An oddity, this one. A film about a television interview. OK, so the clash between light entertainment presenter David Frost and disgraced former US President Richard Nixon is probably the most famous political interview there has ever been, but still... a whole film dedicated to an interview?
And in all honesty, it doesn't quite work. It falls into the trap of mixing fact and fiction. On the evening of the final interview - the one where Nixon famously declared "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal" in defence of his actions over Watergate - the film shows an entirely fictitious telephone call between Frost and a drunken Nixon which attempts to draw parallels between the former President and the TV chatshow host. To me, this is cheating... If you want to make a point about the supposed similarities between the two men, then I think you have to do it without inventing events like this.
More fundamentally, perhaps, I think this is an attempt to rewrite history. At the time of the interview, the consensus was the Frost had 'lost' this gladiatorial contest - that he never really was able to extract from Nixon anything approaching an admission, far less an apology. The way the film tells it, through fairly carefully selected editing of the interview footage (Sheen's Frost and Langella's Nixon do use the script of the original interview) you might think that Frost conclusively defeated Nixon. It simply wasn't so.
There are other niggles. I don't understand quite why it was thought a good idea to have the actors appear giving 'talking head' commentary on the subsequent impact of the events, as if this were a documentary rather than a drama. And Sheen's Frost often reminds me just a little too much of his Tony Blair. Though, to be fair, there was always something of the light entertainer about Blair.
Redeeming features? Well, Frank Langella deserved his Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the lugubrious, disgraced Nixon. And 1970s Britain and America are convincingly brought back to life. All the same, I came out thinking that this was a film that had little to say and that it is hard to understand quite how it ended up with a Best Picture nomination
Saturday 14 March 2009
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Che: Part 2
Genre:
Plot:
Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio del Toro) travels to Bolivia to wage his final revolution.Viewed: 22/02/09
Score: 5/6
The second instalment in the saga of Che Guevara manages to surpass the high standard of the first film, which I was not expecting. Benicio del Toro dazzles with his acting ability yet again, and the support cast all help add the air of authenticity to the proceedings. Cinematography is excellent. Throughout, dialogue, events and even fire-fights are conducted in an understated way that only enhances their impact. From the get-go we are shown how the Bolivian 'revolution' was ill conceived, beset with mistakes and misfortune. Once Guevara and his band of revolutionaries had entered the country, they was no way out. Unable to convince the peasants to join the cause, recruit many new fighters or even secure the backing of the Bolivian Communist Party; the revolutionaries battle the vastly superior U.S. trained Bolivian Army. Until, inevitably, they are either killed, or captured then executed - as happened to Che Guevara. Viewers are left to decide for themselves whether he was a visionary and stuck to his beliefs no matter what, or just arrogant and not as good a guerrilla as history portrays him.
Was Che was noble and courageous like the film (based on his own memoirs) portrays? Only further research could prove, but I doubt he was. Certainly he believed the Marxist fallacy that revolution is inevitable.
Bolt 3D
Tagline:
A hero is unleashed 2008.Plot:
The canine star of a fictional sci-fi/action show that believes his powers are real embarks on a cross country trek to save his co-star from a threat he believes is just as realViewed: 15/02/09
Score: 3/6
Pixar (or Disney Pixar as it now is) have given the world some of the most memorable and entertaining animations. Toy Story 1 & 2 for example. Unfortunately 'Bolt' is not of the same calibre. It relies on the old animated/family themes of friendship, loyalty and your true home. Bolt, the protagonist is the canine star of a TV show about a dog with super-powers. He believes that the show is reality. When he inadvertently leaves the set he must adjust to the world and his actual identity. Capturing a cat who he mistakes for his TV nemesis' side-kick, he Bolt travels across the US trying to find his 'owner' who he believes has been kidnapped. On the way they team up with an excitable hamster.
Of course, the plots to animations are always unrealistic and a bit silly, that's part of their appeal. But the plot must be given depth, humour and characters who hold the attention in order to work. Bolt and the cat, Penny, are not strong characters and do not have the charm of say, Sully from 'Monsters Inc.' or Nemo from 'Finding Nemo'. Rhino the hamster is the stand-out character, but perhaps that is down to my personal fondness for hamsters.
The animation is flawless, which is to be expected from a Disney Pixar production and that helps prevent the film from being a complete wash-out. Jokes and gags utilised are not really laugh out loud, just passingly amusing. In fact, once you leave the auditorium there is nothing to make the movie stick in your head.
Monday 2 March 2009
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Genre:
Tagline:
On January 16, Get Your Heart Broken.Plot:
Tom returns to his hometown on the tenth anniversary of the Valentine's night massacre that claimed the lives of 22 people. Instead of a homecoming, however, Tom finds himself suspected of committing the murders, and it seems like his old flame is the only one will believes he's innocentViewed: 12/02/09
Score: 1/6
I'm not going to waste much time on this horrible use of celluloid. A 're-imagining' of an eighties gore-fest, not even the novelty of 3D technology can save it. Unfortunately the screenings were always packed and it most likely raked in a fortune for the film company. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible dialogue. Enough said!
Milk
Tagline:
His life changed history. His courage changed lives.Plot:
The story of California's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk, a San Francisco supervisor who was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone by San Francisco Supervisor Dan White.Viewed: 01/02/09
Score: 5/6
I knew nothing about the story of Harvey Milk before I saw this film, but with Sean Penn being one of my favourite actors and Gus Van Sant directing, I figured it was worth some of my time.
Sean Penn gives an amazing performance, at his best when portraying Milk recording onto a tape to be played in the case of his assassination. Supporting cast members are excellent as well, especially Emile Hirsch as Cleve Jones. Splicing TV archive footage into the film really captures the atmosphere and ethos of the time period.
Quite how Harvey Milk went from being a closet homosexual working for an insurance company to a prominent gay rights activist is not made clear, most of it is put down to his relationship with Scott Smith, played by James Franco. However, when the switch is made, Sean Penn actually seems to be living Milk's life again and puts over his passionate crusade to ensure homosexuals are treated as equals in the face of lunatic Christian fundamentalism and good old fashioned homophobia.
One weak point in the film was Josh Brolin playing Dan White, a fellow City supervisor with Milk and his eventual murderer. He came across as a non-character, perhaps because not enough is known about him and the writers didn't want to make up history as they went along. White's motives for killing Milk and the Mayor are not explained, again, perhaps because no-one really knows. From what happened in the film it seemed that Dan White blamed Milk and Mayor Moscone for the failure of his own mediocre political career.
However, that aside it is very hard to fault this emotionally gripping piece of cinema and it deserves all the industry awards it gets. The only film I've seen this year that I'd consider buying on DVD.
Slumdog Millionaire
Directors:
Score: 4/6
A movie hailed as 'The feel-good film of the year' does not inspire enthusiasm in jaded cynics such as myself. Were it not for the fact that my date wanted to see it, I would have avoided doing so. That would have been my loss. Jamal, the main character played by Dev Patel has a very hard life. No 'poor but happy' nonsense here. Orphaned after their mother is murdered, he and his brother must survive by their wits. India is portrayed as a country of contrasts, civilisation beside abject poverty. Whilst Jamal stays true to his good nature and always seems to finish last, his brother gradually adopts a life of crime. All through the film, Jamal is obsessed with finding his childhood sweetheart Latika.
Viewers are transported between present day Jamal being interrogated by the Police (read tortured) and his childhood, showing how his life has lead him to knowing the answers to the questions on India's version of 'Who wants to be a Millionaire'.
Of course, in the end he gets set free, wins the prize money and gets the girl. But there is enough darkness and strife to keep those of us who hate a happy ending content.
Danny Boyle keeps the story rattling along at a good pace and carries the audience with him. Acting is not outstanding but more than adequate for the purposes of the plot. No punches are pulled depicting Jamal's interrogation or life in Mumbai slums. Oscars are rumoured but I'd say that would be going a bit too far.
Tagline:
Love and money... You have mixed them both.Plot:
A Mumbai teen who grew up in the slums, becomes a contestant on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" He is arrested under suspicion of cheating, and while being interrogated, events from his life history are shown which explain why he knows the answers.
Viewed: 25/01/09Score: 4/6
A movie hailed as 'The feel-good film of the year' does not inspire enthusiasm in jaded cynics such as myself. Were it not for the fact that my date wanted to see it, I would have avoided doing so. That would have been my loss. Jamal, the main character played by Dev Patel has a very hard life. No 'poor but happy' nonsense here. Orphaned after their mother is murdered, he and his brother must survive by their wits. India is portrayed as a country of contrasts, civilisation beside abject poverty. Whilst Jamal stays true to his good nature and always seems to finish last, his brother gradually adopts a life of crime. All through the film, Jamal is obsessed with finding his childhood sweetheart Latika.
Viewers are transported between present day Jamal being interrogated by the Police (read tortured) and his childhood, showing how his life has lead him to knowing the answers to the questions on India's version of 'Who wants to be a Millionaire'.
Of course, in the end he gets set free, wins the prize money and gets the girl. But there is enough darkness and strife to keep those of us who hate a happy ending content.
Danny Boyle keeps the story rattling along at a good pace and carries the audience with him. Acting is not outstanding but more than adequate for the purposes of the plot. No punches are pulled depicting Jamal's interrogation or life in Mumbai slums. Oscars are rumoured but I'd say that would be going a bit too far.
Saturday 14 February 2009
Valkyrie
Director:Bryan Singer
Writers (WGA):Christopher McQuarrie (written by) &Nathan Alexander (written by)
Release Date:23 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Drama History Thriller War more
Tagline:Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.
Plot:Based on actual events, a plot to assassinate Hitler is unfurled during the height of WWII.
Viewed: 23/01/09
Score: 2/6
Given the many fine films set in Nazi Germany and occupied territories, I was intrigued by one based around a historical plot to assassinate Hitler. This movie had a lot of things going for it; a fine cast including Kenneth Branagh and Bill Nighy, plus director Bryan Singer at the helm. Most of all, the storyline is a cracker. Protagonist Claus von Stauffenberg is a disillusioned German Colonel who, after being badly injured, joins a cadre of dissident officers and politicians planning to kill Hitler and overthrow his Nazi regime as the tide of war turns against Germany. Stakes, both personal and national, could not have been higher.
Sadly, even with an open goal mouth, the film fails to score. Tom Cruise is woefully miscast in the lead, looking, sounding and acting completely out of place with his fellow cast members and plot material. Even more damaging, the movie relies a lot on dialogue, but this is delivered in such awkward, stilted and disjointed fashion that the impact of even the most profound statements is completely lost. Characters are wooden and one dimensional, with the exception of Tom Wilkinson as the cowardly and indecisive General Friedrich Fromm.
In fact, it is so hard to care about any of the characters that when the plot fails and the ‘traitors’ are executed, I just thought ‘Oh well, wonder if I’ve got any messages on my phone’. The one plus was the interest of learning about how the attempted coup was planned and staged.
Hopefully one day another writer, director and cast will give the material the treatment it deserves.
Writers (WGA):Christopher McQuarrie (written by) &Nathan Alexander (written by)
Release Date:23 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Drama History Thriller War more
Tagline:Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.
Plot:Based on actual events, a plot to assassinate Hitler is unfurled during the height of WWII.
Viewed: 23/01/09
Score: 2/6
Given the many fine films set in Nazi Germany and occupied territories, I was intrigued by one based around a historical plot to assassinate Hitler. This movie had a lot of things going for it; a fine cast including Kenneth Branagh and Bill Nighy, plus director Bryan Singer at the helm. Most of all, the storyline is a cracker. Protagonist Claus von Stauffenberg is a disillusioned German Colonel who, after being badly injured, joins a cadre of dissident officers and politicians planning to kill Hitler and overthrow his Nazi regime as the tide of war turns against Germany. Stakes, both personal and national, could not have been higher.
Sadly, even with an open goal mouth, the film fails to score. Tom Cruise is woefully miscast in the lead, looking, sounding and acting completely out of place with his fellow cast members and plot material. Even more damaging, the movie relies a lot on dialogue, but this is delivered in such awkward, stilted and disjointed fashion that the impact of even the most profound statements is completely lost. Characters are wooden and one dimensional, with the exception of Tom Wilkinson as the cowardly and indecisive General Friedrich Fromm.
In fact, it is so hard to care about any of the characters that when the plot fails and the ‘traitors’ are executed, I just thought ‘Oh well, wonder if I’ve got any messages on my phone’. The one plus was the interest of learning about how the attempted coup was planned and staged.
Hopefully one day another writer, director and cast will give the material the treatment it deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)