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.
Saturday 14 February 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)