot, some great set pieces, yes the CGI was never amazing, but you could ignore that because you were invested in Maguire's Parker, he was sweet, geeky but you believed he could get the girl, change into the brave hero, Dafoe was freaky, he knew too much, he was insane, a perfect villain.
The template for all forthcoming superhero films, Spider-Man leapt off the success of the first X-Men film, a film which was differently structured to all other comic book films now, and between them, the humour was never pushed too much, and retained the more serious aspects, obviously they couldn't take the subject matters completely seriously, but for films about mutant heroes and men with the powers of spiders, they both managed to retain a lot of key themes and didn't mock the ideas, instead they were willing to go deeper into what the powers would do to the heroes and people around them.
So, what can we expect from Sony with this film?
Well, they've already stated that they'll be going back to Parker in high school, so, maybe the whole film will be based around the somewhat slow first 35 minutes of the first film, before the action kicked in. Whilst it'll be nice to get away from the too many villains issue that was going to plague Spidey 4 as well as ruined number 3, which Sony are clearly blaming Raimi for, though who pushed for Venom to be in it when Raimi stated that he wasn't a fan of that villain? Yeah, thought so.
Sony, the studio behind such masterpieces as 2012, are going to give us some 90210 Skins style superhero film, young good looking people in the roles now synonymous with other actors, it's got Star Trek 2009 written all over it. (The gag reel on that DVD actually has the new actors messing up, and then their names come up with the characters they portray, not the actors they are ripping off, and yes, Chris Pine is ripping off an actor, Mark Hammil)
On top of seeing new faces, which is always hard, there are some key elements to the franchise which will be lost. Namely the build up for Dylan Baker as Dr. Connors who would have become Lizard at some point, and you can sense some darkness and apprehension in his performances, a well structured 2 film arc that will never get it's conclusion. It's a shame because Baker has done so much good work it would have been great to see him suddenly be thrust into the limelight of the Spidey series, not just the lecturer Peter goes to for problems, as unenlightened kids presume he must have been.
Whilst Baker's performances have been for nought, do you know who suffers most? Bruce Campbell.
How key was Campbell? To the point where he was the narrator for tutorial levels for the Spider-Man games. The cameos were always the things to look out for, be it silly as all get out as the French waiter i number 3, or the hysterically annoying usher in number 2, his work really brought the normal life back to Parker, the difficulties of the mundane, like an episode of Seinfeld, and helped the films balance the super moments and the normal elements.
So, what can we expect from the new film?
Who will play our heroes, villains, who, in fact, will be chosen to be the first villain Spidey must fight? Will it end up being a straight remake of the original?
We'll have to wait until the teaser in 2011 to really make up our minds, but for now, we have to ask Sony, was Sam Raimi such a bad choice? Really?
Tobey Maguire, the face of geek chic from 2002 to 2006, is now just another actor, Kirsten Dunst is, well, James Franco, poor guy, and Dylan Baker, they got screwed over didn't they.
Yes, if you need that rock pushed over to see the Sun again it'll be a shock to the system to hear, mere hours after the 'confirmation' of John Malkovich as Vulture in Spidey 4, that project was cancelled, the creative team kicked out and in it's place, Sony are going for a new origin story of Spider-Man, in 2012, the world will end, and doing the destruction will be a retconning of one of the biggest film series in recent history, one full of critical acclaim, fanboy love, and worst of all, isn't even a decade old yet.
You may stop me right now and say But Andrew, how about The Punisher, that had big actors, but they did a change up, hell, look at Hulk, then look at 2008" And I'd say, 1, shut up, this is my piece, and 2, they weren't well received, be it financially, critically or both.
Whilst I found Tom Jane's Punisher well done, or Eric Bana a good actor, the films ultimately were wrong for the franchise, and myself, I'm glad that these changes occurred, the Ray Stevenson Punisher was nastier, more silly and much more violent, perfect, whereas the Ed Norton Hulk had a well rounded plot, needing only 3 action scenes, great cast, and lots of fun.
But if the Daredevil reboot ever starts going, I'll throw a hissy fit there, I find, and me only, Daredevil to be more than just a solid flick, I think it's one of the best superhero films ever made, it's not revolutionary, but it knew the formula, abided by it well, and made it entertaining, unlike, say, Iron Man, which just did everything in a ridiculously slow and dull manner like a kid doing paint by numbers whilst having already done the image yesterday, and today he's distracted by bigger, shinier CGI.
I wish I could say "I'll reserve judgement" for this Spider-Man idea, but lets face it, the great stuff comes out of ideas that were going no where, aren't anywhere near as close to our hearts, do you remember Spider-Man when it first came out? I sure as hell do.
Spider-Man was the first film I saw in the cinema without an adult, my first independent film, if you will. It was action packed, funny, scary, well acted, well shot, some great set pieces, yes the CGI was never amazing, but you could ignore that because you were invested in Maguire's Parker, he was sweet, geeky but you believed he could get the girl, change into the brave hero, Dafoe was freaky, he knew too much, he was insane, a perfect villain.
The template for all forthcoming superhero films, Spider-Man leapt off the success of the first X-Men film, a film which was differently structured to all other comic book films now, and between them, the humour was never pushed too much, and retained the more serious aspects, obviously they couldn't take the subject matters completely seriously, but for films about mutant heroes and men with the powers of spiders, they both managed to retain a lot of key themes and didn't mock the ideas, instead they were willing to go deeper into what the powers would do to the heroes and people around them.
So, what can we expect from Sony with this film?
Well, they've already stated that they'll be going back to Parker in high school, so, maybe the whole film will be based around the somewhat slow first 35 minutes of the first film, before the action kicked in. Whilst it'll be nice to get away from the too many villains issue that was going to plague Spidey 4 as well as ruined number 3, which Sony are clearly blaming Raimi for, though who pushed for Venom to be in it when Raimi stated that he wasn't a fan of that villain? Yeah, thought so.
Sony, the studio behind such masterpieces as 2012, are going to give us some 90210 Skins style superhero film, young good looking people in the roles now synonymous with other actors, it's got Star Trek 2009 written all over it. (The gag reel on that DVD actually has the new actors messing up, and then their names come up with the characters they portray, not the actors they are ripping off, and yes, Chris Pine is ripping off an actor, Mark Hammil)
On top of seeing new faces, which is always hard, there are some key elements to the franchise which will be lost. Namely the build up for Dylan Baker as Dr. Connors who would have become Lizard at some point, and you can sense some darkness and apprehension in his performances, a well structured 2 film arc that will never get it's conclusion. It's a shame because Baker has done so much good work it would have been great to see him suddenly be thrust into the limelight of the Spidey series, not just the lecturer Peter goes to for problems, as unenlightened kids presume he must have been.
Whilst Baker's performances have been for nought, do you know who suffers most? Bruce Campbell.
How key was Campbell? To the point where he was the narrator for tutorial levels for the Spider-Man games. The cameos were always the things to look out for, be it silly as all get out as the French waiter i number 3, or the hysterically annoying usher in number 2, his work really brought the normal life back to Parker, the difficulties of the mundane, like an episode of Seinfeld, and helped the films balance the super moments and the normal elements.
So, what can we expect from the new film?
Who will play our heroes, villains, who, in fact, will be chosen to be the first villain Spidey must fight? Will it end up being a straight remake of the original?
We'll have to wait until the teaser in 2011 to really make up our minds, but for now, we have to ask Sony, was Sam Raimi such a bad choice? Really?
Sunday 3 January 2010
'atchet 'olmes & Dr. "Sleuth" Watson
Guy Ritchie isn't the kind of director you'd think would make a PG-13 action adventure for the mainstream, then again a Madonna comedy was also unexpected. Unlike that film however, Sherlock Holmes is great.
From the off, Downey Jr. in the lead nails a fantastic accent and between him and Jude Law's Watson the chemistry and comedy work perfectly. Action isn't as integral but is more than I thought, and more visually stunning than I thought it would be.
Holmes doesn't go as much on the detection parts, but it doesn't shy away at points, having preview slow motion fight sequences from Holmes guessing how a fight will go down, in Guy Ritchie's most esque- sequences.
The biggest issue in the film is Rachel McAdams as the lover of Holmes, annoying as always, never fun, poorly written, worse acted and when she appears all quality runs off screen.
And it's a shame as sans McAdams the film is top notch, far superior to the summer's outputs. Mark Strong as the villain is eery and exciting, the plot, whilst long winded and near incomprehensible, is entertaining and does the keep you guessing element well like a good detective tale.
Hans Zimmer's score is truly fantastic, well done, memorable and interesting, using odd instruments to help create the London of a Victorian era, and boy the film gets that well, In comparison to the dark Tim Burton one of 07 and Dorian Gray of recent, it's better, more realistic and easier to see, being not dark in any way whatsoever, take that Gothic over the top directors!
The film plays well, it's long but vastly entertaining, well made and better than most big films of the year, a corker of an action adventure, great actors in the leads, great entertainment and superior in every way to Avatar.
8/10
From the off, Downey Jr. in the lead nails a fantastic accent and between him and Jude Law's Watson the chemistry and comedy work perfectly. Action isn't as integral but is more than I thought, and more visually stunning than I thought it would be.
Holmes doesn't go as much on the detection parts, but it doesn't shy away at points, having preview slow motion fight sequences from Holmes guessing how a fight will go down, in Guy Ritchie's most esque- sequences.
The biggest issue in the film is Rachel McAdams as the lover of Holmes, annoying as always, never fun, poorly written, worse acted and when she appears all quality runs off screen.
And it's a shame as sans McAdams the film is top notch, far superior to the summer's outputs. Mark Strong as the villain is eery and exciting, the plot, whilst long winded and near incomprehensible, is entertaining and does the keep you guessing element well like a good detective tale.
Hans Zimmer's score is truly fantastic, well done, memorable and interesting, using odd instruments to help create the London of a Victorian era, and boy the film gets that well, In comparison to the dark Tim Burton one of 07 and Dorian Gray of recent, it's better, more realistic and easier to see, being not dark in any way whatsoever, take that Gothic over the top directors!
The film plays well, it's long but vastly entertaining, well made and better than most big films of the year, a corker of an action adventure, great actors in the leads, great entertainment and superior in every way to Avatar.
8/10
You know what's hard to get? Unobtanium.
So, Avatar, a long process for a film and here we are, it's out, it's about, and how is it?
Well, most critics agree it's a masterpiece.
Is it?
Well, short answer no, long answer Absolutely not.
15 years to make this?
Well, Cameron clearly spent 5 minutes making a plot, by fingering out 3 films and using their plots, and then 14 years doing 3D and CGI.
The plot is painfully dull, cliched and doesn't even try to regenerate the dying ideas, for a 'gamechanger' it's shit.
The acting, on top of that, is limited to Sam Worthington's unlikeable blah-ness, Sigourney Weaver's unfortunate annoyingness, and two good actors in Stephen Lang as the general, who you root for to kill the Na'Vi and their fucking annoying smugness, and Giovanni Ribisi who has no interest in the indigenous people, instead wants to make money from the 'Unobtanium' in the planet's core.
Unobtanium, that's right, is all the humans want, and the Na'Vi are literally connected to their world, and it's an environmental message played much more subtly in An Inconvenient Truth. The CGI is painfully just better than GI: Joe, the 3D was meh at best, and it never ever tries to be anything more than a 2 and a half hour film about cowboys and indians, however it thinks it's a superior epic.
James Cameron fucked up with his most disappointing, dull, painful film for ages, Titanic was better.
4/10
Well, most critics agree it's a masterpiece.
Is it?
Well, short answer no, long answer Absolutely not.
15 years to make this?
Well, Cameron clearly spent 5 minutes making a plot, by fingering out 3 films and using their plots, and then 14 years doing 3D and CGI.
The plot is painfully dull, cliched and doesn't even try to regenerate the dying ideas, for a 'gamechanger' it's shit.
The acting, on top of that, is limited to Sam Worthington's unlikeable blah-ness, Sigourney Weaver's unfortunate annoyingness, and two good actors in Stephen Lang as the general, who you root for to kill the Na'Vi and their fucking annoying smugness, and Giovanni Ribisi who has no interest in the indigenous people, instead wants to make money from the 'Unobtanium' in the planet's core.
Unobtanium, that's right, is all the humans want, and the Na'Vi are literally connected to their world, and it's an environmental message played much more subtly in An Inconvenient Truth. The CGI is painfully just better than GI: Joe, the 3D was meh at best, and it never ever tries to be anything more than a 2 and a half hour film about cowboys and indians, however it thinks it's a superior epic.
James Cameron fucked up with his most disappointing, dull, painful film for ages, Titanic was better.
4/10
Where The Independent Filmmakers Are
I love Spike Jonze.
I love Spike Jonze more than my love for Richard Kelly, not Kevin Smith love, but by god it's a close battle.
Spike Jonze hasn't just done two masterpieces of cinema in Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, but he's made some amazing short films, exceptional music videos and helped create Jackass. He's got an amazing sense of humour, genius visual style and amazing mix of indie hipster and mainstream.
In Malkovich he gave us the most freaky, funny, bleak tale, in Adaptation we got two Nic Cages (When he was really good) being shot at by Meryl Streep and now, like Wes Anderson, he's chosen to make a kids film.
Or so it seems.
What we get from Jonze and Away We Go writer Dave Eggers is an adaptation of a book from the 60's or 70's that's about a child's reluctance to accept responsibility, instead the violent, bi-polar kid escapes into a fantasy world occupied by parts of his psyche and he learns how hard a job his mother has.
Max Records as the lead is a capable actor, for such a young kid he makes us care enough and wonder what's wrong with him, The Wild things are voiced impeccably with people like Catherine O'Hara (jealous), James Gandolfini (anger), Paul Dano (immaturity), Chris Cooper (compassion) and Forest Whitaker as, well, I dunno.
On top of that Catherine Keener is impeccable as the mother, subtle, simple, sweet.
The film never tries too hard, we have an intro about aggression and depression, some very kid like moments, then a mass escape, then the Wild Things segment which is the majority of the movie, where fascination and childlike wonder meets the mental challenges of the child, and soon it becomes a life lesson.
Between wildly inventive and bleakly compressed, WTWTA manages to be a big budget film that doesn't care about magic and hope, and replaces things like that with the simple artistic devices you'd find in a student production, once again Jonze switches the expected with the opposite, and doesn't even make you expect it. He's a smart one, Mr. Jonze.
Whilst being an odd film, tonally, visually, structurally, it's still an amazing film, a real gem. Script-wise it's impeccable, acting is strong, and if you've yet to catch it, go now, I promise you'll be disappointed if you expect anything big.
9/10
I love Spike Jonze more than my love for Richard Kelly, not Kevin Smith love, but by god it's a close battle.
Spike Jonze hasn't just done two masterpieces of cinema in Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, but he's made some amazing short films, exceptional music videos and helped create Jackass. He's got an amazing sense of humour, genius visual style and amazing mix of indie hipster and mainstream.
In Malkovich he gave us the most freaky, funny, bleak tale, in Adaptation we got two Nic Cages (When he was really good) being shot at by Meryl Streep and now, like Wes Anderson, he's chosen to make a kids film.
Or so it seems.
What we get from Jonze and Away We Go writer Dave Eggers is an adaptation of a book from the 60's or 70's that's about a child's reluctance to accept responsibility, instead the violent, bi-polar kid escapes into a fantasy world occupied by parts of his psyche and he learns how hard a job his mother has.
Max Records as the lead is a capable actor, for such a young kid he makes us care enough and wonder what's wrong with him, The Wild things are voiced impeccably with people like Catherine O'Hara (jealous), James Gandolfini (anger), Paul Dano (immaturity), Chris Cooper (compassion) and Forest Whitaker as, well, I dunno.
On top of that Catherine Keener is impeccable as the mother, subtle, simple, sweet.
The film never tries too hard, we have an intro about aggression and depression, some very kid like moments, then a mass escape, then the Wild Things segment which is the majority of the movie, where fascination and childlike wonder meets the mental challenges of the child, and soon it becomes a life lesson.
Between wildly inventive and bleakly compressed, WTWTA manages to be a big budget film that doesn't care about magic and hope, and replaces things like that with the simple artistic devices you'd find in a student production, once again Jonze switches the expected with the opposite, and doesn't even make you expect it. He's a smart one, Mr. Jonze.
Whilst being an odd film, tonally, visually, structurally, it's still an amazing film, a real gem. Script-wise it's impeccable, acting is strong, and if you've yet to catch it, go now, I promise you'll be disappointed if you expect anything big.
9/10
Me & Linklater's Most Interesting New Direction For Years
Richard Linklater is never a director you can comprehend the choices of, at one point he'll be making a kids film with Jack Black, then a rotoscoping sci-fi film and then a partially Spanish language drama about fast food.
This year he has a film set in '30's New York filmed in the Isle of Man starring Zac Efron and about an early production by Orson Welles. Yeah, exactly, Funny thing is, however, it can sound as shit as possible, but damn him, Linklater knows quality still.
Efron once again proves his talents and charisma isn't just working on tweens, he's fun, engaging and top quality throughout, as a young man trying to get a big break in the theatre it's sweet, his interactions with fellow cast members, trying to be one of the men, and at the same time wooing the 'beautiful' young woman, Clare Danes, who oversees the theatre. I put beautiful in quotation marks because she's supposed to be good looking, but as it plays out, good god she's ugly.
The film manages to be fast paced and witty, entertaining in the build up, the interactions with Efron and the other actors, and of course Orson Welles, played to perfection by Christian McKay who is a shoo-in for an Oscar nod (Though Mr. Chris Waltz will win), It's a shame that people would avoid the film due to Efron's appearance in the film, alongside Hairspray, he's showing his qualities are vast and his talent is underused in the Disney career he's begun with, in the next 10 years he's gonna break out and be a BIG star, you can count on that.
The film looks amazing, you could never tell it wasn't shot in New York, and the palette is well done, almost an amalgamation of the period setting being realistic and the sepia tone we see it from footage nowadays. The music is big and broad, the script is brilliant, acting fantastic and the direction is top notch. A small and subtle film that won't be noted much but is superior to what you might expect.
9/10
This year he has a film set in '30's New York filmed in the Isle of Man starring Zac Efron and about an early production by Orson Welles. Yeah, exactly, Funny thing is, however, it can sound as shit as possible, but damn him, Linklater knows quality still.
Efron once again proves his talents and charisma isn't just working on tweens, he's fun, engaging and top quality throughout, as a young man trying to get a big break in the theatre it's sweet, his interactions with fellow cast members, trying to be one of the men, and at the same time wooing the 'beautiful' young woman, Clare Danes, who oversees the theatre. I put beautiful in quotation marks because she's supposed to be good looking, but as it plays out, good god she's ugly.
The film manages to be fast paced and witty, entertaining in the build up, the interactions with Efron and the other actors, and of course Orson Welles, played to perfection by Christian McKay who is a shoo-in for an Oscar nod (Though Mr. Chris Waltz will win), It's a shame that people would avoid the film due to Efron's appearance in the film, alongside Hairspray, he's showing his qualities are vast and his talent is underused in the Disney career he's begun with, in the next 10 years he's gonna break out and be a BIG star, you can count on that.
The film looks amazing, you could never tell it wasn't shot in New York, and the palette is well done, almost an amalgamation of the period setting being realistic and the sepia tone we see it from footage nowadays. The music is big and broad, the script is brilliant, acting fantastic and the direction is top notch. A small and subtle film that won't be noted much but is superior to what you might expect.
9/10
WHAT'S IN THE BOX! WHAT'S IN THE BOX!
Richard Kelly is very marmite, he's one you love, of which I sit in that camp with a passion, or you hate his works, like a lot of people.
You can claim Donnie Darko is a masterpiece, doesn't mean you love his work, Southland Tales is the deal-breaker. No one seemed to like it, poor reception at Cannes, recut, sorted out, limited release after a year and a half later, critics and the few who saw it still unimpressed.
What I saw was a very funny, odd, eccentric fantasy comedy drama thriller that doesn't really want you to keep track of what's going on unless you actually care enough to watch the film, rather than ignore it and hope to know what's going on.
People hate to be active.
I would love to say that the third feature from Mr. Kelly was up there with his last two greats, the first chance I got to see one of his films in the cinema, The Box stars Cameron Diaz who manages to not be completely awful, James Marsden who is always good and Frank Langella who is very creepy but easy to watch. Add to that Holmes Osbourne once more, who is great though underused, and the cast is solid.
It's a shame, however, that the film never really gets good enough for the talent involved. It's tense, really tense at points, the pre-push the button sequence, the final 10 minutes, it can be horrendously hard to watch, however the hour and forty in between the tense stuff, whilst interesting and funny near the start, can be a drag. After 40 mins the titular decision gets made, and until the last 10 minutes the film slows to a snails pace, sometimes it's a detective tale, other times it's about aliens, but it's never interesting, getting painful. I wish I could say it was at the very least consistent but alas it tends to lend itself to a boring waste of time with a good start and amazing ending. Sorry Mr. Kelly, this isn't a step in the right direction.
7/10
You can claim Donnie Darko is a masterpiece, doesn't mean you love his work, Southland Tales is the deal-breaker. No one seemed to like it, poor reception at Cannes, recut, sorted out, limited release after a year and a half later, critics and the few who saw it still unimpressed.
What I saw was a very funny, odd, eccentric fantasy comedy drama thriller that doesn't really want you to keep track of what's going on unless you actually care enough to watch the film, rather than ignore it and hope to know what's going on.
People hate to be active.
I would love to say that the third feature from Mr. Kelly was up there with his last two greats, the first chance I got to see one of his films in the cinema, The Box stars Cameron Diaz who manages to not be completely awful, James Marsden who is always good and Frank Langella who is very creepy but easy to watch. Add to that Holmes Osbourne once more, who is great though underused, and the cast is solid.
It's a shame, however, that the film never really gets good enough for the talent involved. It's tense, really tense at points, the pre-push the button sequence, the final 10 minutes, it can be horrendously hard to watch, however the hour and forty in between the tense stuff, whilst interesting and funny near the start, can be a drag. After 40 mins the titular decision gets made, and until the last 10 minutes the film slows to a snails pace, sometimes it's a detective tale, other times it's about aliens, but it's never interesting, getting painful. I wish I could say it was at the very least consistent but alas it tends to lend itself to a boring waste of time with a good start and amazing ending. Sorry Mr. Kelly, this isn't a step in the right direction.
7/10
Friday 1 January 2010
Top 25 of 2009: Part 2 Top 10
10. Watchmen
Directed by Zach Snyder
Written by David Hayter and Alex Tse
Starring Billy Crudup, Malin Akerman, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino & Matthew Goode
This time last year I still had no clue what Watchmen really was, I saw the Movie-Con footage, violent and interesting visually,but not full of any kind of coherent story. Then, last February, I finally got round to reading the novel. And it hit me. It's longwinded, slow, and in classic Alan Moore style, the dialogue is near appallingly generic through and through, but the ideas, the characters, the structure, it was so well done, clear parody without ever pushing humour, instead going for a serious meditation over the ideas of costumed heroes.
And the film doesn't fail to do it justice. The film, of course, couldn't tell the WHOLE spectrum of the novel, it leaves out the Black Freighter, which is how I read it, skipping over those parts, but on top of the amazing visuals, the story is well told, the action well done but minimal, the acting near top tier, thanks to Matthew Goode and Malin Akerman for being shit.
Patrick Wilson gives the understated performance of this year, akin to Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent, perfect but underrated, especially between Jeffrey Dean Morgan's loud, violent, brash but still within inches of humanity performance as The Comedian, Billy Crudup's total removal of humanity as Dr. Manhattan, and most of all Jackie Earle Haley's sterling work as moral vigilante Rorschach, clearly a messed up person, but one who sticks by his guns throughout.
A sublime 3 hour film, better of course in the director's cut edition where the 3 hours flow by at a superior pace, and new additions from the novel are added in perfectly. See this movie.
9. Crank 2: High Voltage
Written & Directed by Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Starring Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Efren Ramirez, Dwight Yoakam, Art Hsu, Ling Bai, Clifton Collins Jr., David Carradine & Joseph Julian Soria
If your top 10 of 2009 list includes Star Trek but has no conscious notion of Crank 2 inside it, then your top 10 sucks. Not only did Star Trek come out a month later, but it was no where near as well done, plot wise, character wise or action wise. Lens flare can go fuck itself, this is adrenaline fueled filmmaking at it's finest, a step up from the first, whilst not as good, Neveldin/Taylor raised the bar of just how fucked up they are wiling to get in the series as Chev Chelios now has his heart stolen and powers off the mains as he kills people. It's not political correct, it's not for kids and it's not for the mainstream, it never lets up and it's not taking itself seriously, it's about as ballsed up as a film can get and it's super hysterical. Fuck Star Trek.
8. In The Loop
Directed by Armando Iannucci
Written by Simon Blackwell, Jesse Armstong, Tony Roche & Armando Iannucci
Starring Tom Holander, Chris Addison, Peter Capaldi, Gina McKee, Steve Coogan, James Gandolfini & Paul Higgins
Written by Simon Blackwell, Jesse Armstong, Tony Roche & Armando Iannucci
Starring Tom Holander, Chris Addison, Peter Capaldi, Gina McKee, Steve Coogan, James Gandolfini & Paul Higgins
The Thick Of It is genius. Right. Now, expand that humour to an hour and fourty minutes. OMG WOW amirite? Yeah, ok, but it's a feature, the x-odd hundred people who saw Thick Of It on BBC4 won't do as the audience, we need to expand. Add some Americans in, maybe they'll flock to see it. Hmm, how does that work? Well, sadly it weakens the film a bit, softening the bludgeoning hell that Westminster politics is shown as, instead we have 3/4 of a film full of anger, vulgarity and genius, and 1/4 a weaker, more pleasantly toned film, but ultimately one that has none of the punch the other 3/4 has, so it's to that 3/4 we say, thank you, for lines so wonderful as "It's not easy peasy lemon squezy, it's difficult difficult lemon difficult" and "You really are a boring fuck, you know that. I know you hate swearing, sorry, you really are a boring F star star cunt"
Peter Capaldi shines once again as Malcolm Tucker, PM's spin doctor extraordinaire, Chris Addison as intern Toby once again brings the snarky mean comedy he's presented in the show so well, newcomer Tom Holander is amazing and fits in so well as the cabinet minister who gets shoved firmly up shit creek throughout the film, if only they never left England, this film would have been contender for number 1.
7. The Hurt Locker
Directed by Katheryn Bigelow
Written by Mark Boal
Starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty
Written by Mark Boal
Starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty
Once in a while there's a film made that you sit down, and not at one point do you begin wandering your eyes around the cinema. Rarely, however, are you so invested in the characters and story that you are biting your nails on the edge of your seat for nearly the complete runtime of the film. The hurt Locker really nails you down and pushes you to the edge and stops just before you have a heart attack. It's one of the most intense films made for years, and Ms. Bigelow certainly knows what she's doing. There's about 6 big sequences, and all of them get you hooked, they may run for over 15 minutes, but they feel like they're only 3 minutes apiece, and it's all interesting, handled well and simply perfect. I re-watched this film in HD recently and it more than holds up, I knew what happened in each scene, but it didn't stop the tension from hitting hard. A true masterpiece, acted well, shot well, edited perfectly, written extraordinarily, everything is note perfect.
6. Moon
Directed by Duncan Jones
Written by Nathan Parker
Starring Sam Rockwell, Sam Rockwell, Matt Berry, Benedict Wong & Kevin Spacey
You have £5 million, Sam Rockwell and a script not just set in a space station, but featuring outside shots of the Earth's satellite. What do you do? Besides leaving sound in space and not having limited gravity, you get to Pinewood, as the writer's strike hits all other productions hard, and make your film using some real talents, miniatures, Kevin Spacey as a robot and then throw some CGI on to help the miniatures have a realistic edge to them, then release an adult sci-fi drama that's smart, simple and entertaining. Duncan Jones knows what he's doing with his first feature, a true jaw dropping piece of work on all accounts, and when you get 2 Sam Rockwells on camera together, and playing ping pong, there's no way you can say it's a piece of crap. Definite contender for the Oscars, especially since it's high time Sam Rockwell got one, he so deserves it.
5. Fanboys
Directed by Kyle NewmanWritten by Ernest Cline and Adam F. Goldberg
Starring Jay Baruchel, Dan Fogler, Sam Huntington, Chris Marquette, Kristen Bell, Seth Rogen & many many awesome cameos.
After years of waiting a friend linked me to a download of this film, I hated having to do this, but it was the only chance I had to get to see this film, it's still not seen the UK, though I've pimped it out everywhere. The day I saw it was actually 1am on Star Wars day, who knew. Fanboys is simply put a wonderful comedy that, unlike The Big Bang Theory, respects the geeks in people, not just playing them up for laughs among the masses. With some real great actors, some who will definitely be big names soon enough, we're hoping Mr. Baruchel, we're hoping, and lots and lots of great Star Wars cameos, and just cool people, like Danny Trejo, Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes and Zak Knutson, the road trip comedy about a group of friends who plan to break into Skywalker Ranch and steal a first cut print of Episode 1 for their friend Linus, who has cancer and won't see the release, is a well handled comedy with dramatic elements, unfortunately not enough because our friends at The Weinstein Company only gave a day or so to re-insert the cancer plotline after fearing cancer and comedy don't work well, if anything it emphasises the comedy and adds so much more heart to the piece.
Whilst we wish an original cut of Newman's version will be released one day, import the DVD from America and have a great time, trust me.
4. Zombieland
Directed by Ruben FleischerWritten by Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin & The Cameo.
Zombies. They've been fuel for nightmares for decades, and only recently have people gone for a more comedic route, see Shaun Of The Dead for a brilliant take on the zombie tale. Zombieland goes for an American style rom-zom-com, young man, still a virgin naturally, survives in the desolate America where the undead roam, meets a gun-toting man, strong, little dumb but good at survival, and they travel together, wherein they meet two young vixens, and then young man and young woman fall in love. It's vulgar, violent and very very very very very funny, add to that great use of text, an opening credit sequence that only Watchmen pips to the post and the cameo from a world famous funnyman, it's all brilliant, and a must see.
3. (500) Days Of Summer
Directed by Marc Webb
Written by Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
Starring Joeseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel
Rom coms, sometimes they can be well done, mostly they are middle of the road, not awful, just, not good. Sometimes they are pure cack.
This isn't a rom com. This is a comedy drama about a relationship, a woman who is a complete bitch and everything possible that makes going shopping in Ikea so damn fun. The two leads are extraordinary as always, the comedy is hysterical through and through, the music fantastic, the style of the piece genius, non-linear, jumping around, sometimes even looking into fantasy and reality simultaneously. A sublime comedy that I've waited months to watch for a third time, I loved it so much that the wait has been painful, nearly over. Simply brilliant.
2. Inglourious Basterds
Written & Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Christopher Waltz, Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, Til Schweiger, Daniel Bruhl, Michael Fassbender and Melanie Laurent
Tarantino films have a shelf life of about 6 screenings before they really turn kinda sour. Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Death Proof, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, some elements are great, but for the most part all those films are kinda dull, a little too over the top in every respect, and, well, just annoying at points. Basterds is not. The ensemble cast works perfectly as we jump between the serious tale of Shoshanna and the Nazi premiere party mixed with the comedic action of the Basterds trying to scalp Nazis and invade the premiere. But tying it all together with the intimidating danger and hilarious comedy is Chris Waltz as 'The Jew Hunter' Colonel Hans Landa. He's viscous, dangerous and scary, you are never sure what he's up to, if you want to laugh at his lines or want to hide in case he finds you, and in that lies the genius which keeps Basterds away from the rotting nature of Tarantino's other films. It's a wonderful film, paced well, shot perfectly and with a great soundtrack, dialogue, acting, nothing is wrong with this film, a perfect WW2 action film, of which there haven't been many for years. The last one to be as good or as funny was Schindler's List.
(If I go to hell for that joke it was worth it)
1. Away We Go
Directed by Sam Mendes
Written by Steve Eggers & Vendela Vida
Starring John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jeff Daniels, Catherine O'Hara & Allison Janney
And here we are, numero uno, the shock, the twist, the upset. This year I sat in a cinema and watched a film for free, the film started too early so was rewound and replayed, so I missed the opening, then saw the opening and had to re-watch scenes again before setting off. And I wasn't even that big a fan of it. Of course 2 weeks later the film was released and I went to see it. 2 hours later I left the screening in love. Soon enough I imported the Blu Ray and have watched it continuously for months. Away We Go is a funny, well told tale of two people in love, starting a family, but trying to find a place to plant their roots. At times it can be brutal to watch, and particularly moving, beautiful but tragic. Other times it can be the funniest parts of the year. And the two leads in Krasinski and Rudolph rise above the Office and SNL roots that have made them so famous, the last big films they were in were Idiocracy and License to Wed, so seeing them so adult, serious, hysterical but able to hold a film on their own with the chemistry so strong and real you'd swear they genuinely were in love is amazing to watch.
The writing is near perfect, Eggers once again proves himself to be masterful in writing, Mendes' directing is fantastic,a particular shot of a plane taking off through reflections on glass is breathtaking, the music by Alexi Murdoch is nothing short of brilliant and everything in this film is superb, if you haven't seen it yet, check it out NOW!
And as we depart that year and head into 2010 I only have one thing to say to the last year.
FUCK YOU!
You sucked massively, it was so hard compiling this list that only at number 12 (The Wrestler) did films that got 10/10 ratings appear, usually I have over 30 10/10 films. Not this year!
Lots of hate, Andrew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
