Sometimes I wonder if Seth Rogen sleeps... he seems to be in everything these days...
Anyway, Zack and Miri Make a Porno is the new film from Kevin Smith, director of such films as Clerks, Dogma and Chasing Amy. I've mentioned before that I'm not mad about Kevin Smith. It's not that I think he's a bad director or anything though, he's just never... set my mind alight as it were. Still, I thought the film sounded interesting so I was eager to go along and see it. I mean, it's called Zack and Miri Make a Porno!
In case you haven't heard or guessed what Zack and Miri Make a Porno is about yet, it's about a couple of best platonic friends from high school, Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), who finds themselves broke and desperate and, due to an extremely funny chance encounter, decide that the best way to get rich quick is to make a porno. Did you guess right?
Zack and Miri is one of those films that they're calling "a romantic comedy for guys". Forgetting Sarah Marshall was another one and I had a good laugh at that too. Zack and Miri was better than FSM though. What I'm always looking for in a film is heart and there are some really great moments in Zack and Miri. What works for it is the relationship between Miri and Zack, it's believable. Sure, she's a good looking girl and he looks like an ape but they both seem like normal people who could just be friends. In fact that's what's great about the film. Sure, a couple of mates making a porno sounds mad and some of the things that happen are a bit mad but the essence of the film is real. Everything that happens between them seems real, there's none of this overly dramatic romantic crap that you see in some romantic comedies. It's just about two people and how they realise they're in love on the set of a porno film.
But anyway, I feel like I should mention some other stuff... I thought it was very funny, but yeah, it's toilet humour really. Also almost all the reviews I've read of the film so far make mention of the language. So I guess I should too. From an Irish perspective it's not that bad, it sounded natural enough so it was grand. What I hate is when people are swearing in a film and it sounds like they've never sworn in their lives, ridiculous.
The other thing I want to mention is the soundtrack. The music in it is brilliant and there's particularly excellent use of Hey by The Pixies. It's a great song in a great scene. I'd actually never heard it before... had to go for a hunt for it when I got home.
So all in all I recommend this film.
8/10
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Body of Lies (2008)
I was pleasantly surprised by Body of Lies. I really didn't expect to like it, it's just not my kind of film. I think I've mentioned before in the blog (actually just had a look and it was in the No Country For Old Men) - I like films that have to be a film. I want a film to be a story that I have to be shown rather than told. Body of Lies is not that kind of visual film. It's a story... and it's a war story, another genre I'm not particularly interested in... they always seem a little too worthy for me. Also I'm not a Russell Crowe fan at all... actually I'm fairly indifferent on Leonardo DiCaprio too. However, despite all this, I liked it.
Body of Lies is about a CIA operative in the Middle East and his boss back in the US. A major terrorism campaign is being carried out Europe and the operative (DiCaprio) is on a mission to find the man who's ordered it. That's pretty much the gist of it really. Various things happen along the way and now that I come to write about it there's little that stands out, not that I would - don't want to spoil it or anything.
One of the things I liked about this film was the ease in watching it. There were quite a few strands running through it, not in a Crash kind of way - just that there are a few different parties involved in Ferris's (DiCaprio) search, but it wasn't difficult to follow. Now it's not often I'd praise the fact that a film wasn't too taxing on the brain but too often I watch films similar to this and I get the feeling that director or whoever has removed scenes to make it a bit more mysterious. It's as though they sit down, watch a film through and think, "Oh no, if the audience isn't constantly confused they're not gonna think it's a smart film. Let's take some bits out and make it more of a puzzle!". What ends up happening is that you get a film where some scenes are missing their context. It's very annoying. Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine. Anyway, Body of Lies is not like this, it all makes sense. Well... story-wise, I'm not gonna start making political statements here.
I also liked the look of the film, it had an interesting colour palette, good lighting. But it wasn't over-done, there's weren't too many arty shots (as I call them) that can sometimes get in the way of a story. And! and this is a big and now. AND, I didn't find Russell Crowe particularly irritating at all... while Leonardo DiCaprio was very good...
Overall I'd have to say that what I liked about this film what that there was a certain balance to it. Now I'm sure someone else might watch it and think that it's another wishy washy liberal anti-American rant. I didn't see it like that at all. I just watched it as a film and not a political commentary - you can read whatever you want into Body of Lies but I think that's more a reflection of oneself than the film. As far as I'm concerned, there were good performances, an interesting plot, it looked good and it was all wrapped up in a nice big bow in the end. It's an easy film but I enjoyed it anyway.
I should possibly mention though that on the negative side, some fairly unlikely things do happen and a lot of it does seem slightly exaggerated. Only slightly though and that's what I mean about the balance. Everyone's a bit exaggerated for effect but it doesn't really cause any harm. Also I wanted to mention that Mark Strong and his character were very good, the bit of levity was nice. Course I wonder if my saying that says more about me than the film...
7/10
Body of Lies is about a CIA operative in the Middle East and his boss back in the US. A major terrorism campaign is being carried out Europe and the operative (DiCaprio) is on a mission to find the man who's ordered it. That's pretty much the gist of it really. Various things happen along the way and now that I come to write about it there's little that stands out, not that I would - don't want to spoil it or anything.
One of the things I liked about this film was the ease in watching it. There were quite a few strands running through it, not in a Crash kind of way - just that there are a few different parties involved in Ferris's (DiCaprio) search, but it wasn't difficult to follow. Now it's not often I'd praise the fact that a film wasn't too taxing on the brain but too often I watch films similar to this and I get the feeling that director or whoever has removed scenes to make it a bit more mysterious. It's as though they sit down, watch a film through and think, "Oh no, if the audience isn't constantly confused they're not gonna think it's a smart film. Let's take some bits out and make it more of a puzzle!". What ends up happening is that you get a film where some scenes are missing their context. It's very annoying. Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine. Anyway, Body of Lies is not like this, it all makes sense. Well... story-wise, I'm not gonna start making political statements here.
I also liked the look of the film, it had an interesting colour palette, good lighting. But it wasn't over-done, there's weren't too many arty shots (as I call them) that can sometimes get in the way of a story. And! and this is a big and now. AND, I didn't find Russell Crowe particularly irritating at all... while Leonardo DiCaprio was very good...
Overall I'd have to say that what I liked about this film what that there was a certain balance to it. Now I'm sure someone else might watch it and think that it's another wishy washy liberal anti-American rant. I didn't see it like that at all. I just watched it as a film and not a political commentary - you can read whatever you want into Body of Lies but I think that's more a reflection of oneself than the film. As far as I'm concerned, there were good performances, an interesting plot, it looked good and it was all wrapped up in a nice big bow in the end. It's an easy film but I enjoyed it anyway.
I should possibly mention though that on the negative side, some fairly unlikely things do happen and a lot of it does seem slightly exaggerated. Only slightly though and that's what I mean about the balance. Everyone's a bit exaggerated for effect but it doesn't really cause any harm. Also I wanted to mention that Mark Strong and his character were very good, the bit of levity was nice. Course I wonder if my saying that says more about me than the film...
7/10
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Hunger (2008)
I didn't grow up in Ireland during "the troubles", I grew up in Asia but I am Irish... so I don't what you'll make of that but it's just to put the review in a bit of context.
I thought Hunger was an interesting film. I know very little about Bobby Sands, I know very little about Ireland in the '80s in general except that it wasn't a great time and that my family left here for a reason.
I have read all sorts of views on this film though, that's it's romanticising Sands, that it isn't, that it doesn't tell you anything about what was going on, that it's anti-British.... etc. At the end of the day Hunger is a film like any other. A film-maker makes a film then every Tom, Dick and Harry reviewer tries to tell you what the guy meant to say.... this being a review, I'm gonna tell you what I took from the film about what he was trying to say.
I don't think Steve McQueen was trying to say anything about the IRA or the British or the views of the hunger strikers. He was just trying to make what he felt was an accurate film about what happened when Bobby Sands starved himself to death. He showed us all sides of what went on - a prison guard just doing his job, a young member of the armed police force who couldn't face up to stress of what he had to do, a new prisoner who falls in line with what everyone else is doing, an assassin taking revenge for what he felt were good reason and yes... a young man called Bobby Sands who starves himself to death.
What he didn't show us is why any of these people are doing what they are doing or what they think of Bobby Sands. We don't know why the prison guard goes to work every day. We don't why that young police officer has been sent out to the prison to help with the cavity searches. We don't know why that assassin decides to take revenge, was he ordered to? Did he just do because he thought it was right? And we aren't told why Bobby Sands decided to starve himself. He discusses his choice with the priest but the priest is there to provide the alternative view to what Bobby is claiming and we don't know that the priest isn't right.
The title of the film is Hunger and that's what we see. It's not called Bobby Sands or The Hunger Strikers or The Troubles and it's not trying to tell us what to think of Maggie Thatcher or Bobby Sands or the IRA or Unionists. It just telling us that this is what happened. Make of it what you will.
8/10
I thought Hunger was an interesting film. I know very little about Bobby Sands, I know very little about Ireland in the '80s in general except that it wasn't a great time and that my family left here for a reason.
I have read all sorts of views on this film though, that's it's romanticising Sands, that it isn't, that it doesn't tell you anything about what was going on, that it's anti-British.... etc. At the end of the day Hunger is a film like any other. A film-maker makes a film then every Tom, Dick and Harry reviewer tries to tell you what the guy meant to say.... this being a review, I'm gonna tell you what I took from the film about what he was trying to say.
I don't think Steve McQueen was trying to say anything about the IRA or the British or the views of the hunger strikers. He was just trying to make what he felt was an accurate film about what happened when Bobby Sands starved himself to death. He showed us all sides of what went on - a prison guard just doing his job, a young member of the armed police force who couldn't face up to stress of what he had to do, a new prisoner who falls in line with what everyone else is doing, an assassin taking revenge for what he felt were good reason and yes... a young man called Bobby Sands who starves himself to death.
What he didn't show us is why any of these people are doing what they are doing or what they think of Bobby Sands. We don't know why the prison guard goes to work every day. We don't why that young police officer has been sent out to the prison to help with the cavity searches. We don't know why that assassin decides to take revenge, was he ordered to? Did he just do because he thought it was right? And we aren't told why Bobby Sands decided to starve himself. He discusses his choice with the priest but the priest is there to provide the alternative view to what Bobby is claiming and we don't know that the priest isn't right.
The title of the film is Hunger and that's what we see. It's not called Bobby Sands or The Hunger Strikers or The Troubles and it's not trying to tell us what to think of Maggie Thatcher or Bobby Sands or the IRA or Unionists. It just telling us that this is what happened. Make of it what you will.
8/10
Scar 3D (2008)
Actually I think Scar was released in 2007 but this was the 3D version that was re-released into cinemas in 2008. Though... I have no idea if the original "flat" version of Scar was ever released in cinemas here... I hope not. As far as I can make out, Scar is not a good film. Scar 3D certainly wasn't.
As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.
I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.
The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.
The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.
So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.
I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...
1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.
3/10
As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.
I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.
The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.
The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.
So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.
I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...
1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.
3/10
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Saw V (2008)
Another year, another Saw film. It's all good. Saw IV was in my top 5 for last year so I was really looking forward to this next installment in the franchise.
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Friday, 31 October 2008
Quantum of Solace (2008)
In case you were wondering about the... odd title. Quantum of Solace takes it's name from the title of a short story from a collection of James Bond stories called For Your Eyes Only written by Ian Fleming. So now you know.
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
Monday, 4 August 2008
You Don't Mess With The Zohan (2008)
I was in a good mood watching this film. I saw it at its Irish red carpet premiere in the Savoy in Dublin with a load of cheering competition winning fans. Also Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider were there, so that was pretty cool. Being in a good mood always helps with film watching. I think if I had seen this on DVD on my own I wouldn't have thought much of it at all... then again it'd be very rare that I'd watch a DVD on my own...
Anyway, on to the film... You Don't Mess With The Zohan is a weird blend; it's a completely crass comedy, combined with a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In case you haven't heard, I have to mention the premise. It's about an Israeli super agent who fakes his own death to move to New York and follow his love. Of hair-dressing. I don't know quite how they got it made and I'm still not sure how they managed to pull it off, but it works. No really!
I just don't know what else to say about the film; it was just a stunning experience. Maybe I just haven't seen enough Adam Sandler films (though it is the 7th or so Adam Sandler film I've seen) but I really just didn't expect what I saw going on on the screen. There's something just so bizarre about the whole film that when Mariah Carey turns up, it seems perfectly normal. Why wouldn't she be there?
On the other hand I can hardly get away with writing a review without saying something about the film, so here goes. Basically, the whole thing is a mish-mash of all kinds of crude gags about sex (and terrorism somehow), racial stereotypes, random characters, hacky sacks and smiles. I honestly believe that while it seems like a dumb comedy, it's actually one of the smarter comedies I've seen recently. It all could have come a cropper but instead it somehow all manages to hang together by the skin of its teeth.
I really recommend everyone go see it... not that I particularly think everyone will like it. Not at all, I think lots of people will think it's unbelievably stupid but honestly, you should go see it. I'm purely only recommending it because I'd love to know what other people think of it. I for one, loved it. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Stupid as hell? Yes. Confusing? Sure. Just plain wrong a lot of the time? Probably. But in some strange way, genius.
So go along to this film, I mean why not? Come on! You might even laugh.* And after you do go and see it, tell me, what the hell is Fizzy Bubblech meant to be??
8/10
* Actually, if you hate Adam Sandler you probably shouldn't go to this film. Personally I don't see how anyone can hate Adam Sandler though, he was Happy Gilmore! And Robbie the Wedding Singer! Go on, watch it!
Anyway, on to the film... You Don't Mess With The Zohan is a weird blend; it's a completely crass comedy, combined with a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In case you haven't heard, I have to mention the premise. It's about an Israeli super agent who fakes his own death to move to New York and follow his love. Of hair-dressing. I don't know quite how they got it made and I'm still not sure how they managed to pull it off, but it works. No really!
I just don't know what else to say about the film; it was just a stunning experience. Maybe I just haven't seen enough Adam Sandler films (though it is the 7th or so Adam Sandler film I've seen) but I really just didn't expect what I saw going on on the screen. There's something just so bizarre about the whole film that when Mariah Carey turns up, it seems perfectly normal. Why wouldn't she be there?
On the other hand I can hardly get away with writing a review without saying something about the film, so here goes. Basically, the whole thing is a mish-mash of all kinds of crude gags about sex (and terrorism somehow), racial stereotypes, random characters, hacky sacks and smiles. I honestly believe that while it seems like a dumb comedy, it's actually one of the smarter comedies I've seen recently. It all could have come a cropper but instead it somehow all manages to hang together by the skin of its teeth.
I really recommend everyone go see it... not that I particularly think everyone will like it. Not at all, I think lots of people will think it's unbelievably stupid but honestly, you should go see it. I'm purely only recommending it because I'd love to know what other people think of it. I for one, loved it. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Stupid as hell? Yes. Confusing? Sure. Just plain wrong a lot of the time? Probably. But in some strange way, genius.
So go along to this film, I mean why not? Come on! You might even laugh.* And after you do go and see it, tell me, what the hell is Fizzy Bubblech meant to be??
8/10
* Actually, if you hate Adam Sandler you probably shouldn't go to this film. Personally I don't see how anyone can hate Adam Sandler though, he was Happy Gilmore! And Robbie the Wedding Singer! Go on, watch it!
Friday, 25 July 2008
WALL·E (2008)
I would class myself as a fan of Pixar however to be honest that's all because of Toy Story and Toy Story 2. I love those films... so since 1999 I've been waiting for Pixar to make a film as good as those two. It's 2008 now and while I wouldn't say I've been disappointed by their other films... I just don't think they've been as good as they could have been. The Incredibles was a good film and all but it just wasn't... magical to me.
Anyway, WALL·E is the latest effort from Pixar and since it had a very cute looking robot I had high hopes. In fact I even got up on a Saturday morning to go see it. The good news is that I loved it, actually there is no real bad news... It's a great film and stars an incredibly cute robot. It looks amazing and even though there's very little dialogue and the main characters are robots, it's touching and warm and in a strange way, believable.
Unfortunately I just couldn't feel like I could give it a 10. There are 18 films I've awarded a 10 to on my IMDb vote history and, even though I thought WALL·E was brilliant, it just didn't make the grade. If you didn't click on the link above then just to give you an idea of its direct competitors - Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Dark Crystal and I'd have to say, top of the pile - Hotoru No Haka (Grave of the Fireflies) a 1988 film from Studio Ghibli.
I'm giving it a 9/10, it wasn't perfect and I'll tell you why! I'll have to admit, part of it was because of the message behind the film. Believe me, I think it's an important message and actually I think they dealt with it really well - it was subtle and it wasn't what the film was about in any way. My problem was that it made me feel guilty, it was ever-present and I just felt like it was too much, especially at the end. The other reason was because I did think there were elements they could have done more with, for example the other robots or the people, I just thought it could have been funnier, just a touch more comic relief would have been welcome.
On the whole though, it was wonderful, it did have that bit of Pixar magic they had back in Toy Story. It just wasn't perfect though, when I walked out of the theatre it didn't stay with me all day and by the time Monday came round I hadn't thought of it at all. To me to be a 10 it has to have that resonance to it... WALL·E and EVE and their compatriots were so sweet at the time but will I remember them in 10 years time? Maybe not...
9/10
Anyway, WALL·E is the latest effort from Pixar and since it had a very cute looking robot I had high hopes. In fact I even got up on a Saturday morning to go see it. The good news is that I loved it, actually there is no real bad news... It's a great film and stars an incredibly cute robot. It looks amazing and even though there's very little dialogue and the main characters are robots, it's touching and warm and in a strange way, believable.
Unfortunately I just couldn't feel like I could give it a 10. There are 18 films I've awarded a 10 to on my IMDb vote history and, even though I thought WALL·E was brilliant, it just didn't make the grade. If you didn't click on the link above then just to give you an idea of its direct competitors - Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Dark Crystal and I'd have to say, top of the pile - Hotoru No Haka (Grave of the Fireflies) a 1988 film from Studio Ghibli.
I'm giving it a 9/10, it wasn't perfect and I'll tell you why! I'll have to admit, part of it was because of the message behind the film. Believe me, I think it's an important message and actually I think they dealt with it really well - it was subtle and it wasn't what the film was about in any way. My problem was that it made me feel guilty, it was ever-present and I just felt like it was too much, especially at the end. The other reason was because I did think there were elements they could have done more with, for example the other robots or the people, I just thought it could have been funnier, just a touch more comic relief would have been welcome.
On the whole though, it was wonderful, it did have that bit of Pixar magic they had back in Toy Story. It just wasn't perfect though, when I walked out of the theatre it didn't stay with me all day and by the time Monday came round I hadn't thought of it at all. To me to be a 10 it has to have that resonance to it... WALL·E and EVE and their compatriots were so sweet at the time but will I remember them in 10 years time? Maybe not...
9/10
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)
Don't know where I'd heard of this film... I think it was probably when I was browsing through Leslie Bibb's filmography while doing the Iron Man review... Anyway wherever I heard of it, I thought it sounded interesting but I put it down as a film I'd never see - didn't seem like the type that would turn up in the local video store. I was wrong, so here's the review!
Wristcutters: A Love Story is set in an afterlife for people who've committed suicide. It's a different kind of afterlife from the traditional winged one (be it above or below)... instead it is, in the words of our main character, "... basically the real world, just crappier".
Zia (Patrick Fugit, best known from Almost Famous, just in case you're wondering where you might have seen him before.) is a young man who's committed suicide because his girlfriend Desiree (Bibb), has left him... their relationship isn't particularly important though. Whatever happened before, he has ended up in this afterlife, working in a pizza parlour, living in a crappy apartment and just existing. So far, so dull - well no actually, the film is interesting so far... A chance encounter in the local supermarket leads Zia to discover that his former girlfriend took her own life a little while after he did. Given that he still has little else to "live" for he decides to take off with his interesting Russian rocker friend Eugene (played by Shea Whigham). While on the road they meet an outwardly interesting young lady called Mikal (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who's on a mission to find the "People In Charge" and explain why she shouldn't be there So far, so interesting - well no actually, this is where the film starts to fall down...
I wanted to like this film... it has lots of interesting ideas, most of which are hinted at early on. Its problems start when they get on the road... from there on in it loses steam... it seems to flounder, the director takes a while to pick the idea he wanted to centre on and in my opinion he picked the wrong one. Then again maybe my expectations were to blame, I thought I was going to see an indie film exploring, I don't know, ideas and concepts - stuff about suicide, naivety of youth, friendship, life after death - the kind of stuff you expect and indie film to cover. I expected it to be smart, funny and quirky... you know, a good indie film... and for a while it looked like it was going that way. Then all of a sudden, to my horror Goran Dukic got lazy and just decided to turn it into a love story. Now I shouldn't have been surprised - the clue was in the title... but I don't know, I just hadn't expected it to be nothing more than a love story in the end. I try so hard to not expect anything of the films I watch, it just sets you up for disappointment... but sometimes... you just can't help it.
Wristcutters: A Love Story just wasn't what I wanted it to be at all and while all the little ideas and side characters made it an enjoyable watch; overall it just didn't live up to the awards and nominations it garnered. I really should have learned after that abominable The Aryan Couple that film festival awards count for nothing and that the only ratings that are worth any consideration and IMDb ratings (after DVD releases) and rottentomatoes.com!
Quickly, to address the other stuff... the acting was commendable, the cinematography and art direction were great. Special mention as well to Will Arnett, I always find him entertaining and his appearence was a well needed laugh, even though the idea behind it did have a feel of an after thought... Overall I'm actually going to give it a decent enough rating because actually it wasn't a bad film at all. For all my complaints about it, the main thing I didn't like was the love story - I wasn't expecting it when I really have no excuse - it was in the title!!
6.5/10
Wristcutters: A Love Story is set in an afterlife for people who've committed suicide. It's a different kind of afterlife from the traditional winged one (be it above or below)... instead it is, in the words of our main character, "... basically the real world, just crappier".
Zia (Patrick Fugit, best known from Almost Famous, just in case you're wondering where you might have seen him before.) is a young man who's committed suicide because his girlfriend Desiree (Bibb), has left him... their relationship isn't particularly important though. Whatever happened before, he has ended up in this afterlife, working in a pizza parlour, living in a crappy apartment and just existing. So far, so dull - well no actually, the film is interesting so far... A chance encounter in the local supermarket leads Zia to discover that his former girlfriend took her own life a little while after he did. Given that he still has little else to "live" for he decides to take off with his interesting Russian rocker friend Eugene (played by Shea Whigham). While on the road they meet an outwardly interesting young lady called Mikal (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who's on a mission to find the "People In Charge" and explain why she shouldn't be there So far, so interesting - well no actually, this is where the film starts to fall down...
I wanted to like this film... it has lots of interesting ideas, most of which are hinted at early on. Its problems start when they get on the road... from there on in it loses steam... it seems to flounder, the director takes a while to pick the idea he wanted to centre on and in my opinion he picked the wrong one. Then again maybe my expectations were to blame, I thought I was going to see an indie film exploring, I don't know, ideas and concepts - stuff about suicide, naivety of youth, friendship, life after death - the kind of stuff you expect and indie film to cover. I expected it to be smart, funny and quirky... you know, a good indie film... and for a while it looked like it was going that way. Then all of a sudden, to my horror Goran Dukic got lazy and just decided to turn it into a love story. Now I shouldn't have been surprised - the clue was in the title... but I don't know, I just hadn't expected it to be nothing more than a love story in the end. I try so hard to not expect anything of the films I watch, it just sets you up for disappointment... but sometimes... you just can't help it.
Wristcutters: A Love Story just wasn't what I wanted it to be at all and while all the little ideas and side characters made it an enjoyable watch; overall it just didn't live up to the awards and nominations it garnered. I really should have learned after that abominable The Aryan Couple that film festival awards count for nothing and that the only ratings that are worth any consideration and IMDb ratings (after DVD releases) and rottentomatoes.com!
Quickly, to address the other stuff... the acting was commendable, the cinematography and art direction were great. Special mention as well to Will Arnett, I always find him entertaining and his appearence was a well needed laugh, even though the idea behind it did have a feel of an after thought... Overall I'm actually going to give it a decent enough rating because actually it wasn't a bad film at all. For all my complaints about it, the main thing I didn't like was the love story - I wasn't expecting it when I really have no excuse - it was in the title!!
6.5/10
Monday, 16 June 2008
Sex and the City (2008)
For the past couple of months I've been living in a double room in a friend's house with all my worldly possessions around me in boxes... This rather limited the maneuverability in said room. Anyway, finally I have moved into my very own apartment so hopefully this means that in the near future life will settle down I will be able to get back to writing more film reviews...
Tonight I'm sitting here on my own, listening to (and sometimes watching) Germany play Austria in the last Group B game of Euro 2008. What better time so, to write my review of Sex and the City!
So I'll get to it... I'm not -not- a fan on the series... when it first started up I hated it. I thought it was overly sexist and more than a bit ridiculous. As time went on however I think the series grew up as the characters did. In the end it became very easy watching - like much TV of that ilk, the characters became comfortable and you didn't need to know what happened last week to enjoy it because you know the characters so well. I liked it, but it was over and I didn't really miss it... I couldn't, it's repeated all the time on cable.
Anyway fast forward to 2008... it turns out a lot of people have been missing it. For what is effectively a film for a niche audience, it has generated an amazing amount of press. Quite apart from the "news" about the stars and their dresses, the promotional opportunities taken by various brands in Ireland and I'm sure all over the world, have been so omnipresent it's hard to know which brands are officially associated and which are just jumping on the band wagon. The film really has been a phenomenon.
But it is any good...? this is the question we always have to ask. In my eyes, yes. I enjoyed it. I went along on the first night with a crowd of about thirty girls and saw it in a packed out cinema. I spotted two guys but rumour has it there were a few more hiding somewhere. I find that hard to believe.
To be honest, it's a very safe film. They know their audience, they've written for them for years, and they haven't bother to stray from their tried and tested formula. Which is fine... I think at the one point, when things were looking a bit bad for ol' Carrie, people were quite worried that they might try to do something different. That didn't happen though, phew! Oh, have I given something away?
The only criticism I might have is that it was a bit TV. I don't think it mattered that much but they did move through things a little too quickly, there were fast cuts, short scenes - all things you need to do to tell a good story on TV but I don't think they needed to on the big screen. As a result there were some bits and bobs that they really could have left out. Most notablely Jennifer Hudson's character. I didn't mind her, but there was just no point really. Oh yeah... and I almost forgot, that scene at the end - What was that about!? I didn't need to see that! If you've seen it then you know what I'm talking about...
So in the end, after all the anticipation... what we got was some great outfits, fabulous shoes (though I myself have no interest in shoes) and some good girlie fun. If they never come back I won't miss them but if they did, I would surely watch their antics with a smile on my face again...
btw - apparently 50 is the new 40... or is that 30...
7/10
Tonight I'm sitting here on my own, listening to (and sometimes watching) Germany play Austria in the last Group B game of Euro 2008. What better time so, to write my review of Sex and the City!
So I'll get to it... I'm not -not- a fan on the series... when it first started up I hated it. I thought it was overly sexist and more than a bit ridiculous. As time went on however I think the series grew up as the characters did. In the end it became very easy watching - like much TV of that ilk, the characters became comfortable and you didn't need to know what happened last week to enjoy it because you know the characters so well. I liked it, but it was over and I didn't really miss it... I couldn't, it's repeated all the time on cable.
Anyway fast forward to 2008... it turns out a lot of people have been missing it. For what is effectively a film for a niche audience, it has generated an amazing amount of press. Quite apart from the "news" about the stars and their dresses, the promotional opportunities taken by various brands in Ireland and I'm sure all over the world, have been so omnipresent it's hard to know which brands are officially associated and which are just jumping on the band wagon. The film really has been a phenomenon.
But it is any good...? this is the question we always have to ask. In my eyes, yes. I enjoyed it. I went along on the first night with a crowd of about thirty girls and saw it in a packed out cinema. I spotted two guys but rumour has it there were a few more hiding somewhere. I find that hard to believe.
To be honest, it's a very safe film. They know their audience, they've written for them for years, and they haven't bother to stray from their tried and tested formula. Which is fine... I think at the one point, when things were looking a bit bad for ol' Carrie, people were quite worried that they might try to do something different. That didn't happen though, phew! Oh, have I given something away?
The only criticism I might have is that it was a bit TV. I don't think it mattered that much but they did move through things a little too quickly, there were fast cuts, short scenes - all things you need to do to tell a good story on TV but I don't think they needed to on the big screen. As a result there were some bits and bobs that they really could have left out. Most notablely Jennifer Hudson's character. I didn't mind her, but there was just no point really. Oh yeah... and I almost forgot, that scene at the end - What was that about!? I didn't need to see that! If you've seen it then you know what I'm talking about...
So in the end, after all the anticipation... what we got was some great outfits, fabulous shoes (though I myself have no interest in shoes) and some good girlie fun. If they never come back I won't miss them but if they did, I would surely watch their antics with a smile on my face again...
btw - apparently 50 is the new 40... or is that 30...
7/10
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
In a fit of honesty I'm going to admit it... I don't really remember much of the old Indiana Jones films. I think Indiana Jones is cool but honestly, I really don't remember what happens in any of the films and I never really watch them when they're on TV. There, I said it, I'm not really a fan. With that out of the way, on to the review...
I was looking forward to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I was quite disappointed with Iron Man and it's going to be a while till a new Transformers movie (yay!) so I was hoping Indiana Jones would do the business... It kind of does, I liked it anyway, it was a big bag of popcorn fun but it was no Transformers, no siree.
Anyway, to be honest, there isn't that much I can say about Indiana Jones I think. I'm sure you all know the story by now, an intrepid professor who globe-trots around the world stumbles into trouble and then takes off to try and solve the great mystery. Unfortunately for him he keeps bumping into people who want him dead.
Reviews on the whole have been quite mixed I think, quite a few people don't seem to like the end, not the very end... the other bit... and it's really put them off the film. Personally, I'd read a good bit about crystal skulls a few years ago from a variety of sources so I was fairly familiar with where the legend goes so sure, no bother. Also I'm ready to forgive all kinds of outlandish stuff and even inconsistencies as long as it's entertaining and Indiana Jones fits the bill there.
What did I like about it? I liked the relationship between Marion, Mutt and Indy, I thought that was done well. Shia LaBeouf was great... and I'm not just saying that because he was in Transformers. Not really sure what Indy's buddy was doing there (the guy at the start, I forget his name) but sure whatever... I don't really let surplus characters annoy me too much either. There were also a good few great action scenes, some people were saying it looked over CGI'd, personally I didn't notice that much and apparently there was less than in the usual blockbuster so I've no complaints there.
Oh, I never commented on Harrison Ford! He totally still has it. ;)
Anyway, I'm waffling again... final score - a solid 7.5/10.
I was looking forward to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I was quite disappointed with Iron Man and it's going to be a while till a new Transformers movie (yay!) so I was hoping Indiana Jones would do the business... It kind of does, I liked it anyway, it was a big bag of popcorn fun but it was no Transformers, no siree.
Anyway, to be honest, there isn't that much I can say about Indiana Jones I think. I'm sure you all know the story by now, an intrepid professor who globe-trots around the world stumbles into trouble and then takes off to try and solve the great mystery. Unfortunately for him he keeps bumping into people who want him dead.
Reviews on the whole have been quite mixed I think, quite a few people don't seem to like the end, not the very end... the other bit... and it's really put them off the film. Personally, I'd read a good bit about crystal skulls a few years ago from a variety of sources so I was fairly familiar with where the legend goes so sure, no bother. Also I'm ready to forgive all kinds of outlandish stuff and even inconsistencies as long as it's entertaining and Indiana Jones fits the bill there.
What did I like about it? I liked the relationship between Marion, Mutt and Indy, I thought that was done well. Shia LaBeouf was great... and I'm not just saying that because he was in Transformers. Not really sure what Indy's buddy was doing there (the guy at the start, I forget his name) but sure whatever... I don't really let surplus characters annoy me too much either. There were also a good few great action scenes, some people were saying it looked over CGI'd, personally I didn't notice that much and apparently there was less than in the usual blockbuster so I've no complaints there.
Oh, I never commented on Harrison Ford! He totally still has it. ;)
Anyway, I'm waffling again... final score - a solid 7.5/10.
Friday, 16 May 2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
When I saw Jason Segel from How I Met Your Mother was the lead in a new comedy I thought, I really gotta go see that. I really like How I Met Your Mother, it's a great show and well deserves to stay in the network schedules this fall. It's well written, sharp, funny and most of all it has a great cast of characters. Well actually, most of all at this stage I really want to find out who the kids mother is! Then I saw that Kristen Bell from Veronica Mars was also in it, another great TV show! Then I saw that Russell Brand was it... and unlikely many many people over here, I actually like Russell Brand, I saw him once on Jonathan Ross and I just thought he was hilarious so as far as I'm concerned, he's a-ok. So, I really wanted to see this film.
So back to the film. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is pretty much a romantic comedy, but more along the lines of Knocked Up than 27 Dresses (actually, did I write a review of 27 Dresses yet? No? I'll have to get around to it soon). Anyway, it's not that surprising really, since FSM and KU share the same producers, current favourites Judd Apatow and Shauna Robertson. In general, I've enjoyed their films and FSM was no exception. I laughed - job done. Being honest, it wasn't the best film these two have produced, that honour goes to... I'll have to say Anchorman (of the ones I've seen anyway) but it was good fun at the time.
"What was good about it?" I hear you ask... well, I liked the main character, though considering the guy playing the main character wrote it; it's hardly surprising that he was the most well rounded and sympathetic character of the lot of them. Russell Brand was very good too, a likeable lothario and while hardly the brightest bulb, still had a brain in his head - exactly the kind of caricature he should be playing. Jack McBrayer from 30 Rock was very funny to in a small but memorable supporting role. Aside from those three the characters weren't great, Sarah Marshall in particular was pretty one dimensional but it didn't really matter. It's just a comedy, a fluffy light film to eat popcorn to.
I can't really recommend it to be honest, certainly not in the cinema, but it was entertaining at the time and I don't think you'd regret it if you got it out on DVD.
So back to the film. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is pretty much a romantic comedy, but more along the lines of Knocked Up than 27 Dresses (actually, did I write a review of 27 Dresses yet? No? I'll have to get around to it soon). Anyway, it's not that surprising really, since FSM and KU share the same producers, current favourites Judd Apatow and Shauna Robertson. In general, I've enjoyed their films and FSM was no exception. I laughed - job done. Being honest, it wasn't the best film these two have produced, that honour goes to... I'll have to say Anchorman (of the ones I've seen anyway) but it was good fun at the time.
"What was good about it?" I hear you ask... well, I liked the main character, though considering the guy playing the main character wrote it; it's hardly surprising that he was the most well rounded and sympathetic character of the lot of them. Russell Brand was very good too, a likeable lothario and while hardly the brightest bulb, still had a brain in his head - exactly the kind of caricature he should be playing. Jack McBrayer from 30 Rock was very funny to in a small but memorable supporting role. Aside from those three the characters weren't great, Sarah Marshall in particular was pretty one dimensional but it didn't really matter. It's just a comedy, a fluffy light film to eat popcorn to.
I can't really recommend it to be honest, certainly not in the cinema, but it was entertaining at the time and I don't think you'd regret it if you got it out on DVD.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Iron Man (2008)
My my, I have been lax lately, I really need to write more reviews... it's not like I haven't seen any films lately... it's just that I haven't had a chance to write any reviews...
Anyway so... I saw Iron Man the other day. You may have heard of it, it's directed by the multi-talented Jon Favreau (Jon Favreau is great, you should watch Swingers, everyone should watch Swingers.) and one Mr. Robery Downey Jr. as Tony Stark - inventor, industrialist, womaniser and part-time superhero, Iron Man.
It's important to note part-time there...
Look, don't get me wrong, I liked Iron Man. It was an entertaining film. I enjoyed it, I thought it was good. It's just that it was no Transformers. I loved Transformers, it really set a standard for me... Transformers was everything a film with giant robots should be... and may I point out that there pretty much is a giant robot in Iron Man.
To be entirely fair to Iron Man though (because it just can't compare to Transformers - edit re: comment - and yeah, it's not really the same kind of film) I'll put it on the scale with some other superhero films... It was vastly better than all the Spider-Man films, not to mention what little I saw of Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer before I fell asleep. It was also better than Superman Returns and Batman Begins but no way was it as good as the X-Men films. I'd say it was on par with Hellboy. Entertaining but not amazing.
I hate to say it because I'm not all about the huge action scenes and great effects but Iron Man could have done with bigger and better action scene and special effects. There's nothing wrong with an origin story, everyone likes a good origin story, but mostly what we saw was a guy hanging out in a cave building a suit... then hanging out in a basement building a suit... this is not an origin story, it's a guy building a suit. Tell us a bit about his dad, tell us a bit more about the villains... you could even tell us a bit more about Pepper Potts! I mean I couldn't really give a crap about her but maybe if you'd told me something I might, she was as bad as Rachel Dawes. I just thought that there could have been more to Iron Man... watch it again and tell me where the actual story was because I certainly didn't see it... and if I'm not getting a story with real characters and emotion then damnit, I wanna to see big explosions!
Anyway whatever, it just didn't do it for me... I realise there are lots of people out there who did think it was great and I'd love to hear what you liked about it... so please... let me know!
Oh I forgot to mention one thing that was amazing about this film. The car - the Audi R8... what a car... where can I win one...
Anyway so... I saw Iron Man the other day. You may have heard of it, it's directed by the multi-talented Jon Favreau (Jon Favreau is great, you should watch Swingers, everyone should watch Swingers.) and one Mr. Robery Downey Jr. as Tony Stark - inventor, industrialist, womaniser and part-time superhero, Iron Man.
It's important to note part-time there...
Look, don't get me wrong, I liked Iron Man. It was an entertaining film. I enjoyed it, I thought it was good. It's just that it was no Transformers. I loved Transformers, it really set a standard for me... Transformers was everything a film with giant robots should be... and may I point out that there pretty much is a giant robot in Iron Man.
To be entirely fair to Iron Man though (because it just can't compare to Transformers - edit re: comment - and yeah, it's not really the same kind of film) I'll put it on the scale with some other superhero films... It was vastly better than all the Spider-Man films, not to mention what little I saw of Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer before I fell asleep. It was also better than Superman Returns and Batman Begins but no way was it as good as the X-Men films. I'd say it was on par with Hellboy. Entertaining but not amazing.
I hate to say it because I'm not all about the huge action scenes and great effects but Iron Man could have done with bigger and better action scene and special effects. There's nothing wrong with an origin story, everyone likes a good origin story, but mostly what we saw was a guy hanging out in a cave building a suit... then hanging out in a basement building a suit... this is not an origin story, it's a guy building a suit. Tell us a bit about his dad, tell us a bit more about the villains... you could even tell us a bit more about Pepper Potts! I mean I couldn't really give a crap about her but maybe if you'd told me something I might, she was as bad as Rachel Dawes. I just thought that there could have been more to Iron Man... watch it again and tell me where the actual story was because I certainly didn't see it... and if I'm not getting a story with real characters and emotion then damnit, I wanna to see big explosions!
Anyway whatever, it just didn't do it for me... I realise there are lots of people out there who did think it was great and I'd love to hear what you liked about it... so please... let me know!
Oh I forgot to mention one thing that was amazing about this film. The car - the Audi R8... what a car... where can I win one...
Friday, 18 April 2008
Stop-Loss (2008)
Stop-Loss refers to the Stop-loss policy used by the US Military to involuntarily extend the length of active duty that a US service member undertakes. Basically it means that even when a soldier has reached their agreed date for the end of their active duty, the military can invoke the policy to send that soldier back to active duty. It has been described in some quarters as a "back-door draft". This film is about a one such fine soldier (played by Ryan Phillipe) who has been stop-lossed and what happens to him and his close knit group.
To be honest Stop-Loss is one of those films that just doesn't really go anywhere... Ok now, lots of films don't go anywhere, but they aren't really meant to and it works. Stop-Loss is not one of those film. Being generous I'll say that there was a kernal of an idea there and also I actually do admire that they made the film in the sense that while I'd heard of this "back-door draft" I didn't know much about it and it's not something you hear about that much over here. So that was interesting. Also because I'm a bit of a pinko it appealed to the liberal side of me. All well and good however, it's just not that good a film.
There are moments to it, there are good scenes and decent performances, but on the whole I just couldn't tell if it wanted to be all out against war, if it just wanted to show the stresses that soldiers are put through, how war changes them, how the people at home are affected by it or just highlight the practice of stop-loss and come out against it, or not. Honestly, the film just didn't follow through on any of them really and ultimately it was pretty unsatisfying. It had a good premise, I liked the range of characters that it covered but since it never really added enough depth to any of them it's hard to say that it was really worth making in the first place.
Anyway, like I said, there were good parts. I particularly liked seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt - I liked him in 3rd Rock From The Sun and I loved Brick so it was great to see him in the film, though... like everyone in this film, he probably could have done more.
Ah, it's frustrating, thinking back there were good scenes and while the characters were somewhat stereotypical they weren't really overly so, so it could have gotten away with it if it was just a tighter film. I'd loved to have liked this film but it just didn't have the focus that it needed to make it relevent and in the end it just petered away into the ether. Forgettable.
To be honest Stop-Loss is one of those films that just doesn't really go anywhere... Ok now, lots of films don't go anywhere, but they aren't really meant to and it works. Stop-Loss is not one of those film. Being generous I'll say that there was a kernal of an idea there and also I actually do admire that they made the film in the sense that while I'd heard of this "back-door draft" I didn't know much about it and it's not something you hear about that much over here. So that was interesting. Also because I'm a bit of a pinko it appealed to the liberal side of me. All well and good however, it's just not that good a film.
There are moments to it, there are good scenes and decent performances, but on the whole I just couldn't tell if it wanted to be all out against war, if it just wanted to show the stresses that soldiers are put through, how war changes them, how the people at home are affected by it or just highlight the practice of stop-loss and come out against it, or not. Honestly, the film just didn't follow through on any of them really and ultimately it was pretty unsatisfying. It had a good premise, I liked the range of characters that it covered but since it never really added enough depth to any of them it's hard to say that it was really worth making in the first place.
Anyway, like I said, there were good parts. I particularly liked seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt - I liked him in 3rd Rock From The Sun and I loved Brick so it was great to see him in the film, though... like everyone in this film, he probably could have done more.
Ah, it's frustrating, thinking back there were good scenes and while the characters were somewhat stereotypical they weren't really overly so, so it could have gotten away with it if it was just a tighter film. I'd loved to have liked this film but it just didn't have the focus that it needed to make it relevent and in the end it just petered away into the ether. Forgettable.
Monday, 7 April 2008
Chasing Amy (1997)
There are some directors that I'm really into, like Michel Gondry, Wes Anderson and Tim Burton... however there are far more directors that I really have no particular thoughts on either way, I've seen a good few of their films but I'm still ambivalent. Paul Thomas Anderson is one - which I noted in the There Will Be Blood review - the Coen Brothers, Wong Kar Wai, Spike Jonze... I'll watch their films and enjoy them but to be honest I just don't see anything in particular about them that makes me think "Wow, that's a good director!". Kevin Smith is another one, I've seen a few Kevin Smith films. They're fine.
Chasing Amy is one of Kevin Smith's earlier films. It's basically a love story between comic book writers. Or if you want to be a bit more deep about it, it's about relationships. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee star as best friends, Holden and Banky, who write a cult comic book together - Bluntman and Chronic. All is well on the comic con circuit until Holden (Affleck) meets a woman who rocks his world (Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams). Unfortunately for him, she's a lesbian with quite a past. Fortunately for him, lesbian thing is negotiable. Anyway, the film looks at the way the relationships between all the characters change, Holden and Banky, Holden and Alyssa, Alyssa and her friends.
Actually it's quite interesting, there's a certain realism to it, it does make you wonder what you would do if it happened to you and it's not your typical Hollywood romantic comedy / drama. I liked the dialogue and I liked how the different relationships were treated different, I liked that the characters were normal people leading normal lives. On the other hand I did think it was a bit melodramatic in parts, there were a couple of scenes where I did think "Are you kidding??". Also I don't think it was as clever as it thought it was, but then again that's not really a fair comment. First of all it's eleven years old and secondly, what do I know about how clever Kevin Smith thought he was being...? but in any case, it was the impression I was left with.
All in all I did enjoy the film, it was a nice little satisfying package, few laughs, bit of a distraction for two hours. However, like other Kevin Smith films, I didn't really better for watching it. It was fine.
Oh yeah, I thought Jay and Silent Bob were very funny in it. Also, I learned a new definition of finger cuff.
Chasing Amy is one of Kevin Smith's earlier films. It's basically a love story between comic book writers. Or if you want to be a bit more deep about it, it's about relationships. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee star as best friends, Holden and Banky, who write a cult comic book together - Bluntman and Chronic. All is well on the comic con circuit until Holden (Affleck) meets a woman who rocks his world (Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams). Unfortunately for him, she's a lesbian with quite a past. Fortunately for him, lesbian thing is negotiable. Anyway, the film looks at the way the relationships between all the characters change, Holden and Banky, Holden and Alyssa, Alyssa and her friends.
Actually it's quite interesting, there's a certain realism to it, it does make you wonder what you would do if it happened to you and it's not your typical Hollywood romantic comedy / drama. I liked the dialogue and I liked how the different relationships were treated different, I liked that the characters were normal people leading normal lives. On the other hand I did think it was a bit melodramatic in parts, there were a couple of scenes where I did think "Are you kidding??". Also I don't think it was as clever as it thought it was, but then again that's not really a fair comment. First of all it's eleven years old and secondly, what do I know about how clever Kevin Smith thought he was being...? but in any case, it was the impression I was left with.
All in all I did enjoy the film, it was a nice little satisfying package, few laughs, bit of a distraction for two hours. However, like other Kevin Smith films, I didn't really better for watching it. It was fine.
Oh yeah, I thought Jay and Silent Bob were very funny in it. Also, I learned a new definition of finger cuff.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
There Will Be Blood (2007)
I didn't really know what to expect of There Will Be Blood. I didn't really want to see it. It didn't seem like my kind of film... I don't really like Westerns and it seemed a bit "worthy" to me... and I never mean "worthy" in a good way. Also I'd heard that it was very long and I was a bit ambivalent on the director - not that I don't like Paul Thomas Anderson or anything, it's just that after having seen three of his films previously I still didn't really have an opinion on him. I decided I had to though, there was so much talk about it and I just couldn't see how a film that seemed so... linear perhaps? could be garnering so much praise.
Happily, it wasn't really a Western, it doesn't really feel that long and it wasn't overly "worthy" either. I still have no particular opinion on Paul Thomas Anderson though.
So what's it all about? Well, There Will Be Blood is loosely based on the 1927 Upton Sinclair novel Oil!. Since you've probably never read the book though and I gather the association is quite loose, I shall summarise. Basically There Will Be Blood is the story of the life of Daniel Plainview (played by Daniel Day-Lewis). There really isn't much more to it. It opens with Daniel happening upon oil while out on his own in the desert prospecting for silver and follows him as he grows his oil business, eventually becoming one of the most successful oil men in California.
It's a very interesting film. I don't usually enjoy films that just go from A to B but I found this one very interesting. Not storywise, it's fairly mundane in that respect, stuff happens, la la la. Where There Will Be Blood excels is in the characterisation, it paints these people's personalities and motivations so vividly... I know that doesn't really sound like much but to be honest it's something that's very rare in recent films. I thought the acting was great all round and I have to say it eventually, Daniel Day-Lewis completely deserved the Oscar and every other award he's won for this performance. Really, it's an amazing performance. The other characters in the film are peripheral in a sense but I still thought they were very well played and that all the interactions between them were suberb. As an aside, I've noticed on the internet that opinion has been split on Paul Dano's performance as Paul / Eli Sunday. I just wanted to say that I thought he was good.
There was one thing that annoyed me though... I don't want to give anything away but I did think that the film skipped too much time at one point, when it jumped to 1927... I would have liked to know what happened in the years between. It's rare that I'd say that a two and a half hour film should have been longer but in this case I am!
Anyway, I thought it was a good film... I didn't think it was a great film to be honest, but it was an interesting film and Daniel Day-Lewis was very good. I'm glad I saw, if only because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about...
Happily, it wasn't really a Western, it doesn't really feel that long and it wasn't overly "worthy" either. I still have no particular opinion on Paul Thomas Anderson though.
So what's it all about? Well, There Will Be Blood is loosely based on the 1927 Upton Sinclair novel Oil!. Since you've probably never read the book though and I gather the association is quite loose, I shall summarise. Basically There Will Be Blood is the story of the life of Daniel Plainview (played by Daniel Day-Lewis). There really isn't much more to it. It opens with Daniel happening upon oil while out on his own in the desert prospecting for silver and follows him as he grows his oil business, eventually becoming one of the most successful oil men in California.
It's a very interesting film. I don't usually enjoy films that just go from A to B but I found this one very interesting. Not storywise, it's fairly mundane in that respect, stuff happens, la la la. Where There Will Be Blood excels is in the characterisation, it paints these people's personalities and motivations so vividly... I know that doesn't really sound like much but to be honest it's something that's very rare in recent films. I thought the acting was great all round and I have to say it eventually, Daniel Day-Lewis completely deserved the Oscar and every other award he's won for this performance. Really, it's an amazing performance. The other characters in the film are peripheral in a sense but I still thought they were very well played and that all the interactions between them were suberb. As an aside, I've noticed on the internet that opinion has been split on Paul Dano's performance as Paul / Eli Sunday. I just wanted to say that I thought he was good.
There was one thing that annoyed me though... I don't want to give anything away but I did think that the film skipped too much time at one point, when it jumped to 1927... I would have liked to know what happened in the years between. It's rare that I'd say that a two and a half hour film should have been longer but in this case I am!
Anyway, I thought it was a good film... I didn't think it was a great film to be honest, but it was an interesting film and Daniel Day-Lewis was very good. I'm glad I saw, if only because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about...
Monday, 31 March 2008
I'm a Cyborg, But That's Okay (2006)
Park Chan-wook could hardly be described as a household name in the western world however, his films probably are much more noted than those of some other Asian directors. Park Chan-wook is the director of The Vengence Trilogy which comprises of Sympathy for Mr. Vengence, Oldboy and Lady Vengence - and he really can do revenge.
I'm a Cyborg, But That's Okay is a bit of a departure from those films though, for starters it's a comedy. A bit of an odd comedy granted, but mostly a comedy. Cha Young-goon (played by Lim Su-jeong)is a girl who's in a mental home because she believes she is a combat cyborg. Actually Young-goon's main problem is not that the fact that she thinks she's a cyborg, her problem is that because of this she will not eat and spends her days licking batteries and trying to talk to the machines around her. Anyway, in the hospital she meets a whole host of other patients, each with their own set of problems, including a handsome young man called Park Il-sun (played by the popular Korean singer Rain who believes he has the ability to steal anything from anyone, including personality traits.
So, what we have is essentially a love story with a twist. The twist being that it's in a mental hospital. I really liked this film, though I'm starting to truly believe that I like all films. It was a sweet story, it had a good few laughs but I thought it managed to deal with creating the characters without getting too caught up in the mental hospital aspect of everything. There was a good balance there between the craziness of the situation and the core of what made the characters the way they were. It put me in mind of another Korean director - Bong Joon-ho who directed Memories of Murder and The Host - not because he's Korean particularly but because he's very good at getting that mix between humour and darkness. I can't think of any up-and-coming American director doing that at the moment.
Anyway, I don't have much else to say about this film except that it's well worth a watch. I saw it in a packed theatre as part of the 2008 Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. I'm not sure if it's going on general or even arthouse release wherever you are dear reader, however if you have a chance I would recommend watching it, even if you have to go searching for it in some odd video rental store.
Oh wait, two other things worth noting; nobody pulls out any teeth with hammer nor does anyone eat a live octopus in this film! ;)
I'm a Cyborg, But That's Okay is a bit of a departure from those films though, for starters it's a comedy. A bit of an odd comedy granted, but mostly a comedy. Cha Young-goon (played by Lim Su-jeong)is a girl who's in a mental home because she believes she is a combat cyborg. Actually Young-goon's main problem is not that the fact that she thinks she's a cyborg, her problem is that because of this she will not eat and spends her days licking batteries and trying to talk to the machines around her. Anyway, in the hospital she meets a whole host of other patients, each with their own set of problems, including a handsome young man called Park Il-sun (played by the popular Korean singer Rain who believes he has the ability to steal anything from anyone, including personality traits.
So, what we have is essentially a love story with a twist. The twist being that it's in a mental hospital. I really liked this film, though I'm starting to truly believe that I like all films. It was a sweet story, it had a good few laughs but I thought it managed to deal with creating the characters without getting too caught up in the mental hospital aspect of everything. There was a good balance there between the craziness of the situation and the core of what made the characters the way they were. It put me in mind of another Korean director - Bong Joon-ho who directed Memories of Murder and The Host - not because he's Korean particularly but because he's very good at getting that mix between humour and darkness. I can't think of any up-and-coming American director doing that at the moment.
Anyway, I don't have much else to say about this film except that it's well worth a watch. I saw it in a packed theatre as part of the 2008 Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. I'm not sure if it's going on general or even arthouse release wherever you are dear reader, however if you have a chance I would recommend watching it, even if you have to go searching for it in some odd video rental store.
Oh wait, two other things worth noting; nobody pulls out any teeth with hammer nor does anyone eat a live octopus in this film! ;)
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Be Kind Rewind. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
Be Kind Rewind is the latest film from director Michel Gondry. It stars Mos Def and Jack Black. I don't think this is a good thing.
As I mentioned in my review of The Science of Sleep, I'm a big fan of Gondry, I think he's great, I loved The Science of Sleep and I think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of the greatest films I've ever seen. However. Be Kind Rewind is not. Ah, I don't really want to be too hard it on... it wasn't awful... but it wasn't good.
Briefly, Be Kind Rewind is about a couple of guys, Jerry and Mike, who work/hang out in a local video store in a neighbourhood which city planners are set to turn into a souless shopping mall (or something along those lines anyway). Jerry is a bit of a conspiracy nut and could be fairly defined as a loser. Mike on the other hand has a bit more character about him, he's a neighbourhood boy who wants to prove to the father figure in his life that he can do more with himself. Mike's chance comes when that father figure - Elroy Fletcher (played by Danny Glover) leaves him in charge of the store. So far, so fine and dandy. Except that Jerry somehow manages to become magnetised and as a result wipes all the tapes in the video store thereby ruining the store and Mike's chance to prove himself. "Oh no!" I hear you say. Fortunately they come up with an idea... to recreate the films they've wiped and rent them out instead... it's a crazy plan but it just might work!
Anyway, the plan does take off and the plot goes from there. Unfortunately the film never really does. There were a couple problems that I see with it. The biggest problem I think it had was that it never really worked out what it wanted to be. Gondry has a tendency toward... a certain whimsical sweetness in his films... and there was a bit of that, with the "Fats Waller" sub-plot and the plight of the video store in the face of development, however they were never made much more of. Also there was the idea of the relationship between Mike and Elroy which was never really worked on. Instead the film is kind of taken over by the, admittedly funny, takes on the wiped videos. Which would have been fine if they really had taken over the film, except that they didn't either, instead there was this mish-mash of different themes and genres that never really came together. Add to this the fact that Jack Black pretty much played the same character that he always plays in comedies... which would have been find if this was just an out and out comedy... but it wasn't and it just became annoying.
All in all I think the Be Kind Rewind was really a lost opportunity. Now I'm not sure what direction I would have preferred Gondry to have taken with it but I am sure that it was a lost chance for Jack Black to do something a little different, in the same way that Jim Carrey did in Eternal Sunshine. I blame the director though, I do think that Jack Black is capable of playing other roles, I just think that Gondry was content to let him do his thing, there was so little direction in the film anyway that it hardly mattered. It was a real pity it didn't really work though, I mean The Science of Sleep was a mish-mash but there was enough of a core there with the relationship between Stéphane and Stéphanie to hold it altogether while Be Kind Rewind had nothing like that.
Anyway I know I'm kind of slating it... I do want to state though that it's not that I was expecting a lot more from it just because it's a Gondry film and he's one of a favourite directors. I was a bit apprehensive going into it anyway and I didn't know what to expect. Unfortunately it just turned out to not be a very good film... *shrug* It was pretty funny in parts though, I'd really like to watch more of the re-made videos.
Be Kind Rewind is the latest film from director Michel Gondry. It stars Mos Def and Jack Black. I don't think this is a good thing.
As I mentioned in my review of The Science of Sleep, I'm a big fan of Gondry, I think he's great, I loved The Science of Sleep and I think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of the greatest films I've ever seen. However. Be Kind Rewind is not. Ah, I don't really want to be too hard it on... it wasn't awful... but it wasn't good.
Briefly, Be Kind Rewind is about a couple of guys, Jerry and Mike, who work/hang out in a local video store in a neighbourhood which city planners are set to turn into a souless shopping mall (or something along those lines anyway). Jerry is a bit of a conspiracy nut and could be fairly defined as a loser. Mike on the other hand has a bit more character about him, he's a neighbourhood boy who wants to prove to the father figure in his life that he can do more with himself. Mike's chance comes when that father figure - Elroy Fletcher (played by Danny Glover) leaves him in charge of the store. So far, so fine and dandy. Except that Jerry somehow manages to become magnetised and as a result wipes all the tapes in the video store thereby ruining the store and Mike's chance to prove himself. "Oh no!" I hear you say. Fortunately they come up with an idea... to recreate the films they've wiped and rent them out instead... it's a crazy plan but it just might work!
Anyway, the plan does take off and the plot goes from there. Unfortunately the film never really does. There were a couple problems that I see with it. The biggest problem I think it had was that it never really worked out what it wanted to be. Gondry has a tendency toward... a certain whimsical sweetness in his films... and there was a bit of that, with the "Fats Waller" sub-plot and the plight of the video store in the face of development, however they were never made much more of. Also there was the idea of the relationship between Mike and Elroy which was never really worked on. Instead the film is kind of taken over by the, admittedly funny, takes on the wiped videos. Which would have been fine if they really had taken over the film, except that they didn't either, instead there was this mish-mash of different themes and genres that never really came together. Add to this the fact that Jack Black pretty much played the same character that he always plays in comedies... which would have been find if this was just an out and out comedy... but it wasn't and it just became annoying.
All in all I think the Be Kind Rewind was really a lost opportunity. Now I'm not sure what direction I would have preferred Gondry to have taken with it but I am sure that it was a lost chance for Jack Black to do something a little different, in the same way that Jim Carrey did in Eternal Sunshine. I blame the director though, I do think that Jack Black is capable of playing other roles, I just think that Gondry was content to let him do his thing, there was so little direction in the film anyway that it hardly mattered. It was a real pity it didn't really work though, I mean The Science of Sleep was a mish-mash but there was enough of a core there with the relationship between Stéphane and Stéphanie to hold it altogether while Be Kind Rewind had nothing like that.
Anyway I know I'm kind of slating it... I do want to state though that it's not that I was expecting a lot more from it just because it's a Gondry film and he's one of a favourite directors. I was a bit apprehensive going into it anyway and I didn't know what to expect. Unfortunately it just turned out to not be a very good film... *shrug* It was pretty funny in parts though, I'd really like to watch more of the re-made videos.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
In Bruges (2008)
Ireland doesn't tend to feature much at the Academy Awards... Ok, this year wasn't too bad with Daniel Day-Lewis winning and Saoirse Ronan nominated, however, generally, it's more of an observers night for Irish fans. Except in 2004 when Martin McDonagh won the Oscar for Best Short Film for a quiet little film called Six Shooter.
I have to admit I didn't see Six Shooter until after it won, it got repeated a couple of times on RTÉ then so I caught late one night. I'm glad I did though, it's a great short film. Anyway, In Bruges is the first feature length film from the aforementioned writer/director.
So is it any good? Well I think so! I have to admit though, it was actually quite different from what I expected and it was actually a lot funnier than I thought it would be. I don't really want to say too much about it, I enjoyed it because it is so different from what I'd expected from the trailer. I will say though that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are both excellent, the relationship between the two of them is very well played. Given that most of the film just involves the two of them, this is very important!
I really liked the pacing of the film as well. It's been a while since I've been interested in various "reveals" that a film-maker generally pops in to move a story along. Often they are either so sign-posted as to make no difference or they're so left-field that it just makes the film ridiculous. In this case I thought they really worked. There was a good mix of action, characterisation, plot exposition and humour and in my eyes a good mix of different elements is what all films should really be aiming for.
Unfortunately, as always, it's not perfect. I didn't particularly enjoy Clémence Poésy's character. She was alright but I thought having her there was a bit of a waste of time to be honest.
But overall, it's smart, funny, good looking ;) and there's a midget in it (or is he a dwarf?). What more do you want?
8/10
EDIT: Fionnuala - Ireland at the Oscars - ok fine, there was that song once that did pretty well... ;)
I have to admit I didn't see Six Shooter until after it won, it got repeated a couple of times on RTÉ then so I caught late one night. I'm glad I did though, it's a great short film. Anyway, In Bruges is the first feature length film from the aforementioned writer/director.
So is it any good? Well I think so! I have to admit though, it was actually quite different from what I expected and it was actually a lot funnier than I thought it would be. I don't really want to say too much about it, I enjoyed it because it is so different from what I'd expected from the trailer. I will say though that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are both excellent, the relationship between the two of them is very well played. Given that most of the film just involves the two of them, this is very important!
I really liked the pacing of the film as well. It's been a while since I've been interested in various "reveals" that a film-maker generally pops in to move a story along. Often they are either so sign-posted as to make no difference or they're so left-field that it just makes the film ridiculous. In this case I thought they really worked. There was a good mix of action, characterisation, plot exposition and humour and in my eyes a good mix of different elements is what all films should really be aiming for.
Unfortunately, as always, it's not perfect. I didn't particularly enjoy Clémence Poésy's character. She was alright but I thought having her there was a bit of a waste of time to be honest.
But overall, it's smart, funny, good looking ;) and there's a midget in it (or is he a dwarf?). What more do you want?
8/10
EDIT: Fionnuala - Ireland at the Oscars - ok fine, there was that song once that did pretty well... ;)
Monday, 18 February 2008
Juno (2007)
You've probably heard of Juno; it's the indie comedy which has been nominated for four Oscars - comparisons abound with Little Miss Sunshine from last year - and like Little Miss Sunshine, it's a cheerful little film, it jaunts along with its clever little offbeat jokes and it's oh so postmodern...
Hmm... I sounded quite negative there... I actually liked this film, I thought it was very good, in fact one of the best films I've seen this year (granted it's only February but I've seen a good few films). I laughed, I almost shed a tear, but I just don't think that I'll be thinking about Juno and her quandary in six months time. It was all just very neat and shiny, it was all very slick and "sorted". It was just all too easy and I felt like I was being played.
I should probably tell you a bit about the film... Juno is a 16-year old girl - smart, independent, given to speaking in ridiculous slang (thankfully that's mostly contained to the first ten or fifteen annoying minutes) and above all pregnant. The father is Bleeker, sweet kid but Juno doesn't seem to appreciate this. Anyway to go any further plotwise would be to give it away but obviously pregnant in high school is not the greatest situation to be in and the film follows the tale of the pregnancy.
What I liked about this film was all the smaller roles, Bleeker (played by Michael Cera) was particularly good, as was J.K. Simmons as her father. It was the cast of characters around Juno that made her more believable, simply because on her own she was too cool, too sure of herself. Looking back at the film we didn't really get much from her, it was the reactions to her that made the film interesting. That said, she was pretty funny - wisecracks don't make a character but they do make you laugh and that's always good.
To be honest, I did think it was a sweet film, I did laugh and I did like it but I think there was an opportunity here to make a really great film and it was lost. I would have liked to see Juno "deal" a bit more. I would have liked it all to be harder *look away if you don't want to know a plot point* - which is not the say that I wanted to see disowned or anything - *you can look again* but I just think don't think that anyone learned anything from the events in the film. Not that people have to learn things the whole time but... I don't know, there just could have been more to it... That said, I'm still giving it 8 out of 10, I still think it was a good laugh and it's well worth seeing.
Anyway, two random points to mention. One, it did quite remind me of Napoleon Dynamite. Two, I can't believe this is the same guy who made Thank You For Smoking. I loved Thank You For Smoking and while this was a good film I do think it was a bit of a safe step back... but then that's just my opinion... What did you think?
8/10
Hmm... I sounded quite negative there... I actually liked this film, I thought it was very good, in fact one of the best films I've seen this year (granted it's only February but I've seen a good few films). I laughed, I almost shed a tear, but I just don't think that I'll be thinking about Juno and her quandary in six months time. It was all just very neat and shiny, it was all very slick and "sorted". It was just all too easy and I felt like I was being played.
I should probably tell you a bit about the film... Juno is a 16-year old girl - smart, independent, given to speaking in ridiculous slang (thankfully that's mostly contained to the first ten or fifteen annoying minutes) and above all pregnant. The father is Bleeker, sweet kid but Juno doesn't seem to appreciate this. Anyway to go any further plotwise would be to give it away but obviously pregnant in high school is not the greatest situation to be in and the film follows the tale of the pregnancy.
What I liked about this film was all the smaller roles, Bleeker (played by Michael Cera) was particularly good, as was J.K. Simmons as her father. It was the cast of characters around Juno that made her more believable, simply because on her own she was too cool, too sure of herself. Looking back at the film we didn't really get much from her, it was the reactions to her that made the film interesting. That said, she was pretty funny - wisecracks don't make a character but they do make you laugh and that's always good.
To be honest, I did think it was a sweet film, I did laugh and I did like it but I think there was an opportunity here to make a really great film and it was lost. I would have liked to see Juno "deal" a bit more. I would have liked it all to be harder *look away if you don't want to know a plot point* - which is not the say that I wanted to see disowned or anything - *you can look again* but I just think don't think that anyone learned anything from the events in the film. Not that people have to learn things the whole time but... I don't know, there just could have been more to it... That said, I'm still giving it 8 out of 10, I still think it was a good laugh and it's well worth seeing.
Anyway, two random points to mention. One, it did quite remind me of Napoleon Dynamite. Two, I can't believe this is the same guy who made Thank You For Smoking. I loved Thank You For Smoking and while this was a good film I do think it was a bit of a safe step back... but then that's just my opinion... What did you think?
8/10
Sunday, 17 February 2008
Control (2007)
Ian Curtis died on May 18th, 1980. He was 23 years old.
Control is a biographical film based on the 1995 memoirs of Ian Curtis's wife, Deborah Curtis, entitled Touching From A Distance. It is directed by acclaimed photographer and music video director Anton Corbijn.
Shot in colour than transferred to black and white, Control is a portait of a man who didn't seem to fit, no matter how much he wanted to. The film starts with Ian in school, just before meeting his future wife and chronicles the formation of the band, it's signing, including the apocryphal tale of Tony Wilson signing the contract with the band in his own blood, Ian Curtis's diagnosis of epilepsy and his downward spiral into depression, culminating with the events just before the band's first scheduled US tour.
Despite the dark and depressing nature of the subject matter, this film isn't particularly difficult to watch. I don't know if that's a good thing though, perhaps it should have been. It's an interesting story that focuses on Ian Curtis's life and relationships, as opposed to any telling of the band's days on the road or anything like that. Looking back I suppose, given that it's based on Deborah's memoirs (and she was left at home with their baby), this is partly out of necessity. Also, given that it's based on Deborah's memoirs, it's very balanced. What the film gives you is quite a stylised telling of the pressures that Ian Curtis faced and the pressures that he placed on himself. It doesn't blame anyone for his death nor does it particularly romanticise his life, he was a normal man who just couldn't cope with what was going on around him.
To be honest I'm not sure if it's really right to rate this film as there are so many ways interpret a person's life and to rate this film would be rating this particular interpretation. I don't feel particularly qualified to do that, I didn't know the guy. What I will say is that there were only really two or three moments in it that I really felt a truth to it, which is not to say that any of it was lies, but in many ways it did just feel like a story. The scenes involving Debbie and Ian around the housewarming party, during and after, and then one particular scene when Ian talks about how much he gives on stage but it's never enough. Those scenes, I think, are really the most important scenes in the film, they give the couple character and sympathy.
What I can say, in terms of rating the film, is that the acting by the two leads - Sam Riley and Samantha Morton - was excellent. Having watched some videos of Joy Division now on youtube, Sam Riley had him spot on. Also, it looks great, the fact that Anton Corbijn is a photographer is obvious.
My main, and possibly quite odd, criticism of the film is that I felt it was missing a sense of time. I didn't really know anything about Ian Curtis beforehand and it felt like a lot of time had passed between each scenes. I had no idea he was so young when he died and I think I would have looked at it a bit differently if I had had any idea of how quickly everything happened.
Anyway, on the whole this was a relatively entertaining way of spending 2 hours. I don't think I could say that it was really fascinating but the music was great - I have to say, that song Love Will Tear Us Apart is one of my all time favourites - as were the performances. It really is a sad tale and one can't help but wonder how things could have been. Of course, there's no way of knowing...
7/10
Control is a biographical film based on the 1995 memoirs of Ian Curtis's wife, Deborah Curtis, entitled Touching From A Distance. It is directed by acclaimed photographer and music video director Anton Corbijn.
Shot in colour than transferred to black and white, Control is a portait of a man who didn't seem to fit, no matter how much he wanted to. The film starts with Ian in school, just before meeting his future wife and chronicles the formation of the band, it's signing, including the apocryphal tale of Tony Wilson signing the contract with the band in his own blood, Ian Curtis's diagnosis of epilepsy and his downward spiral into depression, culminating with the events just before the band's first scheduled US tour.
Despite the dark and depressing nature of the subject matter, this film isn't particularly difficult to watch. I don't know if that's a good thing though, perhaps it should have been. It's an interesting story that focuses on Ian Curtis's life and relationships, as opposed to any telling of the band's days on the road or anything like that. Looking back I suppose, given that it's based on Deborah's memoirs (and she was left at home with their baby), this is partly out of necessity. Also, given that it's based on Deborah's memoirs, it's very balanced. What the film gives you is quite a stylised telling of the pressures that Ian Curtis faced and the pressures that he placed on himself. It doesn't blame anyone for his death nor does it particularly romanticise his life, he was a normal man who just couldn't cope with what was going on around him.
To be honest I'm not sure if it's really right to rate this film as there are so many ways interpret a person's life and to rate this film would be rating this particular interpretation. I don't feel particularly qualified to do that, I didn't know the guy. What I will say is that there were only really two or three moments in it that I really felt a truth to it, which is not to say that any of it was lies, but in many ways it did just feel like a story. The scenes involving Debbie and Ian around the housewarming party, during and after, and then one particular scene when Ian talks about how much he gives on stage but it's never enough. Those scenes, I think, are really the most important scenes in the film, they give the couple character and sympathy.
What I can say, in terms of rating the film, is that the acting by the two leads - Sam Riley and Samantha Morton - was excellent. Having watched some videos of Joy Division now on youtube, Sam Riley had him spot on. Also, it looks great, the fact that Anton Corbijn is a photographer is obvious.
My main, and possibly quite odd, criticism of the film is that I felt it was missing a sense of time. I didn't really know anything about Ian Curtis beforehand and it felt like a lot of time had passed between each scenes. I had no idea he was so young when he died and I think I would have looked at it a bit differently if I had had any idea of how quickly everything happened.
Anyway, on the whole this was a relatively entertaining way of spending 2 hours. I don't think I could say that it was really fascinating but the music was great - I have to say, that song Love Will Tear Us Apart is one of my all time favourites - as were the performances. It really is a sad tale and one can't help but wonder how things could have been. Of course, there's no way of knowing...
7/10
Friday, 15 February 2008
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2008)
I'm a big fan of Tim Burton, the only film of his that I haven't seen is Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think his output has been somewhat inconsistent. The last film of his that I really loved was Big Fish in 2003 and while I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I wasn't blown away. Corpse Bride I was really disappointed with.
Which leads us to his latest offering, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. It's not a bad film, it's actually reasonably entertaining but it just didn't quite work for me. It wasn't the musical aspect, I love musicals and I left the cinema thinking that I'd much preferred to have seen it as a stage show... I think the problem was that I just found it so predictable. From practically the moment Johnny Depp's character steps off the boat, you can see how it's going to end (don't worry, I'm not going to tell you!). Now, predictability isn't necessarily a bad thing, I take all films as they come, however if a film is going to be predictable there has to be something else keep you hooked and this film didn't have anything. The songs were decent, the acting was fine, it looked great but it was never enough to tip it into the category of a great film, for me.
There were some positives though. As I mentioned, visually it was brilliant, all the hallmarks of a Tim Burton film and then some. Also I thought the principle characters were perfectly cast, particularly Alan Rickman, when you hear his voice you just know there's something evil about him. Helena Bonham Carter too was spot on and Johnny Depp is never out of place in Tim Burton's shadowy gothic world. It was also pretty funny when it was trying to be, Sacha Baron Cohen certainly did his job on that front.
All in all it was fine, there was nothing really wrong with it to be honest, it just didn't work for me. Perhaps I was expecting too much, though I try not to with Tim Burton. I just can't help thinking that there just wasn't enough of anything to pull it off, it was just lacking in heart or sparkle. That's why I think the stage show would be better, at least on stage there would be the passion of the spectacle, the drama of the theatre if you will...
7/10
Which leads us to his latest offering, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. It's not a bad film, it's actually reasonably entertaining but it just didn't quite work for me. It wasn't the musical aspect, I love musicals and I left the cinema thinking that I'd much preferred to have seen it as a stage show... I think the problem was that I just found it so predictable. From practically the moment Johnny Depp's character steps off the boat, you can see how it's going to end (don't worry, I'm not going to tell you!). Now, predictability isn't necessarily a bad thing, I take all films as they come, however if a film is going to be predictable there has to be something else keep you hooked and this film didn't have anything. The songs were decent, the acting was fine, it looked great but it was never enough to tip it into the category of a great film, for me.
There were some positives though. As I mentioned, visually it was brilliant, all the hallmarks of a Tim Burton film and then some. Also I thought the principle characters were perfectly cast, particularly Alan Rickman, when you hear his voice you just know there's something evil about him. Helena Bonham Carter too was spot on and Johnny Depp is never out of place in Tim Burton's shadowy gothic world. It was also pretty funny when it was trying to be, Sacha Baron Cohen certainly did his job on that front.
All in all it was fine, there was nothing really wrong with it to be honest, it just didn't work for me. Perhaps I was expecting too much, though I try not to with Tim Burton. I just can't help thinking that there just wasn't enough of anything to pull it off, it was just lacking in heart or sparkle. That's why I think the stage show would be better, at least on stage there would be the passion of the spectacle, the drama of the theatre if you will...
7/10
Friday, 1 February 2008
Cloverfield (2008)
From the team that brought you Felicity, Cloverfield is a heart-warming tale of a man searching for a love that he had tried to deny. Kind of. Mostly it's about a monster attacking Manhattan.
Cloverfield is really the first big "event" film of 2008. The buzz around the trailer when it was first shown before Transformers was immense. Also, given that it's produced by J.J. Abrams, creator of the hit TV series Lost and director of Mission Impossible III, it was bound to have a marketing juggernaut behind it. Though possibly not quite what we're going to see for Sex and The City: The Movie.
But anyway, is it any good? The answer from me is yes. I really enjoyed Cloverfield, at the time. It's one of those popcorn movies, turn off your brain and don't think too much... in fact best if you don't think at all.
There's no particular plot (aside from what I mentioned in the first line of this... no, really!). All it is is a giant monster attacking Manhattan. Actually there is a tiny bit of plot at the beginning which you will have seen in the trailers - the party for Rob - and in my eyes it does go on for a little too long at approximately 15 mins but mostly the film is untroubled by a narrative. What you do get is 85 mins of some hapless New Yorkers running around in absolute mayhem which I can tell you takes little time to unfold. The whole film proceeds at breakneck speed, pretty much assaulting you with noise, flames and falling debris. It's exactly how the trailer makes it look (and no more) and what more can you ask for from a giant monster movie? I will say this, it's not particularly scary or shocking but there are a good few moments where you think "Oh my god!" along with the characters and you can't help but wonder what you would do if you were in the situation.
Given that it's set in Manhattan and involves its destruction I'm sure there are many people who'll draw parallels with September 11th and there'll be more who will talk about whether the film is a comment on the progression of society. If you look at the current political climate, at how big corporations exploit the environment, is the monster a product of the "decline in social responsibility"...? Whatever, I've really no interest in pondering about that. There's a great hulking monster destroying New York and there's nothing more to it than that if you don't want there to be.
Anyway, like I said, I really enjoyed the film however it is not without its flaw - singular, but it's a big one. It is entirely shot through the view of a handycam. While it's all great for the realism and it really does work in context; I get pretty bad motion sickness and the theatre I saw it in was pretty warm so I did have to look away from time to time. Then again, it's only 85 mins long so it was tolerable and there were plenty parts where you can look away without fear of missing anything (unless you particularly like watching the feet of people running). For me, the good outweighed the bad and I highly recommend it if you're looking for 85 mins of destruction but to be honest if it were any longer there's no way I could have taken that shaky camera work.
8/10
Cloverfield is really the first big "event" film of 2008. The buzz around the trailer when it was first shown before Transformers was immense. Also, given that it's produced by J.J. Abrams, creator of the hit TV series Lost and director of Mission Impossible III, it was bound to have a marketing juggernaut behind it. Though possibly not quite what we're going to see for Sex and The City: The Movie.
But anyway, is it any good? The answer from me is yes. I really enjoyed Cloverfield, at the time. It's one of those popcorn movies, turn off your brain and don't think too much... in fact best if you don't think at all.
There's no particular plot (aside from what I mentioned in the first line of this... no, really!). All it is is a giant monster attacking Manhattan. Actually there is a tiny bit of plot at the beginning which you will have seen in the trailers - the party for Rob - and in my eyes it does go on for a little too long at approximately 15 mins but mostly the film is untroubled by a narrative. What you do get is 85 mins of some hapless New Yorkers running around in absolute mayhem which I can tell you takes little time to unfold. The whole film proceeds at breakneck speed, pretty much assaulting you with noise, flames and falling debris. It's exactly how the trailer makes it look (and no more) and what more can you ask for from a giant monster movie? I will say this, it's not particularly scary or shocking but there are a good few moments where you think "Oh my god!" along with the characters and you can't help but wonder what you would do if you were in the situation.
Given that it's set in Manhattan and involves its destruction I'm sure there are many people who'll draw parallels with September 11th and there'll be more who will talk about whether the film is a comment on the progression of society. If you look at the current political climate, at how big corporations exploit the environment, is the monster a product of the "decline in social responsibility"...? Whatever, I've really no interest in pondering about that. There's a great hulking monster destroying New York and there's nothing more to it than that if you don't want there to be.
Anyway, like I said, I really enjoyed the film however it is not without its flaw - singular, but it's a big one. It is entirely shot through the view of a handycam. While it's all great for the realism and it really does work in context; I get pretty bad motion sickness and the theatre I saw it in was pretty warm so I did have to look away from time to time. Then again, it's only 85 mins long so it was tolerable and there were plenty parts where you can look away without fear of missing anything (unless you particularly like watching the feet of people running). For me, the good outweighed the bad and I highly recommend it if you're looking for 85 mins of destruction but to be honest if it were any longer there's no way I could have taken that shaky camera work.
8/10
Friday, 18 January 2008
The 5 Best And The Absolute Worst Of 2007.
I haven't really seen any movies lately as I've been pretty busy with work and everything and I've trying to develop a quick rate graphic but it's not going well... However, it's been a while since I've posted so I thought I should write something, thanks to Auri for the suggestion!
Without further ado and in reverse order...
#5 - Superbad
Good comedy, very funny. Go rent it now. There's really not that much I can say about it... simple story, endearing characters, good laugh!
#4 - Saw IV
Like 'em or not, you can't deny that the Saw films have staying power. As you can see from the position on this list, I like 'em. I really they are the best of the genre at the moment and believe me I've seen a lot of the rest of the genre, the Saw films definitely are the best... Word from the wise, don't ever watch Monster Man... and this is coming from someone who's happy to watch the worst of the worst...
#3 - American Gangster
Solid drama, interesting story, well told. Been called into question lately but I still think it was very good film, very strong performances. And I didn't hate Russell Crowe in it so that's a major achievement on his and the directors part.
#2 - The Darjeeling Limited
I'll have to write a proper review of this film when I buy it on DVD and watch it again but anyway... I love Wes Anderson - The Royal Tenenbaums is my favourite film - however I have to admit (very quietly) that I had been somewhat disappointed with The Life Aquatic. Not the case with The Darjeeling Limited, it's very much a Wes Anderson film in the sense that it has the weird characters, the little details, the strangely out-to-time feeling... I could go one but like I said, I should write a proper review... so I'll leave it at that.
#1 - Transformers
What can I saw about Transformers, not since Snakes On A Plane had I been so desperate to see a film on the big screen. Admittedly Snakes On A Plane wasn't that long ago... but I really wanted to see Snakes On A Plane. Anyway, really I had been waiting to see the Transformers in the cinema since I was a little girl and when it finally happened it did not disappoint. Giant robots people! Giant robots! Sure the plot's a little hokey but that ain't the point, the effects were amazing and the efforts of the actors were admirable. I was pleasantly surprised that Michael Bay actually bothered with the people, so often in big budget action films you see characters cast by the wayside (see the film below for a prime example of that!) but I think Bay got a good mix going here... Anyway, great film, if I see another as good in the next 12 months I'll be surprised!
#1 Worst - Spider-man 3
I loathed Spider-Man 3, not just because it was a poor film, or because it rounded out a poor trilogy but because it could have been so much better. You only have to at the X-Men films or some of the Batman films to see what you can do with a comic book story.
The first film was alright but then they apparently went mad, forgot about characters, threw together some half assed villans and decided that if we were completely dazzled by sand effects, we'd never notice that the characters were made of paper.
I really felt that this particular film was excellent example of how not to do a big budget action film... and action films aren't that hard to do... expectations aren't that high... mine weren't that high after Spider-Man 2 but this was still so very disappointing.
Without further ado and in reverse order...
#5 - Superbad
Good comedy, very funny. Go rent it now. There's really not that much I can say about it... simple story, endearing characters, good laugh!
#4 - Saw IV
Like 'em or not, you can't deny that the Saw films have staying power. As you can see from the position on this list, I like 'em. I really they are the best of the genre at the moment and believe me I've seen a lot of the rest of the genre, the Saw films definitely are the best... Word from the wise, don't ever watch Monster Man... and this is coming from someone who's happy to watch the worst of the worst...
#3 - American Gangster
Solid drama, interesting story, well told. Been called into question lately but I still think it was very good film, very strong performances. And I didn't hate Russell Crowe in it so that's a major achievement on his and the directors part.
#2 - The Darjeeling Limited
I'll have to write a proper review of this film when I buy it on DVD and watch it again but anyway... I love Wes Anderson - The Royal Tenenbaums is my favourite film - however I have to admit (very quietly) that I had been somewhat disappointed with The Life Aquatic. Not the case with The Darjeeling Limited, it's very much a Wes Anderson film in the sense that it has the weird characters, the little details, the strangely out-to-time feeling... I could go one but like I said, I should write a proper review... so I'll leave it at that.
#1 - Transformers
What can I saw about Transformers, not since Snakes On A Plane had I been so desperate to see a film on the big screen. Admittedly Snakes On A Plane wasn't that long ago... but I really wanted to see Snakes On A Plane. Anyway, really I had been waiting to see the Transformers in the cinema since I was a little girl and when it finally happened it did not disappoint. Giant robots people! Giant robots! Sure the plot's a little hokey but that ain't the point, the effects were amazing and the efforts of the actors were admirable. I was pleasantly surprised that Michael Bay actually bothered with the people, so often in big budget action films you see characters cast by the wayside (see the film below for a prime example of that!) but I think Bay got a good mix going here... Anyway, great film, if I see another as good in the next 12 months I'll be surprised!
#1 Worst - Spider-man 3
I loathed Spider-Man 3, not just because it was a poor film, or because it rounded out a poor trilogy but because it could have been so much better. You only have to at the X-Men films or some of the Batman films to see what you can do with a comic book story.
The first film was alright but then they apparently went mad, forgot about characters, threw together some half assed villans and decided that if we were completely dazzled by sand effects, we'd never notice that the characters were made of paper.
I really felt that this particular film was excellent example of how not to do a big budget action film... and action films aren't that hard to do... expectations aren't that high... mine weren't that high after Spider-Man 2 but this was still so very disappointing.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Knocked Up (2007)
Judd Apatow has had a very successful few years... between Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy, The 40-year Old Virgin and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, he's been involved in some of the biggest comedy films in the last four years. While 2006 was quiet in terms of releases he obviously spent the time working on upcoming films as Knocked Up was only one of three films he produced for 2007, the other two being Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story and Superbad. While I haven't seen Walk Hard, I can say that I thought Superbad was very funny. However, while Apatow produced those films, he also wrote and directed Knocked Up, it's the second film he's directed, 2005's The 40-year Old Virgin being his first.
Plainly spoken, Knocked Up is the story of one drunken night and its consequences. Alison Scott (played by Katherine Heigl) is a 24-year old who's been promoted to on-screen after working behind the scenes at the entertainment channel E!. Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen") is a 23-year old stoner living off a compensation award with a group of buddies. Theoretically they're working on a website concept however really... they're watching out for nude scenes starring famous actresses.
There's nothing remarkably deep about this film so, don't go looking for it but I did think it was very entertaining. All the supporting characters were strong (particular mention to Kristen Wiig who played Jill - an exec in E!) and the two leads were very well suited. I found it very funny and the situations, though somewhat ridiculous, were made believable, in the same way we saw in The 40-year Old Virgin to be honest. There was charm to everything and really, it's just a nice film.
I will say this, I was initially apprehensive when this came about in the cinemas because it looked a bit like a chick film however after hearing that it was great from girls and guy alike and also because of Judd Apatow's other films I thought I'd give it a go. They weren't wrong and so I join others in wholly recommending it as a good way to spend approximately 130 mins of your life. I do wonder though, as a girl was it fundamentally a different film for me than it would be for a guy? Not humourwise I mean, just in general... I guess I'll never really know!
Plainly spoken, Knocked Up is the story of one drunken night and its consequences. Alison Scott (played by Katherine Heigl) is a 24-year old who's been promoted to on-screen after working behind the scenes at the entertainment channel E!. Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen") is a 23-year old stoner living off a compensation award with a group of buddies. Theoretically they're working on a website concept however really... they're watching out for nude scenes starring famous actresses.
There's nothing remarkably deep about this film so, don't go looking for it but I did think it was very entertaining. All the supporting characters were strong (particular mention to Kristen Wiig who played Jill - an exec in E!) and the two leads were very well suited. I found it very funny and the situations, though somewhat ridiculous, were made believable, in the same way we saw in The 40-year Old Virgin to be honest. There was charm to everything and really, it's just a nice film.
I will say this, I was initially apprehensive when this came about in the cinemas because it looked a bit like a chick film however after hearing that it was great from girls and guy alike and also because of Judd Apatow's other films I thought I'd give it a go. They weren't wrong and so I join others in wholly recommending it as a good way to spend approximately 130 mins of your life. I do wonder though, as a girl was it fundamentally a different film for me than it would be for a guy? Not humourwise I mean, just in general... I guess I'll never really know!
Friday, 11 January 2008
No Country For Old Men (2007)
No Country For Old Men is the new film from the Oscar©-winning cult directors Joel and Ethan Coen. Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, No Country For Old Men follows the chase as a quiet man is thrown into the path of drug dealers and hired killers by a chance discovery.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
The Science of Sleep (2006)
Until a few years ago Michel Gondry was primarily known as a music video director. His videos include Around The World by Daft Punk, Everlong by Foo Fighters, Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue and my personal favourite Dead Leaves On The Dirty Ground by The White Stripes. His first foray into feature films in 2001 with, Human Nature written by Charles Kaufman, was generally ignored however it was his next collaboration with Kaufman, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, that really made people take notice. With such a critically acclaimed film to his name it seems only fair that Gondry be allowed to be somewhat... indulgent with the next film he wrote.
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
A Little Bit About Me...
Since this is my first post I thought I should let you know about a bit about myself... I'm 28, female and I live in Dublin, Ireland. Also, I watch a lot of films... now to be fair, I don't watch as many films as some people but I probably watch somewhere between 150 to 200 films a year. It's probably worth laying out a bit about my film watching habits too...
Generally I'll watch anything, really anything... Harold & Kumar to Cidade de Deus to Manos: The Hands of Fate... bring it on! (actually Bring It On is a great film... you should watch it, yes you!!)
Also I don't like to know too much about a film before I go see it. Ok, it's interesting to know if the world at large thinks it's good or bad but I don't read critics reviews or anything like that. I'll read them afterwards but not before, I prefer to go to a film and make up my own mind. In fact the only things I really want to know about a film are who directed it, who's in it and how long it is (vital for knowing how much popcorn to get).
If you're wondering about my tastes, I try to rate all my films on IMDb so here is a link to my ratings there. In my mind there's no such thing as a guilty pleasure, I never feel guilty about them :-).
So I think that's it for now, if there's anything else you want to know about me let me know!
Generally I'll watch anything, really anything... Harold & Kumar to Cidade de Deus to Manos: The Hands of Fate... bring it on! (actually Bring It On is a great film... you should watch it, yes you!!)
Also I don't like to know too much about a film before I go see it. Ok, it's interesting to know if the world at large thinks it's good or bad but I don't read critics reviews or anything like that. I'll read them afterwards but not before, I prefer to go to a film and make up my own mind. In fact the only things I really want to know about a film are who directed it, who's in it and how long it is (vital for knowing how much popcorn to get).
If you're wondering about my tastes, I try to rate all my films on IMDb so here is a link to my ratings there. In my mind there's no such thing as a guilty pleasure, I never feel guilty about them :-).
So I think that's it for now, if there's anything else you want to know about me let me know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
