Stranded Cinema

Crazy Heart

2011-12-01T15:46:00.000Z

Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for his performance in this film, beating Colin Firth (in a film I’m going to watch soon, for comparison). Bridges stars as ‘Bad’ Blake, a country singer whose career is falling apart as he struggles with alcoholism, whilst his former friend (Colin Farrell) becomes successful in his wake. It is not hard to predict that some one or thing will appear at the end of the first act to change his life. In this case it is Maggie Gyllenhaal, a single mother who wants to be a music journalist. She, as usual, is the most compelling presence in this film. Bridges is good but, as much as I do like him as an actor, there is nothing enthralling about his performance. He is not helped by the plot, which follows fairly ordinary lines. For UK viewers (or non-country music lovers in general) there is nothing that exciting about the world that we are thrust into. Bridges is to be admired for actually playing the guitar and singing, but that is technical ability, not acting brilliance. The film is little more than a slight, sensitive drama. The issues it raises are not engaged with or overcome. Whilst in film and literature we do enjoy bad things happening in the anticipation of a reversal or retribution, here it becomes unappealing as we watch for too long a talented man struggle through alcoholism. He is never really as desperate as he could’ve been, or as passionate in his high points. There are no great speeches. It is a tempered, moderate film, even if its ending is poignant and memorable.

X-Men: First Class

2011-11-24T11:38:00.002Z

Whilst I’m generally wary of prequels that attempt to explain the origins of characters, it has to be admitted that this film succeeds where others have failed. The back story here is a truly compelling one, and it makes the earlier X-Men films more fascinating because of it (instead of some other prequels which merely serve to remove the mystery of their originals). In this movie we find out how Xavier and Magneto meet, and the pressures they come under as some of the first mutants to be brought to the attention of the government. The backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 provides an interesting, realistic setting for the otherwise fantastical events taking place. Although the film can’t resist the odd knowing, ironic joke, and playing to the audience who’ve seen the first three (four?) films, or read the comics (the scene with Wolverine springs to mind). There are some slightly ridiculous moments, but the movie in general is concerned with real issues, if perhaps a bit too portentous at times. The whole thing is greatly helped by the very good performances of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. Perhaps this isn’t the place to criticise a whole franchise, but the mutations seem random – that is, with no theme to them except to provide good cinema viewing, and interesting fight scenes (compare Heroes, or Fantastic Four). We have to take this film for what it is and what it attempts to achieve, however, and on those terms it succeeds admirably.

Thor

2011-11-22T12:27:00.003Z

I had virtually no intention of seeing Thor, until I noticed that it was directed by Kenneth Branagh. Yes, exactly. It stars Chris Hemsworth as the Norse god of thunder who is banished from Asgard and sent to Earth (why Earth? It’s not clear). This is not a storyline based on Norse mythology, though, but the Marvel Comics’ characters. It proceeds to rip apart, debase and trivialise that elegant, ancient mythology. We live in an age, however, when myth, history, literature and art are rehashed and remodelled to service movies, video games, popstars, clothing brands, websites and apps. So, I suppose we must embrace it. The incongruity of the mighty god in a remote New Mexico town is played with humour and post-modern irony (as we’ve come to expect from adaptations such as this). There is a slight fault in the structure in the way we start with his arrival on Earth, then go back to explain how he got there. It may have been better to do without the explanation completely, as his time on Earth seems fairly short and insignificant by the end, which is perhaps not what was intended. The romance with Natalie Portman is amusingly quirky and perverse, and has a sensitive conclusion. For all their vast powers, the gods are reduced to taking part in fist fights to decide anything, but this seems like an inescapable outcome for many movies like this. It isn’t the best, but it isn’t the worst, of these modern remakes of comic characters. This is partly explained when we find out that the film was only made to introduce the character of Thor for the forthcoming The Avengers film – also starring your old favourites Iron Man, Captain America and the Incredible Hulk. Again, this would seem like a terrible idea (the term ‘cash cow’ can’t be far from many people’s minds), but it is being written and directed by Joss Whedon, so there is hope. Fans of Kenneth Branagh might be mildly disturbed by this film, but fans of comic books might understand the oddities better when they realise who the director is.

Tron: Legacy

2011-11-21T15:32:00.003Z

The colon in the title of this film is an indication that it’s a sequel or prequel (or intends to have one, like Pirates of the Caribbean). Tron, released in 1982, was a truly cult movie (unlike some that are given this title unduly today). I saw it for the first time a few months ago, admittedly only because I wanted to see this sequel next. The visuals now seem rudimentary, almost laughable, but I understand at the time were groundbreaking. From what is essentially a live action version of Pong and Snake, however, the original writers and director built a whole mythology, akin to Star Wars. Although with our advanced knowledge of computers it’s now an outdated conception, the film still has powerful things to say, and of course can easily be read as a reflection on human society, rather than as pure escapism. This is something the makers of Tron: Legacy picked up on in particular. They have not merely rehashed the key parts of the original for monetary gain. It’s a thoughtful sequel, done with respect and admiration for the original. Landing the co-operation of Jeff Bridges was of course essential. If you were to only watch the trailer for this film, one thing would stick in your mind: the incredible visuals and great music. The director is an assistant professor of architecture, which may help you appreciate the design of the film, and the music was written by Daft Punk (heavily influenced as they’ve always been by Tron). The plot, however, falls into a fairly ordinary storyline that doesn’t hold many surprises. There are certain very familiar themes and action sequences in imitation of The Matrix (although Tron of course came first) and Star Wars. At least one scene feels like it was included entirely for a game tie-in, with no emotional function. The rest of the sequences, however, are calculated, effective and dazzling, and the film does avoid sentimentality and verbose dialogue. Michael Sheen makes an unfortunate appearance in perhaps the worst role of his career. More significantly, I felt it was a shame that something of the mysticism of the original Tron was lost – the Jedi-like power of the Users is virtually ignored in this sequel. It’s a pity that we’ve become so used to phenomenal special effects that many movies like this aren’t recognised for their brilliance. There are certain moments in this film, however, that will make you pause and marvel.

A Prophet (Un Prophete)

2011-11-11T16:32:00.000Z

I saw the beginning of Saving Private Ryan a few minutes after I had finished watching A Prophet, and I was quickly astonished by the difference. From the very first moment of Spielberg’s film, the audience is told what to think and feel by the music, the slow motion, the graceful tracking shots etc. In A Prophet, you are left alone to decide how to think and feel about the main character’s actions and the issues that arise from them. The film begins as subtly as it ends, and in-between is a slow, seamless development of the character, so masterfully done that years pass without the abruptness that they do in other films. Having seen The Godfather recently, certain comparisons occur to me, but I wouldn’t want to go too far. This is a unique film that stands on its own merits. It would be too simplistic to call it a ‘prison movie’, not only because the ‘leave days’ the main character is granted let us see the outside world, but because the scope of the issues it deals with is wide-ranging. It is difficult to know when and where we are to sympathise with the main character, or anyone else. Events happen but we are not given musical cues or emotional speeches to help us interpret the action. This is a good thing, I should add. A lot of this film’s engaging nature is derived from the brilliant performance of Tahar Rahim. He is innocent, hopeful, anguished, experienced and indomitable within the space of two hours. Jacques Audiard of course is mainly responsible . After the equally good The Beat That My Heart Skipped, he is quickly becoming one of the most interesting directors in the world. The title of the film becomes relevant towards the end, and I would have found it interesting if they’d developed this strain more. Not in a crass spiritual way, in that he actually is a prophet, but some symbolic significance towards it. Although I was initially a little confused by the ending, I realise this is partly the point. Now that he has left prison, its effects on him are not finished. If you want a film that will make you pause and think about it for the next few days or weeks, cause you to reconsider your values, choices and actions in life, this is the one.

The Godfather: Part II

2011-11-09T12:46:00.000Z

In my review of this movie, I think I am again going to come across issues in the process of criticism. The Godfather: Part II is widely accepted as one the greatest films of all time, and yet when I watched it recently (only the second time I’ve ever seen it) I wasn’t impressed. It could be argued that everything in this film is said in the first, insinuated in that film’s brilliance. Al Pacino closes the door on his wife at the end of The Godfather, and by that we understand he is isolating himself from her – in Part II we merely see this played out again over three hours. He has already told her in the first film that the family will be legitimate in a few years. He does nothing but repeat his position in Part II. There is no real storyline for him. Where in the first film he moved from someone distant to the family to becoming head of the family, in the second he does nothing, or nothing new. At its worst, the film feels like a bloated, indulgent morass, un-engaging and portentous. There is a difference between letting an audience figure things out for themselves, and deliberately making it difficult for them. Where the first film pitched it perfectly, this second film goes too far. It feels like we are missing vital dialogue, characters arrive and leave who we don’t know, and we seem to skip randomly between scenes. The trial especially is a sudden, unexplained intrusion. The parallel storyline explaining how Vito Corleone came to America could be seen as another unnecessary extrapolation from the first film. It adds little to our understanding of his character. I had to look up other critics to see if I was alone in my feelings here. I have some support (I will post links to them in the comments), but not much. Of course, this movie is filmed exquisitely, the acting is superb, the dialogue curt and precise. I loved the slow progression of the seasons, the sinister movement of moods reflected in the cinematography, the silence on the lake, and the final brutal moments of the film. What it comes down to is that I didn’t enjoy this movie, and in fact don’t enjoy much of what Coppola has directed. He appears to have difficulty editing down the vast amounts of material that he shoots (see Apocalypse Now), which is a vital element of filmmaking. If you were to change the question and ask ‘is it a great sequel?’, then my answer might change too. This is a different issue which raises new questions, such as what is the purpose of a sequel? It’s not required to be complete or satisfying in itself, and this film certainly isn’t.

The Audience of Critics

2011-11-08T11:53:00.000Z

I want to return to a discussion of Woody Allen’s film You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. It was pointed out to me by a good friend that in an article on his blog, Andrew Collins criticises the movie, and Allen’s recent career, fairly strongly. I have a few issues with this review that I thought I’d raise here. Firstly, Collins’ appreciation of Woody Allen seems to be based on a kind of hero worship only, and he states several times that he prefers films in which Allen is the leading man. He refers to an interview with him, which he calls the highlight of part of his career. Moreover, he doesn’t appear to understand the crucial style of Allen’s films that distinguishes them from all other filmmakers – that they are not either comedy or drama, but an entirely original mixture of the two. In his review of the film, he also misunderstands a vital point of the plot (that the woman in the window is the character’s ex-wife), and instead focuses on whether there is a light in a fridge or not. This could be explained if he wanted it to be, but I think engaging in such nit-picking is unbecoming of a critic.

This is the point I’m coming to. In his review, Collins is clearly influenced by other critics in the screening with him. He validates his thoughts of the film by referring to their reactions. It wasn’t just him that was appalled, they were too. He later gives details that this was a Warner Bros. screening, introduced by a PR. This in no way reproduces how most of us go to the cinema or watch a film at home. We too are influenced by other people when we watch a film (this is part of the joy of watching films, after all, unlike reading a book), but they are either a mass audience in the cinema, or friends and family at home. Watching a film with a group of other critics (and agents from the distribution company) must be a profoundly different experience, and one none of us can relate to. How valid, then, are their reviews? How useful to us are they? I believe films will be unnecessarily praised and unfairly panned (as is the case here) in such an atmosphere as this. Of course, such reviews might be the exception, and many critics are surely able to get past what actually we can now see as a disadvantage to them (even if they are advantaged in seeing films early). We might go so far as to say that this critical atmosphere doesn’t end in the screening room. When they write their reviews, do they write for us, or with one eye on what other critics are thinking? You might argue that how we watch a film doesn’t influence our thoughts on it, and I would disagree strongly. The question for me is whether critics have become isolated from the cinema-goers they are trying to communicate with and, if so, how can we redress the balance?

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger

2011-11-07T12:05:00.000Z

As this is the second new Woody Allen film that I’ve seen recently, I actually struggle to think of new things to say. Of course, I should consider the movie on its own merits, but it’s very hard to do this when you’re dealing with a director with such a vast body of work behind him. We may be able to read/view an artist’s one piece of work in isolation, but it is very often the connections between work that build a profound, more complex, meaning. We come to understand an artist in terms of his/her whole output, and this is a fascinating thing, even though sometimes it is an inconvenience to certain readings we may want to undertake (and this isn’t just a recent phenomenon: see Homer, Virgil etc.). This film is about two couples in London and their search to find happiness. Anthony Hopkins has a late-mid-life crisis and splits with his wife, whilst their daughter struggles in her relationship with her husband, an aspiring writer. The issues and dilemmas these characters face are familiar from Allen’s previous films (if at least original outside them). They try to attach happiness to success, or children, or spirituality, and the drama works quite well, if not quite as funny, or not quite as sharp as it could’ve been. The ending, however, is where the film is let down. The various threads are left hanging, instead of being tied neatly together. Everything is not resolved, although the narrator makes the point that nothing ever will be for certain characters. I do have a problem with this narrator, though, other than that he is almost unnecessary: why is he American? The answer may just be that Woody Allen is American, and the film is intended to appeal to an audience there, but it makes no sense for the story, set in London, with everyone except one character being European. Woody Allen’s London films (which now, it seems, we can talk about as a phase in the past) have been a fascinating resurgence, with one notable success, and as he moves further into Europe it seems he is being inspired to make better and better projects. Although You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is not as good as some of them, it still rises to this new level, and furthers his reputation as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

Bunny and the Bull

2011-11-04T09:58:00.002Z

This film was perhaps unfairly promoted as ‘from the director of The Mighty Boosh’, with Noel Fielding and Julian Barratt having prominent places on posters and in trailers. Paul King did direct all three series of that TV show, but such advertising as this doesn’t give him much chance to stand on his own merits, or carve out a new career. Fielding and Barratt are in this film, but with relatively small parts. It stars Edward Hogg (who reminds me of Jon Richardson) as a man who relives a road-trip around Europe with his friend, from the confines of his flat, which he hasn’t left for a year (why did he relive it? We’re never told). The objects in his flat become the building blocks of his recreation of this journey, for which reason this film is called ‘surreal’. I have a few issues with that label. I don’t think it really qualifies as surreal. The storyline is actually very ordinary, and most of the events quite normal. Some of the characters do odd things, but that hardly makes it surreal. If one were to compare it to actual surrealist art from the 1920s (which understandably is a bit unfair) it would come up well short. That, however, is just a label that other people might have applied to it, not the director. It is a slight, mildly funny drama, with the best moments coming from Fielding and Barratt, such that it gives the impression of being a sketch show. The whole thing, in fact, could easily have been a television drama, with little to lift it into the realm of cinema. There is some mild racism in the depiction of foreign characters, which seems to be forgivable if the general concept is comedy. At the end, which I don’t want to spoil too much, there is an intrusion of reality, and I wonder what is intended by this? The fantastic world we have invested in was just a joke? The intrusion initially affects the viewer with sentimentality, but isn’t this exactly what surrealism intends to avoid? It is as if the director undertook to follow one way of telling the story, and then abandons this in favour of getting an effect. It reminds me, a little, of Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic, yet that film does not go as far into surrealism as this one, and the tension between reality and the world they live in is always present (whether in humour or violence). That said, I did like this film, and would happily and with interest watch it again. The visuals are incredible, has great music, and humour, and despite my reservations is a sensitive, moving film.

Battle Royale

2011-11-01T16:30:00.003Z

This is the sort of film that after about ten or twenty minutes renders you speechless, or if you can manage to speak at all you’re likely to say something akin to ‘Jesus’. Yet, if I were to describe the plot to you, aside from a little intrigued, I suspect you’d mostly feel uninterested: a class of school kids are transported to a remote island where they are forced to fight to the death until only one remains. As with any good film, though, it’s in the delivery of this plot that Battle Royale succeeds. Relatively little explanation is given. The dialogue and action are curt and brutal, matched by sweeping, epic classical music, and shots of the rough sea clashing against the rocks. We have a feeling, ultimately, of who is going to survive and who isn’t. You could see the rest of the film as a guessing game as to what order, and how brutally, the other characters are going to be killed, but this movie is much more than that. The characters and their history together is real, and sensitively portrayed. They are just kids, scared and vulnerable, clinging to each other. Their playground cliques, bullying, and crushes are replayed in extreme violence and vengeance on the island. Why this film caused such controversy, aside from the violence, could be put down to the reason why this is happening to the kids, or perhaps the very lack of reason. It is a critique on Japanese morality as much as anything else. I’m not sure I understood the role of Takeshi Kitano, unless he was supposed to be more symbolic (of the older generation) than real. Clearly the director felt his role was crucial to the resolution of the drama, but there were issues I couldn’t resolve in my head. Regardless of this, and perhaps some other minor faults, this is a fascinating, daunting film that will shock as much as move its audience.

Scream 4

2011-10-31T11:43:00.000Z

Sometimes, the longer a franchise goes on, the less well you start to think of the earlier films. Certainly this is now true for Pirates of the Caribbean. Will it be true of the upcoming Mission Impossible 4? The first and third movies were entertaining and will probably remain so. As bad as the fourth Indiana Jones was, it surely won’t affect the reputation of the first three, and Die Hard 4 wasn’t that bad in the first place (albeit perhaps just as an ordinary action film). Scream 4, however, seriously makes one question the value of the earlier films. The second and third movies weren’t that interesting anyway, and the rehashing of anything original about the first film in this fourth one, makes the whole franchise seem a waste of time. The larger, gruesome body-count isn’t likely to impress many viewers. The reversals, the genre-play, and self-referential irony, is no longer amusing. It was all done in the first film, and didn’t need repeating. It seems like the desire to make a fourth movie came before the ideas to put in it. This is often the reason for a franchise’s failure. When you put desire before ideas, you often come up bankrupt (creatively, as well as occasionally financially – although, as Mark Kermode has pointed out in relation to other bad movies, this film was a box office success). The characters are no longer engaging or interesting. What is Sidney (Neve Campbell) doing with her life? Like the heroes of other franchises, she has become a blank, uninteresting space at the centre of the film. All her issues were resolved in earlier movies. What’s strange is that it is relatively easy to please audiences of franchises by having certain characters say or do certain things again and again. Even if you were a die-hard fan of these movies, however, I’d tell you that there was very little to be gained from watching this fourth film. That, I think, says it all.

MASH

2011-10-21T11:08:00.002Z

This is a film I’d never seen before. That is not to say, of course, that I knew nothing about it. You might have seen cropping up here and there articles by people who’ve never seen Star Wars, watching it for the first time (they are very rarely, by the way, people who were young kids at the time it was released). They might never have actually sat down to watch the films the whole way through, but that doesn’t mean they’re coming to it with a blank mind. The very act of sitting down to watch them presupposes a judgement already, and they will probably have seen clips and know about the general plot, characters and ideas from references by friends, family, and the media. Likewise with me and MASH. I decided to watch it because I’d already been told it was good. This is the first hurdle to get over when watching classics, if we can call them that. MASH is certainly a fascinating film, and the amount I would like to say about it (but can’t here), perhaps indicates its value alone. It is a mix of farce, black comedy and political satire, tragedy, poignancy, and pathos. The carefully choreographed ‘last supper’ sequence, and the poker game with the dead body being driven away in the background are scenes that will stick in my mind for a long time. I found the characters often offensive and rude, but I’m not sure if this is how I was supposed to see them. They are also brilliant surgeons who work hard, which seems to compensate in some way for their arrogance. The film is made up of episodes with little connection to one another, brought into a broad, but relatively meaningless, story-arc of the two surgeons’ brief service in Korea. Perhaps this is what gave the inspiration for a TV series. The film is like one already. However, the idea of tying things together too cleanly (such as the apparent intention to have the Korean boy reappear) would have been too neat. The film does work better as haphazard, irreverent, although the sport sequence towards the end of the film felt relatively redundant and out of character with the rest of the sequences. It’s interesting to read that there was tension between the actors and the director, and that some of the loud-speaker announcements were added later in order to try to build continuity. I haven’t seen many of Robert Altman’s films, and think initially that his method has to rely on exceptional acting, music and dialogue in order to succeed for me, but it certainly does that here.

Midnight in Paris

2011-10-19T10:37:00.000Z

Expectation often leads to disappointment, perhaps never more so than in the case of Woody Allen films. This is doubly so. There are his fans, who live in the hope that he will recreate his classics of the 70s and 80s, and there are the people who have seen the trailer for a romantic comedy starring (in this example) Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams, and hope it will be endearing and funny. So in recent years both types of moviegoer have been disappointed. Woody Allen’s films are not simple romantic comedies, nor are they recreations of his earlier classics. Both sets of expectations are frustrated. How, then, are we supposed to watch his films? The obvious answer is as someone aware of what to expect from Woody Allen, and yet not in anticipation of something similar to his films from the past. Midnight in Paris will not disappoint anyone who approaches it in this way. It is funny, rife with literary allusions, self-deprecation, and brilliant, real comic characters. It can undoubtedly be called ‘his best for years’, although this often-repeated phrase is somewhat patronising. Without wishing to ruin the film for those who haven’t seen it, it stars Wilson as a screenwriter visiting Paris with his fiancé and her parents. There is at times that awkwardness perhaps due to the script, or the direction of the actors, that I often feel in watching his recent films. The jokes, or literary references, are too stilted, or fall out of the actor’s mouths rather clumsily. It could only barely be maintained that Owen Wilson was doing an impersonation of Woody Allen (as most of his leading men have been). He does a good job of making his own character out of the heavy burden of being Allen’s mouthpiece. There are great, poetic moments in this film, finished with a perfect ending. You should see it.

Invictus

2011-08-22T10:45:00.000Z

I had to double-check halfway through this film: was it really directed by Clint Eastwood? There is so much potential in the material, cast and director, I can only think it was a very rushed production. It is a big disappointment. The great lines and speeches are delivered robotically, without any real conviction. The film isn’t about any one thing. It tries too much and too little. A film centred around Francois Pienaar might have been better, having only glimpses of Mandela, but there were greater problems than just this. It is as if the writer(s) was too afraid to elaborate, or imagine anything new at all. Like all biographical and/or historical films, the writer has to create artificial highs and lows, sometimes exaggerating what took place, or emphasising certain issues that perhaps weren’t important at the time. Otherwise you end up with this: a flat, unexciting picture. There were moments of great potential, such as the confrontation between Mandela’s security guards and the old, white presidential security team. But nothing is ever delivered, no arguments or speeches, nothing happens and the confrontation peters out and ultimately falls flat. What is more, the film is about Mandela alone for a good while before we see anything about rugby, as if they were afraid to make a sports movie. Then, towards the end of the film, the rugby takes over almost completely, large amounts of time are dedicated to the game, with no dialogue given. The complexities, tension and excitement of the final are attempted in brief highlights (for someone like me who enjoys rugby I found it hard to follow). What was a great match was drained of its enjoyment, rather than being emphasised, and there are awful lines of exposition, characters explaining to other characters something they obviously would have known (for example, the basic format of a knockout competition). More use could easily have been made of the poem, which gives the film its title. Instead we only hear a mumbled narration of it by Morgan Freedman. This is one of those mysteries in the film world – everything is in place for it to be a good, Oscar winning movie, and yet it fails. It is important to learn some of the lessons as to why.

Source Code

2011-08-22T09:29:00.000Z

As this film is a concept movie that achieves most of its success on a first viewing, that right from the very first scene involves a puzzle that you, and Jake Gyllenhaal’s character, have to unravel, I don’t think it would be a good idea for me to give away much of the plot. I can say though there is not just one puzzle but at least three almost buried inside each other that we have to try to unpick. The problem, though, like most puzzles, is whether once you’ve solved it you want to keep watching, and/or ever see it again? Undoubtedly you want to see how this film ends. It is intriguing, thought-provoking, well-written and acted, and nothing is solved until the last minute, when perhaps even then questions are left unanswered. There are always logical flaws in this type of film, the question is whether they are obtrusive enough, or covered over cleverly enough. In a very similar film, Deja Vu, the viewer is just about convinced. In Source Code, however, the flaws I think are too many, or the one main flaw is too large. You finish the film thinking about that, rather than what the film means, which I think is a failure. It is a cross between Groundhog Day, Vantage Point, Deja Vu and a host of other sci-fi films, as well as perhaps a touch of Quantum Leap. Jake Gyllenhaal is excellent, and the film isn’t claustrophobic as it might seem if I were to describe the plot to you. It is compelling and tragic, but at the same time it is only a concept movie, a genre which is limited in scope by its very nature, and can only point to one inevitable ending which when it is avoided by the director/writer, the viewer feels slightly cheated. Without a doubt, Duncan Jones is a director to keep an eye on, and this is a promising second movie (although I'm wondering if he'll ever move away from sci-fi or not), but there will I hope be better to come.

Super 8

2011-08-18T09:19:00.004Z

It seems at first that this film sits uncomfortably between several genres or approaches: it mixes elements of horror, emotional drama, comedy, sci-fi and the monster movie, is aimed at adults and kids, and is both postmodern whilst being nostalgic. This doesn’t appear to make any sense, and yet it does. J. J. Abrams has created something almost entirely new with this film, but I don’t think it’s an experiment that can be repeated. This is like a kids’ film for adults. Or rather, a film for adults who were kids when these movies came out: E.T., Flight of The Navigator, Explorers, The Goonies, and The Last Starfighter. It follows similar lines to these yet obviously ironically, now being set thirty years in the past where those were contemporary. It is also a far more serious, and at times frightening film. Like those films, like indeed all great action films, the main drive of the movie is the emotional development of the characters. It overtakes the terrifying events around them and very neatly, perhaps too neatly, provides a resolution to the whole drama. What I did miss was how the small scale charm with which the film starts, following its predecessors, is swept away, especially towards the end. This is the temptation of the relative ease of modern special effects, perhaps. Like all monster movies, the suspense is better than the explanation. I also regretted how the role of the Super 8 film itself became relatively insignificant, when it could have been (and perhaps was originally intended to be) the crucial element of the movie. Anyway, I don’t know what people who haven’t seen those original films might think of this, but for those of us who have, it’s unmissable.

The Fantastic Mr Fox

2010-08-31T12:31:00.000Z

I am usually the first person out the door when a new Wes Anderson film is released, but when this movie was in cinemas last year I was hesitant. In fact, when I had heard about its production I already knew I probably wouldn't see it straight away.Why is he making a children's film? I thought. In fact, having now seen the movie, I wonder if anyone under the age of 18 and/or not familiar with Anderson's previous films could have enjoyed this at all. There is so much aimed at adults, and so much Andersonian techniques and trademarks, that with only a few changes it would closely resemble The Royal Tennenbaums, or Bottle Rocket. This in itself is both a good and a bad thing. Anderson's films are an enjoyable indulgence but, like Tarantino in a way, I begin to wonder if he'll ever make a 'serious' film, or deal with real issues. This is perhaps a fictitious division, it could be argued everything in life is real, everything is serious, but there is something undeniably light in Anderson's films that, given his incredible talent and vision, I wish he would turn to drama. The Fantastic Mr Fox is hilarious, surprising and heart-warming, but sadly it is nothing we haven't seen before. I've no complaints if he keeps on making such films, but would feel a tinge of regret each time he did.

Brooklyn Rules

2010-05-21T15:23:00.000Z

I think this film may have gone straight to video, and once you've read my review you might agree with that decision. It stars Freddie Prinze Jr, Scott Caan and Jerry Ferrara as three close friends growing up in Brooklyn in the 1980s, struggling with what they want to do with their lives, and becoming involved with the Mafia. As you can tell from this summary, it's like a poor version of Goodfellas, The Godfather, Boyz n the Hood, or The Departed. This film fails in more than just its lack of originality, however. I wasn't interested in any of the characters, right from the start. They have no interesting, or new, dilemmas to face, and aren't particularly likeable. There is nothing life-changing or even intriguing here. The romance of Freddie Prinze Jr's character doesn't go through any complex stages that can't be predicted. It stutters along beside the main plot, trying to decide how important it wants to be, and ultimately becomes insignificant. A major problem is that Freddie Prinze Jr just isn't right for this role. He can't do the accent, and he can't pull off character's more complex motivations. Add to this the fact that the film was mis-advertised as an Alec Baldwin vehicle (he appears in literally three or four scenes) and you have a very disappointing movie. There is one particularly gruesome and shocking moment, but that's all, and it's hardly worth paying the rental money just to watch it.

Paranormal Activity

2010-05-20T10:12:00.000Z

I realise I'm very late in reviewing this film, and that whilst it was immensely popular on its opening, it has now probably faded from your memory. It actually had its first release in 2007, but didn't reach the UK until November last year. However, this was not solely down to the usual time lag between the US and here. The movie was initially made and released with little budget (comparisons to The Blair Witch Project were inevitable), before being picked up by a big studio, altered slightly (with the help of Steven Spielberg) and then re-released. The plan had actually been to remake it entirely, and this almost happened when during a test screening people started walking out. What they soon realised, however, was that these people were walking out because they were terrified. So, the film eventually gained a full, international release, its popularity spread through social networks, and the rest is history. I can't deny that it's frightening. In many ways, the mundanity of its opening makes what happens later more scary. Tension is built successfully, with little or nothing ever given away. This is how horror films should be made. The acting is amateurish, and the camera-work becomes irritating after a while. The plot is contrived at times (to get them to stay in the house, and to get him to continue filming when any normal person wouldn't), but you are carried along by fear and anticipation. It may not be worth seeing a second time, and clearly they had problems with the ending which, for me, still doesn't work, but it achieves what it sets out to achieve, and you have to applaud them for that.

Stardust

2010-05-19T09:15:00.000Z

From the moment I first heard of and then saw trailers for this film I felt there was something wrong. Having now seen it, I can confirm these fears. What I'm talking about you might say is only one part of the experience, but for me it was crucial. When dealing with the fantasy genre, you have to create a new universe with new rules. It has to be compelling, original, and believable. For me, Stardust doesn't achieve this. The world created here (either by Gaiman or the film writers) feels like a confused mixture of elements borrowed from other stories. It attempts to reassure us with well-worn clichés of witches, princes and so on, but then confuses us with the way in which they are all put together. In the film at least, it doesn't make sense. The universe is a random series of events and characters with no cohesion. It feels like a flawed attempt to copy other better, or more completely conceived, fantasy worlds. The movie is also hindered, rather than helped, by the big name cast putting in only average performances, and I think the over-hyping and advertising of the film made expectations too high as well. The lead actor is uninteresting, and his relationship with Claire Danes too saccharine for me. It is a strangely flawed film, and perhaps the good parts hint at what the book might be, but as it stands the movie fails to create a creditable universe and thus, I would argue, fails overall.

Rendition

2010-05-18T10:39:00.000Z

This film bases itself on a real story, or rather a real situation, but most of what happens is fictional. Whilst perhaps unfair to the real persons involved, I think it's a good approach that could've been adopted with some other films. It allows the writer to stay true to the essential dilemma, but be able to create the drama around it to fit the pace of the movie, rather than real life. Jake Gyllenhaal works for the CIA in North Africa, where a suicide bomber has recently attacked. A man is arrested on a flight to America for the bombing, flown back to North Africa, imprisoned and tortured there, without trial. Reese Witherspoon plays the man's wife, and Meryl Streep a senior figure in the CIA. It's Jake Gyllenhaal, though, that steals the film here, and the whole plot could've easily centred on him alone. As it is, we are given two or three sub-plots, one of which at least must be unnecessary. The most interesting aspect of this film, though, which will ruin it for those of you who haven't seen it, is the time-shift that occurs towards the end. It's a very neat device which ties everything together, but looking back on it once the credits started rolling, I began to worry. What does it add except suspense? Did it mean something to the story (like the device in Memento did)? Do we even need that story line at all? The film does its job well, is harrowing and dramatic, but could easily be seen to be quite perfunctory, leaving several threads hanging at the end.

Charlie Wilson's War

2010-04-28T15:47:00.000Z

There is one essential flaw in this film: the balance between comedy and drama is skewed. The poignant moments (pointing towards the current war in Afghanistan) lose their power because of the comedy before and after them. Likewise, the comedy loses its value because we are constantly reminded of the seriousness of what is happening. It is a dilemma that I'm not proposing I could solve. Charlie Wilson was a congressman in the 1980s who fought for heavier involvement by the CIA in Russia's conflict with Afghanistan. Russia, as the cold war enemy of the US, couldn't be fought openly, but the CIA could train and arm the Afghans to fight for them. Perhaps much of my enjoyment with this film came from learning about a period in history which I knew almost nothing. This would be hard on both Tom Hanks (who plays Wilson) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as his contact in the CIA), as they are brilliant here. Hoffman in particular is exceptional. The humour comes from the incompetency in the system, and the ability of these two characters to manipulate it. The early exchanges between the two of them are unforgettable. The film moves along quickly, but perhaps the end is a little rushed. Julia Roberts' character feels like an unnecessary addition. It's undoubtedly great fun, but I returned again and again to my first fear: the balance between comedy and drama is wrong.

The Beat That My Heart Skipped

2010-04-23T12:47:00.000Z

Instead of finishing one of the six or seven drafts of posts I've written, I'm going to review this film that I saw last night. Since it came out I have wanted to see it, and I realise now that such expectations are more than likely to be disappointed. The film is good, certainly - intelligent, thought-provoking, and brilliantly acted - but it is not great. It follows Thomas Seyr, played by Romain Duris, an estate agent/rent enforcer not afraid to use violence, who rediscovers his love of the piano (his mother was a concert pianist), and trains for an audition which might get him out of his situation. Various things, as you might expect, contrive to bring him back to it. This set-up is compelling, but it is the film's finale which lets it down. I don't think I am giving away too much when I say that most of the action takes place over a few days, perhaps a week, but then all of the tension that is built up over this short timespan is dissipated when we suddenly jump forward several years. Many of the issues that we've become involved with, including relationships, are forgotten. All hope of a climax is thrown aside. The opening monologue, which had seemed as if it was important, turns out to be neither predictive or profound. Moreover, what is the beat that his heart skipped? This film has all the elements to be great, but somehow fails to put them together in the right order.

Old Boy

2010-03-19T13:32:00.000Z

I watched this film on the same day that I saw Alice in Wonderland, which may explain my negative approach to that movie. The two films couldn't be further apart. I suggest watching it without any information, but otherwise carry on. Old Boy, by the Korean director Chan-wook Park, is about a man who is privately imprisoned for fifteen years. When he is mysteriously released, he sets out for vengeance against whoever put him there, unaware that that person is still watching him, and waiting. As you can tell, this dilemma is intriguing and pulls you along easily. Min-sik Choi, who plays the main character, is very likeable and makes a brilliant transformation from ordinary man to crazed killer. This isn't, however, a film based round violence, or for which violence is the main attraction (as I had thought). Instead, it is the psychological consequences of the actions which are emphasised, and are far more compelling. This is a modern day Greek tragedy, but I wondered as I watched it whether it really successfully works for a Westerner. It was hard for me to be as strongly convinced as the characters seemed to be by what had happened. Their notion of shame, guilt, and confidence differs from mine and the conclusion of the film felt over-dramatic and strained. I didn't believe in what was happening, couldn't sympathise with the characters any more. I don't think I can blame Chan-wook Park for this. He's created a brilliantly sinister film that you can't afford not to have seen.

Alice In Wonderland

2010-03-09T16:56:00.000Z

I was surprised by how quickly I became complacent of the 3D IMAX experience whilst I was watching this film. At first, it was once again astonishing (as it had been for Avatar), but you begin to forget it, or take it for granted. you live inside the film, as it were, as if it was a play or real life. You see the full dimensions of characters interacting with their scenery, but because this is what you do everyday, you quickly begin to overlook it. I wonder if the really astonishing thing is actually 2D, and the effort it takes to make us think that's real. Anyway, aside from the interest in the technology, I have to hesitate before saying whether the film is any good or not. You may have heard that it is not a retelling of Lewis Carroll's book. It inhabits that world, but is more of a continuation rather than an adaptation. It also includes elements from his other books. The main problem I had with the film is that it makes sense. This may be a strange complaint, but the essence of Carroll's world was that it was absurd. There was no over-arching plot to be followed, merely incidental ones. Tim Burton gives the film a narrative, which I'm sure Carroll would have detested. There is a quest feel to the movie, and a conventional battle scene at the end. So, I can't say that I like or what see the film again, but what was Burton's aim with the movie? He appropriates the iconic moments of the books, and then deploys them in his own narrative. Characters are given motives and back-stories, essentially contradicting the original intention of Carroll. Of course the film is enjoyable (I don't know what children would make of it), and we shouldn't get hung up on whether or not it does justice to its original, but there's something perfunctory and empty about the experience, which left me relatively unchanged when I exited the cinema.

The Break-Up

2010-03-03T13:29:00.000Z

I think I've reviewed this film at least twice already, so I'm not going to do it again. Instead, I want to remark on something new that occurred to me as I was watching it recently. If you haven't seen it, I'm going to talk about the ending, which may ruin the whole thing for you. In my previous reviews I pointed out that I particularly liked the finish, avoiding the typical Hollywood ending. The main characters accidentally meet up again (perhaps six months or a year later), are happy to see each other, exchange pleasantries and then move on. Everything points towards this being a kind of closure to the relationship. They can finally see past all the anger and unpleasantness, and feel that that chapter of their life is closed. This is what I thought, and I liked it. However, looking more closely at that scene, perhaps I'm completely wrong? Are they going to get back together? The conversation is short and they don't make any plans, but they exchange compliments and both suggest catching up again. He invites her to come on his tour and she says she will. They're both extremely happy to see each other, and both (as far as we know) single. Throughout the film you are made to feel that they could resolve their differences if only they would stop being so stubborn, or explain their situation properly to each other. There is still obviously love there. I know this isn't exactly the riddle that is Michael Haneke's Hidden, but The Break-Up is a better than average film, and I think it deserves some consideration.

10 Things I Hate About You

2010-03-02T16:27:00.000Z

This film is much older than I thought it was (it came out in 1999). Notable is how young Heath Ledger - he was twenty at the time - and Joseph Gordon-Levitt look (star of the brilliant Brick). It's ostensibly based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, and is probably part of the spate of teen comedies derived from classic works (like She's All That and Get Over It) that I think was started by Clueless. On the surface you have to say that it's fairly awful. Gordon-Levitt falls in love with one sister, who isn't allowed to date until her older sister does. Now here's the twist: her older sister hates everyone. Enter Heath Ledger, who is willing to be paid to date the older sister, so that the younger is freed up. There's a few more twists and turns, but you get the idea and can probably guess what's going to happen. Nonetheless, this is a bit more refreshing and original than most teen comedies, but perhaps this is like being the best car in the scrapheap. Their teacher and the sisters' father are both enjoyable characters, but aside from them no one but Ledger is very interesting. The typical high school jock/jerk is just so obvious it's almost painful to watch (compare Ferris Bueller's Day Off). Overall I think it sits awkwardly with the original material, and doesn't have the post-modern irony and sharp wit that Clueless had. The school the film was shot in does give it an impressive background and feel, though.

Varsity Blues

2010-02-25T12:17:00.000Z

I remember this film receiving reasonable reviews when it came out in 1999. It stars James van der Beek (at the height of his Dawson's Creek fame) as the reserve quarterback for a high school American football team, that is being ruthlessly driven towards success by their coach, played by Jon Voight. I have thought that this might be a better film if it was focussed on Voight's character alone. He certainly gives the best performance in the movie, probably the best I've ever seen of him. His breakdown at the end is particularly impressive. As it is, however, the film is about van der Beek. As the reserve to a star quarterback, he hasn't played a game in a long time, and is disillusioned about the team and the lifestyle, eagerly waiting for it all to be over so he can go to university. The movie gods, as you can guess, aren't going to let him get away with this. The star quarterback is injured and he has to play the final crucial games of the season, bringing him into conflict not only with the obsessive coach, but also his family, friends, and own ideas about what he wants from life. As you might be able to tell, I think this is a pretty good premise, the problem is that the film feels confused about what it is. It blends comedy with drama, when I think it should've just been a drama. Van der Beek also isn't quite good enough for this role. It needed to be a dark, oppressive film, but instead doesn't achieve what it could've been. Good elements interchange with some fairly average, if not awful, ones. There's a pretty good soundtrack, but perhaps too any slow-motion footage of players being tackled. Most teenage dramas that start with the main character as an outsider hating everyone else, end up with him/her being accepted, and this film sort of concedes to that formula, but I'm not sure if it does completely. Does the main character submit to the idea of success that coach wanted from him? No, but it still feels like he has conceded in some way. I'm aware of the book, film and television series Friday Night Lights, which has been highly recommended to me, and focuses on a high school football team as well. Perhaps it is the fulfilment of what Varsity Blues should've been.

Five Hundred Films

2010-02-24T10:11:00.000Z

Have you seen five hundred films? It seems like a vast, impossible amount, but it's quite likely that you have. Stranded Cinema is now approaching its five hundredth review. Not necessarily all of these have been about specific films, and some of them have been repeats, but seeing as I've only been running this site for three out of my thirty years, I can say that I've definitely seen at least five hundred films, if not twice that amount. Can I remember all of them? Of course not. If I sat down to watch them, would I remember? Probably, yes. I'm hoping you're as startled as me by this number. It's astonishing that the brain can recall this amount of information, and it's not that I think I watch a lot of films. I watch a few a week. Perhaps this is a lot compared to you, but I compare myself to film critics and directors, who watch a few a day. It makes me think of how many films I'll see in my lifetime, how many films there are, and how many a critic will actually watch. These are big numbers. Does it devalue the individual movies themselves, or does it make the good ones stand out even more? If nothing else, recognition of just how many films you've seen forces you to contemplate the nature of the art and its production.

Dial M for Murder

2010-02-23T16:06:00.000Z

There has to be a different model for reviewing films based on plays, but seeing as I don't have one, I'm going to attempt to ask and answer questions at the same time. This movie suffers greatly from the usual problems involved. There is too much dialogue, too little action, and only really one set. It seems as if in order to compensate Hitchcock included over-dramatic music and also, strangely, filmed it in 3D. Apparently it was only shown for a brief time in that format, and I can see why. Perhaps my modern viewpoint (notably Avatar) skews my perspective, but I can't see much here that warrants 3D viewing. There are some unusual shots, especially the high angle ones, and it would be interesting to see them in 3D, but this film is mostly dialogue, as I said above. It's also, I would think, slightly too long. Although the plot is compelling and intriguing (you actually want the murderer to get away with it), you also want the events to move quicker than they do. All the actors are exceptional and it's an iconic role for Grace Kelly (although I prefer her in Rear Window). Aside from this, it has to remain one of Hitchcock's less interesting films. There are touches of his macabre side, and perhaps one his best cameos, but aside from that the adaptation just doesn't work for me. Like Rope, it's interesting, but flawed.

No Way Out

2010-02-22T13:32:00.000Z

Several times during this film I felt that there was no way out. It isn't entirely riveting. From 1987, directed by Roger Donaldson (Cocktail, Dante's Peak and others), and starring Kevin Costner (just as his career was taking off), it's a rather laborious political thriller. Costner is a naval officer, working at the Pentagon, having an affair with a woman who is also having an affair with his boss (played by Gene Hackman), the secretary of defense, who accidentally kills her. Costner is (in a roundabout way) framed for the murder. This is the gist of the film, but it takes a long, long time to get going. It's almost two hours long, and you can feel every minute drag by. Eventually the tension does begin to mount as the hunt closes down on Costner, but there's no great acting, music or dialogue to keep you excited here. Costner has always been rather bland, and it's a style that worked in a few movies, but doesn't really work here. The twist at the end is bizarre, and feels forced to make the film interesting (although I assume it must've been in the original novel by Kenneth Fearing). You lose all confidence and sympathy in your main character, and thus leave the movie feeling cheated, rather than satisfied. It's a strange decision by the writer/director. There's little to recommend here, and I think you might be better off watching the original film from the 1940s, The Big Clock.

Synecdoche, New York

2010-02-19T15:16:00.001Z

In Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Caden Cotard, a theatre director in Schenectady, New York, who eventually moves to the city itself. It starts with him listening to a radio program about how poets and novelists have often written about autumn, and it soon becomes evident that this is what Synecdoche, New York is about too. It is a masterpiece of the humour and surreal touches that we have become familiar with from Kaufman's earlier films (albeit directed by others). If you don't like that sense of humour, you won't like this film. It is essentially the same character from Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, just a little older: a man who enters a world too complicated for him. Yet it goes further than either of these, and I liked it more. It troubles our sense of identity, showing life as lived in the mind, rather than reality. Cotard wins the McArthur 'Genius' Grant, and sets about directing a play about death, but essentially about his own life. He fills an entire warehouse with actors, recreating scenes from his life, and elsewhere: this is the magnitude of the task, and it says something about the complexity of the human mind too. Of course, his project is never ready, never has a title, and never sees an audience. As the film goes on, the self-references would be perhaps too much for some. You begin to forget what is real and what is acted, who is playing who, and when. Years pass without him realising. It becomes slightly rambling, and perhaps it is ultimately fruitless, but maybe that's the idea. Is Kaufman merely repeating himself, or is he heading towards a masterpiece? Is this it? It might be. It's hilarious and disturbing, and one of the best films from last year. Unmissable.

WALL-E

2010-02-18T22:29:00.000Z

I'm not sure if this is a children's movie, and I'm not sure if watching it with children would change the experience. So I should point out that I watched it as an adult film, with adults. It's easy to be cynical, but WALL-E is undoubtedly adorable. He's like a young boy, or puppy, who falls in love, which is the point. He's a human, really, with a few robot characteristics, rather than the other way around. You can be incredulous that robots would not act the way he does, but then you'd be what is called a 'killjoy'. This film doesn't submit to that sort of scrutiny, because it's not meant to. You have to admire the brave choice to have two main characters who speaks little more than two or three words between them. Aside from a few sentences now and then, this film really has no dialogue. Good writing doesn't mean lots of dialogue, and the writers of WALL-E prove that here, even though some of a action sequences are a bit routine, there's still a freshness to just about everything. The 'female' character EVE is a bit annoying, as is the cockroach, a character we definitely could've done without. The opening music was too cute for me, and I found the ecological message a bit irritating (we don't go to the cinema to be preached at). The crudity of the way the film manipulates the audience can be sickening, but isn't that the point of art: to produce emotions in the viewer? (You might argue good art doesn't aim at base emotions, and you might be right.) If you come to this film with an open mind, you're bound to enjoy it immensely.

Inglourious Basterds

2010-02-17T13:19:00.001Z

I think I've been misled by false advertising around this film. Both the title and the trailer point toward it being a movie about the 'basterds', a gang of Americans/Jews/Germans brutally killing Nazis in occupied France. In fact, it is hardly about them at all. I would actually find it difficult to say who this film is about. It is hard to like any of the characters, or see them as the drive of the plot. None of them are full or rounded. We don't get to see more than one side of them, and as a result have little sympathy for them (not that Tarantino gives us much chance to). This is of course not a historically accurate occupied France, but a second-hand one based on war movies from the 40s and onwards. It's a transposition of Tarantino's style to a different period, which I think undermines the style itself. The film might be said to be more correctly about Christoph Waltz's character, the 'Jew Hunter', or Melanie Laurent's Jewish cinema owner, but it is hardly followed through. It feels like a film that was good in the writing stage, but got edited out of itself. Eventually, it becomes a plot to trap and then kill the Nazi elite in a cinema in Paris, but this feels tagged on to a random straggle of events with no purpose. More worrying is that there were several repeats of elements from Tarantino's earlier films - are these deliberate, or mistakes, or lazy repetition? If this film was by an unknown first time director, I'd probably have a very different opinion of it, and that's exactly the point. Tarantino's films come with such high expectations that you can't help but feel disappointed. There is brilliant acting (Waltz is considered a good bet for an Oscar), and good music, but scenes go on for too long, characters are laboriously introduced then disappear, and although the ending was interesting, when the credits started to roll I felt generally unimpressed and empty about the experience.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

2010-02-16T10:29:00.000Z

I had always thought this was the one 80s teen comedy not written and directed by John Hughes, but of course it is. Perhaps it was because it doesn't contain any of his usual cast, or that it feels markedly different from them. Perhaps the absence of Michael J. Fox disturbed me (he was considered for the role, but apparently Matthew Broderick was always the first choice). I think Broderick is key here. Talking to the camera, and his wry, adult humour sets this film apart from Hughes' other films (although of course his teenagers are all very adult). This is also a different movie in that the main character doesn't change. Ferris Bueller undergoes no emotional journey in this film. Instead, he is the foil, the catalyst, for the journey that his best friend Cameron goes on. Cameron is the one who is ill, and who doesn't want to go anywhere or do anything. Cameron is the one who stares at the little girl in the painting by Seurat. Cameron is the one who is at first terrified of his parents, then confident in meeting them. All the while in the background, as is typical, we are aware that this is their last year in school, and one of the last chances that they'll have to be together (the influence on Superbad is notable). Ferris changes Cameron, but doesn't change himself. Even his sister Jeanie develops, but not the main character. It is in fact a mish-mash of John Hughes' films, and lacks any real narrative drive. It isn't actually as good as his earlier work in this sense, and yet somehow it surpasses them. It contains that magic element, which might be Broderick, the music, or some great lines, that makes it culturally significant, and unavoidably great fun.

District 9

2010-02-15T16:12:00.001Z

Not the sequel to a film called 'District 8', but instead a fictional half-documentary set in Johannisberg, where a spaceship has mysteriously stopped above the city, full of malnourished aliens. We join the story twenty years later when these aliens, who have been living in slums near the city centre since they arrived, are now being forcibly evicted. The man organising this procedure is our main character, Wikus van de Merwe. It's a sightly easy concept (the audience congratulates itself on noticing parallels with illegal immigrants), with some convenient turns of the plot, and obvious developments, but it's executed brilliantly on a large scale, with realism, and a grim humour. The bureaucracy of the administration involved is particularly good, and the main character's slow change is acted excellently. I wonder if the documentary style is necessary at all. It makes the film more of a comedy to begin with, like 'The Office' with aliens, but it doesn't really add much. The style is slowly abandoned, to my relief, but then the interesting concepts and emotions of the film give way to a fairly routine action ending. The final act of the movie is pretty predictable, and leaves you feeling empty, especially when you remember how well the film had started. It's as if the whole motive for the movie changed halfway through. Either one approach or the other would have worked, but perhaps not both. Regardless of this, it is a fascinating, almost brilliant, film. I hesitate, however, when I think about whether I'd like to watch it again.

Scream 3

2010-02-12T16:28:00.000Z

I think there is something in the nature of a trilogy that makes us believe that it's good, even when it might not be. Perhaps if a franchise has got to the stage where they are being funded to make a third film, it must be entertaining. A lot of other people must have made the decision that we'd enjoy this, somewhere out there in movie-land. Certainly I'm not saying that the Scream movies are bad. I've always found them enjoyable, although I'm beginning to find there's a limit to how many times I can watch them. Reviewing them all recently, I haven't been as entertained as I once was. The third film in particular felt fairly perfunctory. There's nothing new here, really. We've seen enough people killed in enough ways for it to not be scary or funny any more. The self-references do reach a new high - the plot revolves around the production of 'Stab 3', and one scene involves actors being faxed lines about what's going to happen next - but this is hardly a reason to like the film. In fact, the post-modernism seems to become emptier and emptier upon revisits. It is funny in parts, but when we have to have another scene where Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers talk about how they fell out and might get back together again, we know we're watching one sequel too many. With those two, and Sidney Prescott, the series did create strong characters, and perhaps did have potential, but it almost takes itself too seriously here. What I've always found strange is that Scary Movie spoofs Scream, when the original Scream was a spoof itself.

The Sting

2010-02-11T16:20:00.000Z

Although I might have seen a reasonable amount of films, there are of course always more films I haven't seen than have. What is more, some of these are considered classics that everyone should see (I only score 71% on Film Addict). Until yesterday, one of these was The Sting. In case you don't know, it stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman as conmen in 1930s Chicago. They get together to plan a sting on a wealthy New York gang leader (played by Robert Shaw). It aims for (and achieves) great cinema rather than great art. Newman and Redford have a magical on-screen presence, hardly rivalled nowadays. They don't really have to say anything. Their combination here (and again in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) make it the buddy-movie of all buddy-movies. It has good writing, good acting, good music, and is great fun. There are a few annoying moments where the audience is deceived as much as the characters, but that kind of device was probably invented in this film. We've just seen it too many times now for it to be fresh (including the very similar recent Ocean's Eleven). Is this the kind of film Hollywood would still be making if it wasn't for Star Wars four years later? Is that a good thing? Best line: 'Try not to live up to all my expectations'.

The Hurt Locker

2010-02-10T17:49:00.000Z

I am slowly coming to realise that I never actually posted a review of this film after I saw it. I can't conceive of a reason why. It is without a doubt one of the best films I've seen this year (with Moon, Avatar and Frozen River). Whilst not as popular as Avatar, now with an equal nine Oscar nominations it might get a re-release, or do well on video. It follows the story of a bomb disposal squad in Iraq and their new, unconventional commander. It feels about as real as possible, and tells the story in an unobtrusive style, with little comment or judgement, especially in its ambiguous relationship to war - is it a pro or anti-war film? What side are the characters on? These are the most frequent of the many questions it raises about not just the Iraq war, but the human condition in general. One quote comes after they have mistreated a civilian, and is particularly significant: 'if he wasn't an insurgent, he sure as hell is now'. You've probably already heard how unbearably tense this film is. It shows us a fascinating aspect of modern war, of the difficulties they face in telling civilian from insurgent, and of their inability to act in sometimes terrifying situations. The ticking bomb could be representative of many things - most obviously the situation in Iraq in general - but the brilliance of this film is that it doesn't try to force an opinion upon you (like say, Avatar). It is a first class, unmissable movie experience.

Frozen River

2010-02-09T10:30:00.050Z

This if the first feature from writer and director Courtney Hunt, and was actually nominated for two Oscars last year (best actress and screenplay). Despite losing those, it won a string of other awards, and within a few minutes of this film it's not hard to see why. It follows a single mother in up-state New York, close to the Canadian border, who is desperately trying to scrape some money together to pay for a new house. It's a depressing, powerful film, brilliantly written, and perfectly acted. No one here is pretty, or rich, or lives in big houses. For some reason I think back to It's Complicated, and am astonished in the different values that produced each movie. It is a film, like any great work of art, that shows you a new world (or a new aspect to this world). This film shows you a side of America that you would never of thought of or understood. I say this as a European, but I'm going to guess few Americans know about it either. Indeed, the main character of the film stumbles into this world relatively innocent. The frozen river of the title refers to one on a native American reservation that allows them to traffic in illegal immigrants, a quick way of earning money that the mother becomes involved with. The story here is far more important than the form (no flashy cuts, no loud music), and the story is utterly compelling, told with subtlety and sensitivity. You should watch it after watching the latest Hollywood remake, and it might make you never want to watch another one.

Million Dollar Baby

2010-02-08T10:43:00.053Z

I had avoided watching this film, for no reason that I can now think of. This ignorance, though, helped make the movie much more powerful for me than if I'd known the plot in advance. Yes, I knew that it was about Clint Eastwood's character training Hilary Swank's female boxer, but this is only the skeleton upon which the drama is built. Like every sports film, we inevitably have to sit through a training montage, watch an amateur attempt to perform like a professional, and have the plot revolve around what happens in the arena. However, this movie surpasses a lot of these clichés so that it is a point of contention whether to call it a 'sports film' at all. Hilary Swank is brilliant and believable as Maggie Fitzgerald, and she won an Oscar for her efforts. I was a little disappointed by Eastwood and Morgan Freeman, who seemed fairly lacklustre (and actually hard to hear they spoke in such gravelly voices, as if they trying to out-do each other), although one of them won an Oscar too. It could be said that the film is nastily contrived to produce tears, or that the voice over is unnecessary and sentimental, but these are arguable flaws. It is undoubtedly a powerful drama, played fairly straight, and days later it will catch you again, and make you pause for thought. If that isn't a sign of a good film, I don't like good films.

Alien: Resurrection

2010-02-05T11:42:00.001Z

Seeing as I'd watched Alien 3 recently, I thought it was a good opportunity to watch the fourth film in the quadrilogy again (the correct word is actually 'tetralogy', but no one uses that). I've actually always liked this film, although when you compare it to the first two movies, and ask whether it successfully continues the franchise, you have to be disappointed. They are really scraping the barrel here. Ripley (along with the aliens) is quite conveniently resurrected. Her character bears almost no resemblance to the interesting figure of the first two films, though. She is now 'part alien'. There is no longer any attempt to slowly introduce the aliens, to terrify us with them again. Instead, the film gives us a series of fairly gruesome and complicated deaths, but we've pretty much seen it all before. There's only so many ways an alien can sneak up on someone and kill them. This film was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, however, which must account for the bits of originality that are here, and the sense of humour involved. There is a slightly annoying comic book look to the film, which I can assume comes from Jeunet. Watch out for the underwater scene, which is about as contrived as you can get, trying desperately to show us the aliens in a new light. This film is good fun, despite some bad acting by Winona Ryder, but when you compare it to its predecessors, which inevitably you have to, you can't help but feel that this was an empty exercise.

Leprechaun

2010-02-04T14:08:00.001Z

A film from the early 1990s to consider today. Not exactly a classic, but it has generated some sort of cult, incredibly spawning five sequels, perhaps because it marks the first film performance by Jennifer Aniston, although we can't give all of the credit to her. It is a terrible movie by most standards, but we have to see past that if we want to understand why some people like it. There's no doubt that it's funny, for instance. It's in fact so funny that you have to categorise this as a 'comedy-horror', rather than a 'horror'. You can't take the Leprechaun seriously for more than about two minutes of this movie, and it's not helped by the bad acting. They could've held back his appearance to build up a bit of tension. Aside from one scene with a pogo stick, he's not frightening at all. His almost OCD-like compulsion to clean shoes is hilarious. Overall, there is little to no character development. Everything is rushed through from one action scene to the text, with a hashed attempt at mythology trying to mesh it all together. The only answer to the conundrum of its popularity is that people must like it because it's so bad, and because Aniston is attractive (and pre-nose job). For a true masterpiece in the 'comedy-horror' genre, you have to see Tremors.

Star Trek

2010-02-03T14:23:00.001Z

Perhaps the hardest of all franchises for a new director to find his identity within is Star Trek. There have been eleven films and five different television series (let's not forget video games, novels and even an animated show). This is what J. J. Abrams had to contend with, and it has to be said he's done a good job. He did what is known as a 'reboot', but in a particularly effective way that can't be copied in any other genre (any fictional universe that can make use of time travel has the greatest deus ex machina available). As soon as you begin to think 'this didn't happen in the original show', you realise that's exactly the point of the film.We see Kirk and his crew grow up, meet each other, and have their first adventures on the Enterprise in an entirely new context. Indeed, this film in a way cancels out all the films that have gone before it. There are a few cheap moments that rely on our preconceptions about the characters, but this was probably inevitable. Overall, though, I in fact felt that the main plot-line to stop the Romulan ship at many points overshadowed the more interesting stories of who Kirk and his crew were etc. There were also a fair few plot holes and very convenient coincidences, some typical of actions films, but some just lazy writing. I have to say a word about the re-enactments the actors attempted. There seemed to be two different approaches: some tried to copy the original actor, others gave a new reading of the character. In the first group, I felt Scotty and Chekov were quite awful, but Bones and Spock very good. Kirk and Uhura fall into the second group, and I think they both succeeded. Chris Pine is Kirk, but without imitating William Shatner, which is a very hard thing to pull off. It is though, as I said at the beginning, a very tough thing for all involved to be a part of, and they actually managed produced an enjoyable film which without a doubt can be described as a 'roller-coaster'. I wonder what original Star Trek fans made of it.

Moon

2010-02-02T10:31:00.035Z

There is surprisingly little to say about this film, except that it is virtually a masterpiece. It falls short because of its small scale (and perhaps because it's not by a 'master'), which is not its fault. It is without a doubt a masterpiece of a small scale drama (compare Drag Me To Hell). The dialogue is pitch-perfect, the music great, and Sam Rockwell brilliant. It doesn't tell you anything you can't figure out for yourself. It's an excellently conceived and complete concept. I can't tell you much more about it without ruining it for you (so if you haven't seen it I suggest you stop reading). Created and directed by Duncan Jones (the son of David Bowie, if that matters), there are now high hopes for what he'll do next. The film raises in a new context fundamental questions about our identity, our memory, and our individuality. You can't help believe in the life Sam Rockwell's character remembers, and you can't help wanting him to go back to Earth, despite him never having been there. This alone is a fascinating dilemma. The final interaction between him and the robot 'Gerty' is perfect. There are virtually no negative points I can make about this movie. The voice-overs at the end were a bit of a cheap trick, but perhaps necessary. Otherwise, along with The Hurt Locker, this is one of my favourite films of the year.

Drag Me To Hell

2010-02-01T10:42:00.036Z

I have to admit to being disappointed in this film, but I think this might be because of false advertising, rather than any particular failings. I was led to believe it was one of the most terrifying movies ever made, but found it actually more funny than frightening. There were a fair few jumpy moments, but nothing out of the ordinary. Instead, this film succeeds as a small-scale, classic horror, with a good premise well executed. Although the initial insult and curse didn't convince me enough, and I would've liked to see more definition in the progression of the curse itself, this is still great fun. Apparently Sam Raimi planned this film more than ten years ago (before Spider-Man). Could he have been influenced by The Ring? There are a lot of similarities, and that remains the better film. Some of the plot turns here just aren't worked out well enough. Although I believe in subtlety, we need clearer signals in a film like this. Conversely, you can see the final twist of the film coming a mile off. This makes about ten minutes of the movie pretty redundant, which is a shame. It's a movie that is just slight off being very good. Perhaps the production was rushed, or perhaps it was pushed through too quickly due to Raimi's success with Spider-Man. Would a less influential director have worked harder to make sure every element of this film worked? As an interesting comparison, tomorrow I review Moon.

He's Just Not That Into You

2010-01-29T14:06:00.000Z

I'll leave the question of why I watched this film for you to figure out. It's adapted from a self-help book, and some of this fragmentary nature is still evident in the movie. They have attempted to mould a narrative out of it - there are various interweaving story-lines, all aiming towards teaching us something about relationships - but I think ultimately they fail. It feels like a weak imitation of Love Actually (a film I didn't particularly like anyway). I found myself lost between the several characters and their problems, empathising with none of them. No one of them particularly caught or held my attention. You flit from one story to the next, not giving characters time to develop rounded personalities. Perhaps I'm being unfair, as I did approach this negatively right from the start. I am of course not the target audience (for much of this film men are portrayed as unfeeling bastards), but there is a central flaw to the movie.After offering good advice to women to begin with, it then contradicts it in the last ten minutes. For example, there is a man who throughout disagrees with marriage, but at the end he proposes. Why? This gives us the 'exception to the rule' that throughout we had been told to ignore. Avoid this if you are at all cynical about relationships, but if you're a born romantic, I think it will offer you a good reasonable night in with a glass of wine.

Sherlock Holmes

2010-01-28T10:23:00.004Z

A last minute change made us see Sherlock Holmes instead of Up in the Air. I'd been hesitant because of the association of Guy Ritchie and Jude Law, two people I'm not normally convinced by. Jude Law was reasonable enough, but not brilliant, and the direction was merely following a style that's become popular, rather than doing something original (preview of fight-scenes seemingly stolen from The Last Samurai). It could be said that Robert Downey Jr was just replaying his performance from Iron Man, but all of this is too easy, and I think slightly unfair. I haven't read enough Conan Doyle to be able to say whether they do justice to the text, or whether they were trying to, but what is clear is that they're having fun with the characters, and this is infectious. There's a great score by Hans Zimmer, a fun sense of humour, some good action sequences, and intriguing plot turns. Overall, the story was predictable enough (although perhaps unfairly Conan Doyle was the first to write such stories), and the comic book style look of the film slightly annoying. I left the cinema slightly perturbed by the ending, I think it needed a bit more definition, although I believe they have already agreed on a sequel.

Alien 3

2010-01-27T10:35:00.005Z

After recently watching Alien 3 again, I've been looking back into the nightmare that the film was to produce (partly inspired by filmonic). To recap, the studio apparently suddenly found themselves with a very successful franchise, one that could make or break the company. The pressure to produce a money-making third film was thus ramped up. They went through hiring and losing several directors and writers (Renny Harlin, William Gibson, Vincent Ward etc: the full details are here). Only then was David Fincher approached. Fincher had never directed a full length film before. He was subjected to budget cuts and time constraints, and I believe he left before the editing process began. What was released in cinemas (with trailers that suggested the events actually took place on earth) was a terrible mish-mash of ideas, belonging to all and none. Whilst its development process might be extreme, it's not hard to believe that this sort of thing happens a lot in Hollywood. It's the battle between creative ideas and making money that I talked about a while ago. In this case, the relationship destroyed the film entirely, even though I think it did actually make its money back. And this is why we see so many remakes and dramatisations of books. They're a safe bet for the studio, who can be reassured that no matter how wild the director, he has to stick to the source material. They have a guaranteed audience who've read the book, or seen the original film or TV series. Creativity doesn't make money.

Tuesday

2010-01-26T15:03:00.002Z

A second post on Avatar. I want to focus on the 3-D aspect of it, especially since I'd never seen a 3-D film before (I didn't know you got proper plastic glasses, for instance). I have to admit that I was astonished before the movie even came on, as several of the trailers gave us a taste of what 3-D was like (Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon). Avatar, though, being ostensibly 'real', was a step up. The first shots in the cryo-chamber were just incredible. However, the images did occasionally seem simply like layers of 2-D images, rather than a full 3-D picture. What also disturbed me was the out of focus parts of the image. As with a normal film, there is only one bit in focus at a time, but with 3-D, because you feel like you are watching real life, your eyes have a tendency to wonder over the image, and you expect it to be in focus when you do. This, perhaps, is the next big test: for everything to be in focus when you want it to be. Several times during the movie I had to stop myself and say: 'none of this is real'. The film throughout mixes real with CGI in different proportions, but you would find it very hard to tell exactly what these proportions are. The CGI is so realistic now that you don't even notice it any more. I used to always feel myself pulled away from a film by bad CGI (even Lord of the Rings and King Kong), but now the connections are seamless. The greatest achievement of this is CGI characters that you believe in and empathise with (remember Jar Jar Binks?). I bet George Lucas is kicking himself that he didn't wait ten more years for his Star Wars prequels. Avatar is what his new films should've been.

Monday

2010-01-25T09:14:00.003Z

Avatar is going to take more than one post. As the cliché goes, it's not so much a film as an experience. For today, I'll try to review the film for those of you who haven't seen it. Roger Ebert has famously compared it to when he first saw Star Wars, and for me Avatar has certainly been what I imagined being alive in 1977 was like. I'll still prefer Star Wars, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a whole generation for whom Avatar was their favourite film. I'd never seen a 3-D film before, which might explain some of my awe, but I believe Avatar goes further than any other such project has. There's no way to describe it other than to say 'it feels like you're there'. I was gasping in astonishment for about the first five minutes. After a while, you actually get used to it to such an extent that you're deeply disappointed when you see a normal film later. Criticisms that point to the similarity of plot to other films (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontus, FernGully) miss the point. You won't have seen anything like Avatar. Moreover you don't go to Avatar to see great character development, intense personal drama, and scintillating dialogue. You go for the experience, to be overwhelmed, which undoubtedly you will be. Is the dialogue in Star Wars great? Is the storyline all that original? You have to go to the film with the correct expectations. This is an incredibly beautiful movie (which is part of the point of the narrative), which takes itself seriously (I say this as a good thing). I was a little disappointed by the score. James Horner seems to have stolen melodies from his previous scores to Titanic, Aliens and Star Trek. Plus the Leona Lewis song is awful. Nevertheless, if you are at all interested in the cinema you have to see this movie, definitely in 3-D, and preferably in IMAX. To compound the comparisons to Star Wars, there's already talk of sequels.

Why Is It Called 'Stranded' Cinema?

2010-01-24T14:31:00.002Z

The name may seem a bit odd, and perhaps slightly self-pitying. The reasons for it, however, are fourfold:

Because the reviews appear in a thread, or strand.
Because I was intending at the beginning to talk about cinemas that had been closed, or stranded.
Because one of these cinemas I mistakenly thought was on the Strand, in London (it is the one in the picture, actually on Piccadilly).
Because I started writing due to a free-ticket promotion in the Evening Standard, which sounds like stranded.

Friday

2010-01-22T13:11:00.004Z

In a third computer related movie coincidence*, I happened to watch the 1995 film Hackers, starring Jonny Lee Miller and a young Angelina Jolie. This is the same year that The Net came out, although the tone of the film is very different. Miller plays a boy who at a young age wrote a particularly virulent virus, and is subsequently banned from using a computer until he's 18. Shortly before he reaches this age, now living in a new city, he meets a group of hackers at his school, one of whom has found something suspicious amidst a large corporation's computer network. As you can guess, Miller is forced to use his superior hacking skills to come to the rescue. Aside from the new context, there's nothing very interesting here. I think I remember it being popular at the time, but of course it ceased being so very quickly. Hackers are idolised here in a way few of us have patience with any more, not to mention that the computers, clothes, culture etc of these so called cyberpunks is long since out of fashion. The visualisation of the inside of computer networks is quite fantastical, a good attempt to make computers interesting on screen, but still all that is really happening is that a character is typing on a keyboard. I found it fairly uncompelling (if that's a word). Miller is not a great actor, but Jolie does have a good presence here. It's interesting perhaps only as a piece of history, not a piece of cinema.

*There is actually a very good computer moment in It's Complicated, but I can't tell you about that.

Thursday

2010-01-21T08:59:00.005Z

It's Complicated is the new film from Nancy Meyers (writer/director of Something's Gotta Give, What Women Want and The Holiday*), starring Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin. You probably don't need to be told that this is a chick-flick, if that term means anything. A large part of it consists of Streep smiling, laughing, crying, and gossiping with her female friends. It ambles its way along fairly pleasantly. Everyone lives in large, beautiful houses, and it is almost always sunny. It is funny enough, although this isn't a comedy. I thought the funniest part belonged to John 'the next big thing' Krasinski (he plays the 'Tim' character in the American version of The Office). There is good chemistry between Baldwin and Streep, and its innovative at least to see romance now between people in their 60s, rather than their 20s. The baggage they have, and the complications it brings, make this a more nuanced telling of a story you've probably seen a hundred times. I found something slightly wrong about Steve Martin's performance (this may be that he's perhaps had cosmetic surgery and looks quite static), but it's a minor niggle. Overall, it is enjoyable, including one classic comedy moment, but I wouldn't see this again. Whether I have to or not is a different matter.

*Thanks to in cinema, by text, information from Alex.

Wednesday

2010-01-20T13:24:00.003Z

What is it about Saints and Soldiers that makes (or made) it forgettable? You may not have even heard of it (released in 2003), but apparently it won many awards (16 according to IMDb). The title, to begin with, is probably putting you off. It sounds preachy already. What crippled it even more, I believe, was that it came out after Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, and Band of Brothers, which made it look like a cheap imitation regardless of whether it was or not. Add to this a lack of recognisable actors (Corbin Allred, anyone?), and you're in trouble. Having now seen it myself, I can however confirm that it is a cheap imitation. Search for the soundtrack of Band of Brothers, compare it to this film, and you'll hardly be able to tell them apart. Now read a plot summary: a band of soldiers behind enemy lines are on a mission that could change the course of the war. The acting is mediocre (especially poor from the RAF pilot) and the script is terrible. It's like someone has tried to mesh together all the great moments from Saving Private Ryan, but forgotten about the parts that connected them, that strung them along into a compelling narrative. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know about warfare and the human condition. It really is a poor effort. Added to this we are told at the beginning that it is 'based on actual events'. What we're not told is that the story and characters are completely fictional, and that real events (which happened to different soldiers at different times) are randomly jammed into the film. Worth seeing only to remind yourself how good those other films are.

Tuesday

2010-01-19T16:32:00.003Z

Yesterday I didn't think I had anything to write about, but then I remembered that I've seen five movies since my last post. Quite an oversight. First off, David Cronenberg's first film: Shivers. It's very similar to his second movie, Rabid, which I reviewed here. Both involve parasitic type organisms which spread from person to person, causing panic and death, with some perverse sexual side-effects. Shivers is contained in one place, and its time-line is limited to just about one day. It feels more deliberately constructed, whereas Rabid was more natural, more freely flowing. Rabid seemed to let the story happen, whereas Shivers tries too hard to tell it. Nonetheless, there are not a great amount of differences. They both attempt mild social satire, and their endings more or less point in the same direction. The scope of Rabid sets it apart, however, and there is also something more intriguing there in the difficulty the lead character goes through. We experience with her the terror of the situation, whereas is Shivers we are isolated from it. I wouldn't say either film is brilliant, but they are definitely necessary viewing for fans of Cronenberg (and the zombie genre perhaps), showing his ability from very early on to disconcert.

Friday

2010-01-15T11:35:00.001Z

I've had the David Lean quotation below the title for a while now. As I was looking at it yesterday, I realised that I didn't really agree with it. 'Film is a dramatised reality and it is the director's job to make it appear real. An audience should not be conscious of technique'. I agree with the first part, to a degree. It is not about appearing real, as in 'like real life', but of being consistent within itself. Or, rather, the characters should be real. You can put them in whatever situation you like, as long as they are believable. It's the second part of his quote that I'm more wary of, however. Should an audience be conscious of technique? I think they almost definitely should, but perhaps it is a semi-consciousness. I think what Lean is talking about is something that takes you out of the moment of the film, that makes you think 'how did they do that?' (I think Kubrick talks about this too). There should be technique that you're aware of, camera movements, cuts, focus etc, but they should be integral to the film, built within it and incapable of removing you from it, and back into the seat you're sitting in. You might even think 'how did they do that?' (say with some of the shots in Touch of Evil) but never to the extent that you stop engaging with the characters. It's only with the 'second watch' of the film that these questions should raise themselves up to full consciousness, and this is something that Lean perhaps didn't consider.

Thursday

2010-01-14T12:12:00.004Z

David Mamet has half-confirmed my fears about the Hollywood system: that no one watches films any more. He suggests that very few people read scripts, especially those with the higher positions in the production companies. The reason for this, he argues, is that 'script reader' is one of the basic jobs in such a company: trawling through the hundreds of scripts that get sent to them. These junior members of the company do then read, but they only read in order to please those higher up the chain. They don't look for what is good, but for what their superiors are looking for - that is, to make money. When these 'script readers' are elevated up in the company, they look with disdain (and perhaps boredom, horror) on script reading, leaving it to those below them, and their concerns become more directly 'how can a film make money?'. This, you might say, is only for scripts that get sent in, what happens to work from established writers? It's more than possible that this work is green-lighted without anyone reading it. More worryingly, such scripts will be reduced to a 'pitch', and this is what gets the film made, or not. Likewise with a director, with or without a script. He is either agreed to based on his reputation, or his pitch. So if no one reads scripts, does anyone bother watching the films?

Wednesday

Sunday

2008-12-21T10:00:00.002Z

Some Christmas thoughts: is there an opposition to liberal, democratic capitalism? Until earlier this year many of us, including me, thought that there wasn't. I'm still very hesitant to say that the current perceived economic downturn (I refuse to use the words 'credit crunch' or 'recession', yet) spells the end of capitalism, as some have rashly declared. Undoubtedly some things will change, but how much? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, so those forces will be hurried out, won't they? Someone always benefits, and this time it's the anti-war protesters: maybe they planned the whole thing? Zizek's last book predicts a way to overcome capitalism, which could perhaps now be coming true. In a crisis, people turn to totalitarian governments, which is what we really have to be afraid of if things do get worse. Perhaps they already have? Isn't Obama's liberalism a kind of idealism that could easily flip over into totalitarianism? I've got lots of questions, lots of 'isms', but not many answers.

Thursday

2008-12-18T12:01:00.001Z

The astute among you (or those not reading this through an RSS feed) would have noticed I set up a poll last week. The question was, which is your favourite Back to the Future film? You responded with a resounding 100% voting for part one. Undoubtedly this is the case, but the other two films do help to make it a great trilogy. Today, I've set up a slightly more festive poll: what is your favourite Christmas movie? Obviously I couldn't include every Christmas movie ever made, so I have just picked those that I like, with an 'other' option for those of who you are fussy. If I've missed a glaringly obvious one, the poll can easily be amended. The options are: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation; It's a Wonderful Life; Die Hard; Just Friends; Bad Santa; and Home Alone. There's a fairly substantial list of such films here. Happy Christmas.