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.
Friday 23 January 2009
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)