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... ;)
Saturday 23 February 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
