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.
Friday 13 February 2009
The Wrestler
Director:Darren Aronofsky
Writer (WGA):Robert D. Siegel (written by)
Release Date:16 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Drama Sport more
Tagline:Love. Pain. Glory.
Plot:A drama centered on retired professional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson as he makes his way through the independent circuit...
Viewed 18/01/09
Score: 4/6
As with any movie hyped to the rafters, I approached the screen with a mixture of excitement and cynicism. Mickey Rourke has always been a powerful, if under-utilised actor. Here he gets the chance to shine and boy does he put his all into the role, making the character of ‘The Ram’ completely believable in all his flawed humanity.
Plot-wise, nothing is very original. One time star in entertainment ‘X’ has fallen on hard times and is generally a mess. Then he gets one more chance at a come-back.
However, this time, ‘X’ is pro-wrestling, which I actually know something about.
I feel that the ‘sport’ is captured perfectly, a staged display of athletic prowess where the audience can suspend disbelief and get caught up in the spectacle.
‘The Wrestler’ concentrates on the small time promotions, far from the glitz and glamour of WWE or TNA. Grubby halls, small audiences, low pay.
‘The Ram’ does what he does because he loves it and it is the one thing he was ever good at. Even if that means nowadays he takes part in ‘Extreme’ matches involving staple-guns, barb wire and broken glass. In case you’re wondering, the injuries Randy is shown as receiving are a genuine representation of ones received in that sort of ‘contest’. So is the portrayal of the slightly disturbing blood lust-filled crowd. After one particularly vicious encounter, the steroid-pumped Randy suffers a heart attack and is told he has to quit. Quit the wrestling, quit the steroids, basically quit everything that makes him who he is.
He turns to an aging stripper called Cassidy (played by an excellent Marisa Tomei) for understanding, and attempts to build a relationship with her. Randy has no real friends, family or human contact in his life. Very Country and Western. Most importantly, he also attempts reconciliation with his estranged daughter.
Of course, after things look on the up, it all goes wrong because his flaws run very deep indeed. For example, instead of meeting his daughter for dinner, he’s sleeping off a cocaine fuelled sex romp. Burning all his bridges and risking a fatal second heart attack, ‘The Ram’ returns to the ring for a re-match of his most famous bout.
My main complaint about this film is that events can be seen coming well before they happen and there is nothing to surprise or catch the viewer off guard. All the cast turn in powerful and creditable performances which lifts the movie out of the maudlin sludge it could have become. Pathos is practically shoved down your throat and the force feeding continues right until the end of Bruce Springsteen’s song that plays over the end credits. I felt that I was being unnecessarily forced to feel sympathy when the cast were perfectly capable of making their characters earn it.
To conclude, the film is a lot like its main protagonist. Flawed, talented and in spite of everything, very likeable.
Writer (WGA):Robert D. Siegel (written by)
Release Date:16 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Drama Sport more
Tagline:Love. Pain. Glory.
Plot:A drama centered on retired professional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson as he makes his way through the independent circuit...
Viewed 18/01/09
Score: 4/6
As with any movie hyped to the rafters, I approached the screen with a mixture of excitement and cynicism. Mickey Rourke has always been a powerful, if under-utilised actor. Here he gets the chance to shine and boy does he put his all into the role, making the character of ‘The Ram’ completely believable in all his flawed humanity.
Plot-wise, nothing is very original. One time star in entertainment ‘X’ has fallen on hard times and is generally a mess. Then he gets one more chance at a come-back.
However, this time, ‘X’ is pro-wrestling, which I actually know something about.
I feel that the ‘sport’ is captured perfectly, a staged display of athletic prowess where the audience can suspend disbelief and get caught up in the spectacle.
‘The Wrestler’ concentrates on the small time promotions, far from the glitz and glamour of WWE or TNA. Grubby halls, small audiences, low pay.
‘The Ram’ does what he does because he loves it and it is the one thing he was ever good at. Even if that means nowadays he takes part in ‘Extreme’ matches involving staple-guns, barb wire and broken glass. In case you’re wondering, the injuries Randy is shown as receiving are a genuine representation of ones received in that sort of ‘contest’. So is the portrayal of the slightly disturbing blood lust-filled crowd. After one particularly vicious encounter, the steroid-pumped Randy suffers a heart attack and is told he has to quit. Quit the wrestling, quit the steroids, basically quit everything that makes him who he is.
He turns to an aging stripper called Cassidy (played by an excellent Marisa Tomei) for understanding, and attempts to build a relationship with her. Randy has no real friends, family or human contact in his life. Very Country and Western. Most importantly, he also attempts reconciliation with his estranged daughter.
Of course, after things look on the up, it all goes wrong because his flaws run very deep indeed. For example, instead of meeting his daughter for dinner, he’s sleeping off a cocaine fuelled sex romp. Burning all his bridges and risking a fatal second heart attack, ‘The Ram’ returns to the ring for a re-match of his most famous bout.
My main complaint about this film is that events can be seen coming well before they happen and there is nothing to surprise or catch the viewer off guard. All the cast turn in powerful and creditable performances which lifts the movie out of the maudlin sludge it could have become. Pathos is practically shoved down your throat and the force feeding continues right until the end of Bruce Springsteen’s song that plays over the end credits. I felt that I was being unnecessarily forced to feel sympathy when the cast were perfectly capable of making their characters earn it.
To conclude, the film is a lot like its main protagonist. Flawed, talented and in spite of everything, very likeable.
Introduction to my 'fifty two films...' posts
OK, so I've already started posting blogs but thought I'd better give a quick intro as well. The aim is, obviously, to see fifty two films over the year. The criteria I've set myself are as follows: The film must be viewed at the cinema (forcing me to get my money's worth from Cineworld unlimited card); I cannot have seen the film before.
I'll post a short review of each film I see, plus give it a score out of six, with zero as the lowest possible and six as the highest. To score six, a film must truly amaze, dazzle and entertain me. Six is not awarded lightly.
Please feel free to comment on my reviews, disagree with them or laugh at my choice of viewing material.
I'll post a short review of each film I see, plus give it a score out of six, with zero as the lowest possible and six as the highest. To score six, a film must truly amaze, dazzle and entertain me. Six is not awarded lightly.
Please feel free to comment on my reviews, disagree with them or laugh at my choice of viewing material.
Tuesday 10 February 2009
Milk
A film about a city councillor in San Francisco in the 1970s? Surely not. Put that way, the premise of Milk doesn't sound like an entertaining evening's cinema. There's a bit more to Harvey Milk's story than that, though.
Milk was probably the first openly gay elected politician in the western world. It's strange to think how much has changed in only 30 years (it's really not much of a story that the Prime Minister of Iceland, or several members of the British Cabinet are, these days). The film does a good job of taking us back in time to early 70s California - so good in fact that its really rather difficult to tell apart the archive footage that is spliced into the film.
The film does a remarkable job of maintaining the tension leading up to Milk's assassination in spite of the fact that the ending is known from the start - a remarkable achievement really. Nonetheless, it did feel as if the relationship between Milk and his assassin, Dan White, was skipped over by the film. It is implied that White may have been a closet homosexual himself (I have no idea how much evidence there is for this one way or the other - always one of the dangers of making films based on real-life events) but the film ends up hinting at this and then moving on. It also entirely fails to explain why White shot not only Milk but San Francisco mayor George Moscone. It ends up feeling as if the real action is happening off-screen.
Nonetheless, it's well worth seeing, not least for Sean Penn's standout performance as Milk. He gets the camp mannerisms just right - neither lapsing into caricature nor obliterrating them entirely. If Mickey Rourke doesn't pick up the best actor gong at the Oscars next week, then I think it would be an injustice if Penn didn't get it either.
Milk was probably the first openly gay elected politician in the western world. It's strange to think how much has changed in only 30 years (it's really not much of a story that the Prime Minister of Iceland, or several members of the British Cabinet are, these days). The film does a good job of taking us back in time to early 70s California - so good in fact that its really rather difficult to tell apart the archive footage that is spliced into the film.
The film does a remarkable job of maintaining the tension leading up to Milk's assassination in spite of the fact that the ending is known from the start - a remarkable achievement really. Nonetheless, it did feel as if the relationship between Milk and his assassin, Dan White, was skipped over by the film. It is implied that White may have been a closet homosexual himself (I have no idea how much evidence there is for this one way or the other - always one of the dangers of making films based on real-life events) but the film ends up hinting at this and then moving on. It also entirely fails to explain why White shot not only Milk but San Francisco mayor George Moscone. It ends up feeling as if the real action is happening off-screen.
Nonetheless, it's well worth seeing, not least for Sean Penn's standout performance as Milk. He gets the camp mannerisms just right - neither lapsing into caricature nor obliterrating them entirely. If Mickey Rourke doesn't pick up the best actor gong at the Oscars next week, then I think it would be an injustice if Penn didn't get it either.
Sunday 1 February 2009
The Wrestler
After The Reader, for which Kate Winslet won Best Actress at the Golden Globes, The Wrestler, for which Micky Rourke got the Best Actor gong is a fairly radical change of mood, subject matter and tone.
The film tells the story of an aging wrestler, Randy 'The Ram' Robinson. He had been a star in the late 1980s, but in the film he's reduced to making a living fighting living alone in a mobile home on a run-down trailer park, his health failing, alienated from his family, and forced to work in a supermarket during the week to make ends meet.
After a heart attack, he gives up wrestling on doctor's orders, but, finding life as a supermarket worker unbearably dull, and after a failed attempt at reconciliation with his estranged daughter, he gets back in the ring for one last time - for a 're-match' with the (amusingly named) Ayatollah. It doesn't sound like much of a premise for a film, you might think. Hasn't the 'aging sporting hero coming back for one last shot at glory' been done plenty times before? And with sports that are actually, well, sports, and not just hi-energy acting?
That may be true, but I loved this film. Not least because the very absurdity of Randy's world - the nerdy fans, the matches fought out in down-at-heel sports arenas, the sheer brutality of the contests (if the film is to be believed, wrestling may be a fake and fixed, but the injuries are quite real). It lends a certain tragic ring to his desire to get back into the ring, and the fact that this is the world he feels so lost without.
Other good points? The film makes surprisingly good use of a hoary old movie cliche, the stripper-with-a-heart. Randy's on-off love interest with Pam (stage-name Cassidy) works well, not least because of the remarkable similarities of their working worlds. There is an amusing moment where she, while inspecting his war-wounds, starts quoting lines from The Passion of the Christ at him. This viewer at least, who cared little for Mel Gibson's torture-porn masquerading as religious allegory, likes to think it was intended as a subtle dig.)
Of the films I've seen this year, this is the first which I would unreservedly recommend you all go see.
The film tells the story of an aging wrestler, Randy 'The Ram' Robinson. He had been a star in the late 1980s, but in the film he's reduced to making a living fighting living alone in a mobile home on a run-down trailer park, his health failing, alienated from his family, and forced to work in a supermarket during the week to make ends meet.
After a heart attack, he gives up wrestling on doctor's orders, but, finding life as a supermarket worker unbearably dull, and after a failed attempt at reconciliation with his estranged daughter, he gets back in the ring for one last time - for a 're-match' with the (amusingly named) Ayatollah. It doesn't sound like much of a premise for a film, you might think. Hasn't the 'aging sporting hero coming back for one last shot at glory' been done plenty times before? And with sports that are actually, well, sports, and not just hi-energy acting?
That may be true, but I loved this film. Not least because the very absurdity of Randy's world - the nerdy fans, the matches fought out in down-at-heel sports arenas, the sheer brutality of the contests (if the film is to be believed, wrestling may be a fake and fixed, but the injuries are quite real). It lends a certain tragic ring to his desire to get back into the ring, and the fact that this is the world he feels so lost without.
Other good points? The film makes surprisingly good use of a hoary old movie cliche, the stripper-with-a-heart. Randy's on-off love interest with Pam (stage-name Cassidy) works well, not least because of the remarkable similarities of their working worlds. There is an amusing moment where she, while inspecting his war-wounds, starts quoting lines from The Passion of the Christ at him. This viewer at least, who cared little for Mel Gibson's torture-porn masquerading as religious allegory, likes to think it was intended as a subtle dig.)
Of the films I've seen this year, this is the first which I would unreservedly recommend you all go see.
Friday 23 January 2009
Che: Part One
Director:Steven Soderbergh
Writers (WGA):Peter Buchman (screenplay)Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (memoir "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War")
Release Date:2 January 2009 (UK)
Genre:Biography Drama History War more
Plot:In 1956, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) and a band of Castro-led Cuban exiles mobilize an army to topple the regime of dictator Fulgencio Batista.
Viewed 09/01/01
Score: 5/6
Che Guevara is an icon to the militant left. His role as revolutionary leader and key founder of Castro’s Cuba made him a cultural icon. This movie is based on his memoirs, and as such cannot be seen as un-biased.
Filmed in an understated, documentary-style manner, his actions are admirably un-glamorised, the director choosing to instead concentrate on historical accuracy, Che’s powerful personality plus his ability to recruit and inspire fervour in followers.
Going in, I was worried that it would play out as a propaganda piece for either those who view the subject as a messiah or those in the opposite camp. Happily my fears were unfounded.
I found myself drawn in by the subtle, sweeping cinematography, earthy performances and seeing how the revolution grew from the initial ‘invasion’ to the final victorious convoy into Havana.
Benicio Del Toro seemed born to play Guevara; I would suspect he was even channelling the revolutionary’s spirit if I believed in such things. Other cast members keep their characters subtle and life-like, adding to the overall effect.
Che: Part Two is due out in February, covering Guevara’s later, unsuccessful attempts at spreading revolution throughout South America; leading to his eventual execution.
Part one sets the bar very high for its successor.
Writers (WGA):Peter Buchman (screenplay)Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (memoir "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War")
Release Date:2 January 2009 (UK)
Genre:Biography Drama History War more
Plot:In 1956, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) and a band of Castro-led Cuban exiles mobilize an army to topple the regime of dictator Fulgencio Batista.
Viewed 09/01/01
Score: 5/6
Che Guevara is an icon to the militant left. His role as revolutionary leader and key founder of Castro’s Cuba made him a cultural icon. This movie is based on his memoirs, and as such cannot be seen as un-biased.
Filmed in an understated, documentary-style manner, his actions are admirably un-glamorised, the director choosing to instead concentrate on historical accuracy, Che’s powerful personality plus his ability to recruit and inspire fervour in followers.
Going in, I was worried that it would play out as a propaganda piece for either those who view the subject as a messiah or those in the opposite camp. Happily my fears were unfounded.
I found myself drawn in by the subtle, sweeping cinematography, earthy performances and seeing how the revolution grew from the initial ‘invasion’ to the final victorious convoy into Havana.
Benicio Del Toro seemed born to play Guevara; I would suspect he was even channelling the revolutionary’s spirit if I believed in such things. Other cast members keep their characters subtle and life-like, adding to the overall effect.
Che: Part Two is due out in February, covering Guevara’s later, unsuccessful attempts at spreading revolution throughout South America; leading to his eventual execution.
Part one sets the bar very high for its successor.
The Spirit
Director:Frank Miller
Writers (WGA):Frank Miller (screenplay)Will Eisner (comic book series)
Release Date:1 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Action Comedy Fantasy Thriller more
Tagline:Down these mean streets a man must come. A hero born, murdered, and born again.
Plot:Rookie cop Denny Colt returns from the beyond as The Spirit, a hero whose mission is to fight against the bad forces in Central City.
Viewed 04/01/09
Score: 2/6
Based on the well established comic book by Will Eisner, this film is the directorial debut by Frank Miller, the comics legend behind ‘Sin City’ and ‘300’. Interestingly enough, Miller’s first effort is an adaptation of someone else’s comic rather than his own titles. Filmed in the same blue screen/CGI style as ‘Sin City’, the impact is sadly less impressive and seems used almost half heartedly.
The plot is very standard Super-hero fare, good guy dies and gets resurrected as an immortal crime fighter. Nothing wrong with that, but in this film, the attempt at originality or flair isn’t even attempted. All characters are clichés, perhaps reflecting the comic however I can’t say, having never read it.
Gabriel Macht is woefully miscast as The Spirit, having neither the screen presence nor physique to play a crime fighting mystery man. Samuel L. Jackson is markedly better as the lead villain, The Octopus. His over the top pantomime villain style combined with his trademark cool are the only thing going for this movie and save it from a lower score. Other cast members play their roles adequately but are instantly forgettable.
Main problem is, in order to prevent itself looking silly, this sort of film has to be done with such stylisation and energy that it carries the viewer along.
Rodriguez and Tarantino, being old hands at that sort of thing, managed to get it just right in their adaptation of Miller’s ‘Sin City’.
In trying to copy them, Miller’s adaptation of The Spirit falls well short of the mark.
Writers (WGA):Frank Miller (screenplay)Will Eisner (comic book series)
Release Date:1 January 2009 (UK) more
Genre:Action Comedy Fantasy Thriller more
Tagline:Down these mean streets a man must come. A hero born, murdered, and born again.
Plot:Rookie cop Denny Colt returns from the beyond as The Spirit, a hero whose mission is to fight against the bad forces in Central City.
Viewed 04/01/09
Score: 2/6
Based on the well established comic book by Will Eisner, this film is the directorial debut by Frank Miller, the comics legend behind ‘Sin City’ and ‘300’. Interestingly enough, Miller’s first effort is an adaptation of someone else’s comic rather than his own titles. Filmed in the same blue screen/CGI style as ‘Sin City’, the impact is sadly less impressive and seems used almost half heartedly.
The plot is very standard Super-hero fare, good guy dies and gets resurrected as an immortal crime fighter. Nothing wrong with that, but in this film, the attempt at originality or flair isn’t even attempted. All characters are clichés, perhaps reflecting the comic however I can’t say, having never read it.
Gabriel Macht is woefully miscast as The Spirit, having neither the screen presence nor physique to play a crime fighting mystery man. Samuel L. Jackson is markedly better as the lead villain, The Octopus. His over the top pantomime villain style combined with his trademark cool are the only thing going for this movie and save it from a lower score. Other cast members play their roles adequately but are instantly forgettable.
Main problem is, in order to prevent itself looking silly, this sort of film has to be done with such stylisation and energy that it carries the viewer along.
Rodriguez and Tarantino, being old hands at that sort of thing, managed to get it just right in their adaptation of Miller’s ‘Sin City’.
In trying to copy them, Miller’s adaptation of The Spirit falls well short of the mark.
Gonzo
Director:Alex Gibney
Writers (WGA):Alex Gibney (screenplay)Hunter S. Thompson (writings)
Release Date:19 December 2008 (UK) more
Genre:Documentary Biography more
Plot:A portrait of the late gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. full
Viewed 02/01/09
Score: 3/6
A thorough look at the life and career of cult author/journalist Hunter S. Thompson, narrated appropriately by Johnny Depp who played Thompson in the movie adaptation of his book ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. Interviews with Thompson’s friends and colleagues had a very formal feeling and a bit at odds in a documentary about such a chaotic character, although Jann Werner’s tears when speaking of Thompson’s death were unexpectedly moving.
Dedicated fans of the good Dr. won’t learn anything new from the film; those with a casual interest may find it too in depth and straight laced to be entertaining.
Irritating omissions were that lack of time dedicated to Thompson’s friendship with Oscar Acosta, who was the basis for the Attorney Dr. Gonzo in ‘Fear and Loathing…’ plus the lack of acknowledgement of just how much of that book is fiction as opposed to fact. Thompson’s violent temper was mentioned frequently but, perhaps due to the fact the film is meant to be a tribute, his domestic abuse was not.
In the end it is another stereotypical story of a great talent being destroyed by personal demons and vices, plus the tragic waste of suicide.
For a fuller and more accurate view into his life I recommend the collected publications of his personal letters ‘The proud Highway’ and ‘Fear and Loathing in America’, also the BBC Omnibus documentary that’s included as a bonus on the Region 1 DVD deluxe edition of ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Writers (WGA):Alex Gibney (screenplay)Hunter S. Thompson (writings)
Release Date:19 December 2008 (UK) more
Genre:Documentary Biography more
Plot:A portrait of the late gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. full
Viewed 02/01/09
Score: 3/6
A thorough look at the life and career of cult author/journalist Hunter S. Thompson, narrated appropriately by Johnny Depp who played Thompson in the movie adaptation of his book ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’. Interviews with Thompson’s friends and colleagues had a very formal feeling and a bit at odds in a documentary about such a chaotic character, although Jann Werner’s tears when speaking of Thompson’s death were unexpectedly moving.
Dedicated fans of the good Dr. won’t learn anything new from the film; those with a casual interest may find it too in depth and straight laced to be entertaining.
Irritating omissions were that lack of time dedicated to Thompson’s friendship with Oscar Acosta, who was the basis for the Attorney Dr. Gonzo in ‘Fear and Loathing…’ plus the lack of acknowledgement of just how much of that book is fiction as opposed to fact. Thompson’s violent temper was mentioned frequently but, perhaps due to the fact the film is meant to be a tribute, his domestic abuse was not.
In the end it is another stereotypical story of a great talent being destroyed by personal demons and vices, plus the tragic waste of suicide.
For a fuller and more accurate view into his life I recommend the collected publications of his personal letters ‘The proud Highway’ and ‘Fear and Loathing in America’, also the BBC Omnibus documentary that’s included as a bonus on the Region 1 DVD deluxe edition of ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Monday 19 January 2009
The Reader
So which of the Guardian's film critics had it right? Peter Bradshaw, who gave it a mauling and 1 star, or Philip French, who described it as "an exemplary piece of film-making" ? I'm going to hang on the fence, I'm afraid.
Let's start with what works... Kate Winslet, David Kross and Ralph Fiennes all act fantastically well, with Winslet's performance as Hanna, the Nazi concentration camp guard whom Kross' school age Michael Berg has an affair with particularly impressive. With the aid of very heavy make up, she does a good job of playing Hanna both as a thirty-something tram conductor in 1950s Berlin, and as an elderly prisoner some thirty years later.
The film is also fantastically well shot. It's not something I'm usually inclined to notice in a film but here I did. The contrast between the primitive dinginess of Hanna's post-war flat and the bright, optimistic primary colours of Michael's riverside party with his school friends somehow contriving to capture the difference between Germany's dark second world war history and the economically booming powerhouse that was post-war West Germany.
In the end, though, I'm left with the sense that the film doesn't really work. Maybe the flaw lies with David Hare's script, but perhaps its simply that The Reader is too 'difficult' a novel to work as a film. I read it a few years back, and it's not an easy book, in any respect, and defies straightforward explanation. It uses the metaphor of an illicit relationship between a post-war baby-boomer teenager and a 3o-something former SS concentration camp guard to explore the complex and troubled relationship between those who lived under and co-operated with Nazism, and their sons and daughters. It questions both the redemptive power of literature and it's limits. In other words, it's not easy material for turning into a film.
The result is more than a little confused. The deliberate ambiguity around the extent of Hanna's complicity and guilt, which works well in the book, merely leads to confusion in the film. In the end, I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that the director was leading us towards seeing her as a victim of, rather than a perpetrator of, war crimes.
There are a couple of more mundane flaws. The first is that I found my suspension of disbelief somewhat hindered by the fact that the film was in English. Here was a film set in Germany, adapted from a German novel, with numerous references to German literature - and yet all of the characters were speaking in English, and Michael's considerable book collection was all in English. After seeing such fantastic (and commercially successful) films as Downfall and The Lives of Others in German, I wonder whether this film might better have been made in Schlink's own tongue. The mix of German actors speaking in English and English actors speaking with German accents jars slightly.
A second problem is that while, with extensive make-up, Winslet's Hanna ages reasonably convincingly over the 30 years or so of the film, 46 year old Fiennes looks less convincing as the 30 year old Michael of the 1970s (though to be fair, he is much better as the older, sadder, wiser Michael of the film's epilogue, set in the mid 1990s.)
In the end, it might well win Oscars, but to my mind it's not a great film. It's diverting, and while it's a bit over-long, it's not an unpleasant watch, but it's too confused and incoherent to really deserve those awards...
Let's start with what works... Kate Winslet, David Kross and Ralph Fiennes all act fantastically well, with Winslet's performance as Hanna, the Nazi concentration camp guard whom Kross' school age Michael Berg has an affair with particularly impressive. With the aid of very heavy make up, she does a good job of playing Hanna both as a thirty-something tram conductor in 1950s Berlin, and as an elderly prisoner some thirty years later.
The film is also fantastically well shot. It's not something I'm usually inclined to notice in a film but here I did. The contrast between the primitive dinginess of Hanna's post-war flat and the bright, optimistic primary colours of Michael's riverside party with his school friends somehow contriving to capture the difference between Germany's dark second world war history and the economically booming powerhouse that was post-war West Germany.
In the end, though, I'm left with the sense that the film doesn't really work. Maybe the flaw lies with David Hare's script, but perhaps its simply that The Reader is too 'difficult' a novel to work as a film. I read it a few years back, and it's not an easy book, in any respect, and defies straightforward explanation. It uses the metaphor of an illicit relationship between a post-war baby-boomer teenager and a 3o-something former SS concentration camp guard to explore the complex and troubled relationship between those who lived under and co-operated with Nazism, and their sons and daughters. It questions both the redemptive power of literature and it's limits. In other words, it's not easy material for turning into a film.
The result is more than a little confused. The deliberate ambiguity around the extent of Hanna's complicity and guilt, which works well in the book, merely leads to confusion in the film. In the end, I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that the director was leading us towards seeing her as a victim of, rather than a perpetrator of, war crimes.
There are a couple of more mundane flaws. The first is that I found my suspension of disbelief somewhat hindered by the fact that the film was in English. Here was a film set in Germany, adapted from a German novel, with numerous references to German literature - and yet all of the characters were speaking in English, and Michael's considerable book collection was all in English. After seeing such fantastic (and commercially successful) films as Downfall and The Lives of Others in German, I wonder whether this film might better have been made in Schlink's own tongue. The mix of German actors speaking in English and English actors speaking with German accents jars slightly.
A second problem is that while, with extensive make-up, Winslet's Hanna ages reasonably convincingly over the 30 years or so of the film, 46 year old Fiennes looks less convincing as the 30 year old Michael of the 1970s (though to be fair, he is much better as the older, sadder, wiser Michael of the film's epilogue, set in the mid 1990s.)
In the end, it might well win Oscars, but to my mind it's not a great film. It's diverting, and while it's a bit over-long, it's not an unpleasant watch, but it's too confused and incoherent to really deserve those awards...
Thursday 15 January 2009
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
120 mins - 2008.
Hunter S Thompson is not someone I knew an awful lot about. I mean, I knew he was a journalist and that his distinctive approach came to be known as ‘Gonzo Journalism’ and I knew he had a reputation for copious drug-taking, but really that’s about it. Gonzo is a documentary, splicing together archive footage and (confusingly) bits of Terry Gilliam’s film version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with interviews with people who knew him. The fact that the documentary is narrated by Johnny Depp, who played Thompson in that film, adds a further layer to the confusion. Most interesting to me is the account of how Thompson came to cover the 1972 US election campaign (later published as Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail) and how close he came to be to those in power. Here was this eccentric, drug-addled gun-toting journalist being spoken of warmly by such as ex-president Jimmy Carter and 1972 Democratic candidate Jimmy McGovern. One struggles to imagine Jim Callaghan or Michael Foot being interested in participating in a similar documentary about a (hypothetical) British equivalent.
Ultimately, it’s a sad story that is being told. Hunter S Thompson’s first wife, Sondi Wright, says at the beginning that in essence, his story is a tragic one, and it’s true. If the film is to be believed, he never really topped his early 70s work, and found that, once he became known, it got in the way of the kind of ‘gonzo’ reportage with which he made his name. In his later years, he seemed to slip into a kind of self-parody, and Gonzo does not shrink from showing this. So, should you go see this film? If the subject matter intrigues you, I’d say yes. If, on the other hand, you couldn’t care less about the life and works of Hunter S Thompson, I doubt this is the documentary to change your mind.
Hunter S Thompson is not someone I knew an awful lot about. I mean, I knew he was a journalist and that his distinctive approach came to be known as ‘Gonzo Journalism’ and I knew he had a reputation for copious drug-taking, but really that’s about it. Gonzo is a documentary, splicing together archive footage and (confusingly) bits of Terry Gilliam’s film version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with interviews with people who knew him. The fact that the documentary is narrated by Johnny Depp, who played Thompson in that film, adds a further layer to the confusion. Most interesting to me is the account of how Thompson came to cover the 1972 US election campaign (later published as Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail) and how close he came to be to those in power. Here was this eccentric, drug-addled gun-toting journalist being spoken of warmly by such as ex-president Jimmy Carter and 1972 Democratic candidate Jimmy McGovern. One struggles to imagine Jim Callaghan or Michael Foot being interested in participating in a similar documentary about a (hypothetical) British equivalent.
Ultimately, it’s a sad story that is being told. Hunter S Thompson’s first wife, Sondi Wright, says at the beginning that in essence, his story is a tragic one, and it’s true. If the film is to be believed, he never really topped his early 70s work, and found that, once he became known, it got in the way of the kind of ‘gonzo’ reportage with which he made his name. In his later years, he seemed to slip into a kind of self-parody, and Gonzo does not shrink from showing this. So, should you go see this film? If the subject matter intrigues you, I’d say yes. If, on the other hand, you couldn’t care less about the life and works of Hunter S Thompson, I doubt this is the documentary to change your mind.
Saturday 10 January 2009
Introduction
New Year resolutions are, I suppose, usually meant to be about self-improvement. Being a better person, being kinder, healthier, more useful, whatever. A lot of it seems to revolve around diet and exercise. And this is a blog about what started as a New Year’s resolution. You won’t be finding tedious details about exercise plans here though – because this resolution has nothing to do with such worthy goals of self improvement.
Simply, I have decided to watch 52 films in 52 weeks, and to blog about what I see. I am, not, I should make clear at the outset, a wannabe film critic. Normally, I write on the subject of motorsport (here if you’re interested) and this is going to be a bit of a departure for me. Truth be told, I’m not even a real cineaste, a huge film fan, or anything, though perhaps by the end of the year I will be. I’m not the only one doing this, the intention is that this is a group blog. I’ll let the others introduce themselves. Any rules? Some of us are insisting these must be films we see at the cinema. I’m allowing myself to include DVDs – because I’m simply not a regular cinema-goer. The one rule I am imposing upon myself is that all 52 films must be ones I have not seen before. So without further ado, it’s off to the cinema on New Year’s day with fellow-participants, Chris, Iain and Steph to see…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)