Saw this one courtesy of Phantom 105.2 Thanks guys!
(500) Days of Summer is essentially a love story. I know it says it isn't, but it is. It may be a quirky indie love story, but it's still a love story. I wouldn't let that put you off though; that is, if you are the kind of person who is put off by love stories. Personally I'm not but off by the idea but that's because I like a good weepy film... this isn't actually one of those but it still has plenty to recommend it.
First up is Joeeph Gordon-Levitt; who I suspect will be known as "that kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun" long after the kids who've never heard of 3rd Rock from the Sun grow up. I'd like it if he were known as "that guy from Brick" but that's not going to happen. Brick, by the way, is a great film but to be honest, it's not for everyone...
Anyway... the last film I saw with Mr. Gordon-Levitt was Stop-Loss. I thought he could have done better in that one, it was ok but it was no great shakes, fortunately that isn't the case with this one. I do think he puts on a strong performance as the lead in this, he's likeable as Tom Hansen and not too whiny, which could have been a risk with another actor in this part.
Zooey Deschanel performs ably in her role as well. Summer Finn not as well-developed a character - it wouldn't be, since the story is told through Tom's eyes really - but with a weaker actress it would have been easy for the character to just hang there as a cold bitch and I don't think this was the case.
The supporting characters all worked for me too... in particular there was a line from Matthew Gray Gubler's character that I really liked. I won't quote it here but if you can guess which one is was (I think it's obvious anyway) then comment, I'm just wondering if it stood out to other people as well...
The only problem with me saying that I liked the characters is that (500) Days of Summer is undoubtedly one of those films which will be seen differently through different eyes. It's about a relationship and everyone's lives are coloured by different relationships, good, bad and indifferent. I can't imagine it will be possible for anyone to watch this without relating to it somehow, even if the feeling is a thanks that you're not anything like any of them.
Through my eyes it was a cute story about a mis-matching of emotions, an amusing look at a modern relationship. I liked how it was all told in a very genuine way, after all, it's a story that's been played out a thousand times in real life and on the silver screen and for once it was nice to see the two tellings match. Funnily enough I found myself wishing that Tom was someone I knew, just so I could give him advice like all the other characters... but then again that might just be because I'm nosy.
So, (500) Days of Summer is definitely a film worth seeing if you're in the mood for that kind of thing; but it really is a film you have to be in the mood for. If you fancy seeing The Final Destination or Inglourious Basterds then don't go see this just because they're sold out... on the other hand if you were thinking about The Time Traveller's Wife then this might be a good alternative.
8/10 - but like I said on twitter, I'd like to see it again to be sure it wasn't too clichéd. I'm not sure I was entirely focused on it and I'd like to have been, who knows? Maybe it was better than 8/10...
Friday 28 August 2009
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
There's only really two directors that I would say I'm a big fan of, Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson, in case you were wondering... but I do admire the films of Quentin Tarantino. They're always so stylish, so cool. I met him briefly once at a signing in HMV Dublin and he was just as cool as I expected, security were keeping us all moving but I'm sure if he could he would have had a chat with all of us.
But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?
Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.
I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.
None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.
So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.
It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.
The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.
Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.
8.5/10
An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....
But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?
Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.
I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.
None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.
So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.
It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.
The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.
Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.
8.5/10
An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....
Saturday 8 August 2009
Antichrist (2009)
At this stage any film reviewer worth their salt has seen Lars von Trier's latest film, Antichrist. The controversy that ensued after its screening at Cannes meant that it was top of my list of "must see" arthouse films this year.
I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor "average" but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn't see this one then I'd never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don't actually have a list of "must see" arthouse films, just "must see" films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.
As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I've seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven't seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don't know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don't watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.
There's no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you're reading because you want to know my opinion... and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we're talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you're going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it's well worth a watch.
On a basic level it's an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It's driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It's also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole "enviroment reflecting the state of mind" device... but then again, I do think it can work so don't take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I'm certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don't know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.
I have to reference a couple of films here - Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I'm straying away from the "average film review" ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn't recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I'm saying it's ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove ;-)
But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn't worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you're watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven't seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they're not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.
There's been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I've read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier's body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that's personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it's their film. If there's some link in the stories or if it's a sequel then that's different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn't important, it's the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn't think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it's open to be interpreted in different ways and if that's the way one chooses to interpret it well... as always, how you view a film is up to you.
I've digressed again so I'll finish off... Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It's interesting like that.
8.5/10
I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor "average" but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn't see this one then I'd never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don't actually have a list of "must see" arthouse films, just "must see" films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.
As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I've seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven't seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don't know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don't watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.
There's no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you're reading because you want to know my opinion... and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we're talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you're going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it's well worth a watch.
On a basic level it's an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It's driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It's also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole "enviroment reflecting the state of mind" device... but then again, I do think it can work so don't take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I'm certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don't know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.
I have to reference a couple of films here - Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I'm straying away from the "average film review" ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn't recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I'm saying it's ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove ;-)
But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn't worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you're watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven't seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they're not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.
There's been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I've read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier's body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that's personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it's their film. If there's some link in the stories or if it's a sequel then that's different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn't important, it's the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn't think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it's open to be interpreted in different ways and if that's the way one chooses to interpret it well... as always, how you view a film is up to you.
I've digressed again so I'll finish off... Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It's interesting like that.
8.5/10
Sunday 2 August 2009
Moon (2009)
Moon is a sci-fi film conceived and directed by Duncan Jones. It stars Sam Rockwell as the sole inhabitant of a moon base that serves as the operational centre for a team of helium-3 harvesters.
I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.
There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.
It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we, actually get to that situtation?", this film didn't leave me with any of that. Sure, technically you could ask yourself those questions about Moon, but it didn't bring me to that point and that's what I was looking for.
I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.
7/10
I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.
There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.
It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we
I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.
7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
