Judd Apatow has had a very successful few years... between Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy, The 40-year Old Virgin and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, he's been involved in some of the biggest comedy films in the last four years. While 2006 was quiet in terms of releases he obviously spent the time working on upcoming films as Knocked Up was only one of three films he produced for 2007, the other two being Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story and Superbad. While I haven't seen Walk Hard, I can say that I thought Superbad was very funny. However, while Apatow produced those films, he also wrote and directed Knocked Up, it's the second film he's directed, 2005's The 40-year Old Virgin being his first.
Plainly spoken, Knocked Up is the story of one drunken night and its consequences. Alison Scott (played by Katherine Heigl) is a 24-year old who's been promoted to on-screen after working behind the scenes at the entertainment channel E!. Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen") is a 23-year old stoner living off a compensation award with a group of buddies. Theoretically they're working on a website concept however really... they're watching out for nude scenes starring famous actresses.
There's nothing remarkably deep about this film so, don't go looking for it but I did think it was very entertaining. All the supporting characters were strong (particular mention to Kristen Wiig who played Jill - an exec in E!) and the two leads were very well suited. I found it very funny and the situations, though somewhat ridiculous, were made believable, in the same way we saw in The 40-year Old Virgin to be honest. There was charm to everything and really, it's just a nice film.
I will say this, I was initially apprehensive when this came about in the cinemas because it looked a bit like a chick film however after hearing that it was great from girls and guy alike and also because of Judd Apatow's other films I thought I'd give it a go. They weren't wrong and so I join others in wholly recommending it as a good way to spend approximately 130 mins of your life. I do wonder though, as a girl was it fundamentally a different film for me than it would be for a guy? Not humourwise I mean, just in general... I guess I'll never really know!
Showing posts with label english. Show all posts
Showing posts with label english. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Friday, 11 January 2008
No Country For Old Men (2007)
No Country For Old Men is the new film from the Oscar©-winning cult directors Joel and Ethan Coen. Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, No Country For Old Men follows the chase as a quiet man is thrown into the path of drug dealers and hired killers by a chance discovery.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
The Science of Sleep (2006)
Until a few years ago Michel Gondry was primarily known as a music video director. His videos include Around The World by Daft Punk, Everlong by Foo Fighters, Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue and my personal favourite Dead Leaves On The Dirty Ground by The White Stripes. His first foray into feature films in 2001 with, Human Nature written by Charles Kaufman, was generally ignored however it was his next collaboration with Kaufman, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, that really made people take notice. With such a critically acclaimed film to his name it seems only fair that Gondry be allowed to be somewhat... indulgent with the next film he wrote.
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
