The standees in Movies@Dundrum describe Slumdog Millionaire as the "The feel-good film of the decade"... so from the get go I'm worried; I'm not usually into "feel-good" films. Add to that the buzz about this film from the US... There's nothing wrong with good buzz... but about a "feel-good" film with no associated buzz about the script or the acting... what are the critics buzzing about exactly? Is this just some great PR machine at work? On the other hand this is a Danny Boyle film and imho Danny Boyle is on of the most interesting directors out there at the moment. So I cast aside my trepidation and decided to bask in the buzz. One ticket for the opening night please.
For those who don't know, Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel called Q and A by Vikas Swarup. It's about a boy from the slums of Mumbai, Jamal (played by Dev Patel), who goes on the Indian version of Who Want To Be A Millionaire but is suspected of cheating when he reaches the last question; nobody believes that a kid from the slums could possibly do so well without help.
Is it a good film though? For the most part, yes. It is a good film... but it's not really a great film... That said, I really enjoyed it, it's practically impossible not to get caught up in the drama of the story. There's a reason Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is the most internationally popular TV franchise of all time.. the lights, the music, suspense of it all just draws you in. Danny Boyle is very successful in bring that suspense into the film, you need to know what happened to Jamal, how did he get to this point?
It's also a great looking film. The cinematography is brilliant, the slight over-saturation really works and there's some wonderful framing - excellent set pieces in the land and cityscapes. There's a vibrancy to the film that really sets off the story... It really reminds me of City of God. I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last to say that...
Mentioning City of God brings us to the most important question though... City of God was one of the greatest films I've ever seen and it didn't win an Oscar. So is Slumdog Millionaire worthy of the hype? I'm not sure... I'm loath to say that it isn't because I think it's great that a film like this is being brought to a mass audience. I also think it's great for Danny Boyle and his co-director Loveleen Tandan that they are getting recognition for a great film. Danny Boyle should have been nominated for an Oscar for Trainspotting and 28 Days Later...!. Personally I can't say if this film is worthy of the Oscar, I haven't seen the competition so I can't really comment... but I can say that it's not without flaws.
I think the most glaring of them is that, in all the excitment, it's easy to miss that we don't actually know that much about the characters. There are glimpses at what drives them... but we don't actually know them outside what is relevant to the story. We don't know who they are, we just know what they've done. I would have liked to have seen more characterisation. Another is that I felt toward the end that we got a bit mixed in what matters... there's two threads in the story and as they both climax it doesn't quite manage to keep the momentum for both stories but it doesn't quite manage to merge them either... It might just be me but there wasn't the satisfaction in the end that I expected.
The last thing that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire isn't really a flaw but I do think it stops it from being a really great film. I thought it was forgettable... and maybe that's the problem of the feel-good film. There was nothing there for me to think about afterwards. I like to walk out of a theatre thinking about what I've just experienced - I might be thinking "What would I have done?" or "How could that have happen?" or I might just be thinking "Wow, the effects in that film were incredible", it doesn't matter. What matters is that I'm thinking of it and in this case I wasn't.
So... how to rate it? I would have loved for this film to be a new classic... which is what the marketeers would have us believe... but I really don't think it is. I think it's a good story told well and that might be enough for it to win an Oscar but it's not enough for me.
8.5/10
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Saturday, 3 January 2009
The Spirit (2008)
I'd never really heard of The Spirit (the film or the comics) until I started seeing the tv ads about a week before it came out... I like the visual style and I'm interested in films of comic book stories but mostly what swung it was that it had Samuel L. Jackson in it. I'll watch anything with Samuel L. Jackson in it. So I booked the tickets.
I decided to go look it up a little before I saw it... it's very unusual for me to hear nothing about a film before it comes out particularly one that's an adaptation. I never read reviews before seeing a film but I'll cast my eye over IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to get some idea of what I'm in for. The early signs weren't good (5.4 on IMDb and 15% on RT) but nothing will stop me seeing a film if I want to see it... I like to make up my own mind.
To be perfectly honest the critics aren't really wrong... there are lots of things to dislike about The Spirit. I mean seriously, it is terrible... in a way. The dialogue is awful and I don't where they found Gabriel Macht but they should put him back.
It's actually hard to describe what's bad about it because what's bad is what makes it great. My criticism of it is that some of the dialogue is repetitive, that always annoys me, and it stutters to start. It's completely outlandish but it takes a while to get to that point. It's as though Frank Miller started off thinking he'd make serious film noir then realised that there was no hope of that so chose to go careening off the rails.
Sure, it's annoying but I can't agree with what Rotten Tomatoes surmised from the critics - that it doesn't make sense and the characters are unmemorable. It has a very simple plot and the characters are all great fun. Ok, they're not characters in the sense they have no particular substance, they're more like interesting props. And they're all just so odd, it's great. Samuel L. Jackson is brilliant and for once I didn't find Scarlett Johansson annoying at all. To be honest herself and Eva Mendes weren't in it enough I would have liked to laugh at them a little longer. The one character we could have done without was Lorelei Rox (played by Jaime King) I don't know what was going on there. I can only assume it something from the comics that they felt they had to put in...
I can only thank Frank Miller for going off the rails on this, it is a great film. It is however, doomed to be a cult classic. There just aren't that many people out there are who are going to stick with all the madness and there are even less out there who'll appreciate it. Personally I've never seen so many people leave a theatre (that said, I rarely notice people leaving the cinema - I usually watch the film) and it's a pity because the film does deserve to be seen. At the very least it looks class.
Anyway I, for one, am glad I saw it.
8/10.
PS - I just had a look at the Roger Ebert review of this and he gave it one star. Which is fair enough, his accusations aren't unfounded, but... he's got the plot wrong. I don't know how someone can get the plot wrong - it's really very simple, you'd have to stop watching the film to get confused... so I gotta say, a little down in my estimation there...
I decided to go look it up a little before I saw it... it's very unusual for me to hear nothing about a film before it comes out particularly one that's an adaptation. I never read reviews before seeing a film but I'll cast my eye over IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to get some idea of what I'm in for. The early signs weren't good (5.4 on IMDb and 15% on RT) but nothing will stop me seeing a film if I want to see it... I like to make up my own mind.
To be perfectly honest the critics aren't really wrong... there are lots of things to dislike about The Spirit. I mean seriously, it is terrible... in a way. The dialogue is awful and I don't where they found Gabriel Macht but they should put him back.
It's actually hard to describe what's bad about it because what's bad is what makes it great. My criticism of it is that some of the dialogue is repetitive, that always annoys me, and it stutters to start. It's completely outlandish but it takes a while to get to that point. It's as though Frank Miller started off thinking he'd make serious film noir then realised that there was no hope of that so chose to go careening off the rails.
Sure, it's annoying but I can't agree with what Rotten Tomatoes surmised from the critics - that it doesn't make sense and the characters are unmemorable. It has a very simple plot and the characters are all great fun. Ok, they're not characters in the sense they have no particular substance, they're more like interesting props. And they're all just so odd, it's great. Samuel L. Jackson is brilliant and for once I didn't find Scarlett Johansson annoying at all. To be honest herself and Eva Mendes weren't in it enough I would have liked to laugh at them a little longer. The one character we could have done without was Lorelei Rox (played by Jaime King) I don't know what was going on there. I can only assume it something from the comics that they felt they had to put in...
I can only thank Frank Miller for going off the rails on this, it is a great film. It is however, doomed to be a cult classic. There just aren't that many people out there are who are going to stick with all the madness and there are even less out there who'll appreciate it. Personally I've never seen so many people leave a theatre (that said, I rarely notice people leaving the cinema - I usually watch the film) and it's a pity because the film does deserve to be seen. At the very least it looks class.
Anyway I, for one, am glad I saw it.
8/10.
PS - I just had a look at the Roger Ebert review of this and he gave it one star. Which is fair enough, his accusations aren't unfounded, but... he's got the plot wrong. I don't know how someone can get the plot wrong - it's really very simple, you'd have to stop watching the film to get confused... so I gotta say, a little down in my estimation there...
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!
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
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.
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... ;)
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...
