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.

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.

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...