Contining on the introspective theme, last night I saw Half Nelson. I went to see this firstly because I'm a sucker for a teacher movie, secondly because Ryan Gosling got an Oscar nomination and thirdly I'd heard that despite those first two things, this remained a very subtle film.
And subtle it was. Ryan Gosling is Mr Dunne, a teacher at a predominantly black school, who happens to have a crack addiction. Tracey is his student who stumbles upon him blacked out in a locker room one night, and they subsequently form a (non-sexual) friendship. Once again, outside of this there isn't a whole lot I can say about the plot. Teacher has drug addiction, student has grown up before her time and accepts it and wants to be his friend. He gets a bit weirded out and turns away from her, she turns to drug dealing friend of the family for adult male guidance (she is the daughter of a single mother).
Ryan Gosling deserved his Oscar nomination for this, and being as it's well known that I don't agree with Forrest Whittaker winning, I seriously think Ryan should have won it for this subtle, textured performance. The girl who played Tracey (whose name I do not recall at this juncture) was also amazing, I hope we get the pleasure of seeing her more often, and in roles as substantial as this one.
This slow paced, introspective movie ends with a very poignant collision of circumstances involving Mr Dunne and Tracey. This moment isn't over explained, but the viewer is left with no doubt as to the conclusion that can/should be drawn. Half Nelson is hard work, but worth it.
8 out of 10.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Romulus, My Father
This is a new Australian movie, starring Eric Bana and a fantastic kid caclled Kodi Smit-Mcphee. Based on a true story, it traces a few years in the life of Raimond and his father Romulus, coping with life on the land, trying to get Rai an education, and the sporadic and poisoning presence of Rai's mother Christina.
There isn't much to say about the plot other than what the flyer says. It celebrates 'the unbreakable bond between father and son'. And it celebrates it in a very subtle and moving way. The characters have real flaws, and real problems. The solutions are often messy.
It is a very slow moving film, and probably could have benefitted from some selective editing for it to appeal to a broader audience. But as it is, the intergrity in the script remains intact, and as an exploration of one kind of relationship, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
8.5 out of 10.
There isn't much to say about the plot other than what the flyer says. It celebrates 'the unbreakable bond between father and son'. And it celebrates it in a very subtle and moving way. The characters have real flaws, and real problems. The solutions are often messy.
It is a very slow moving film, and probably could have benefitted from some selective editing for it to appeal to a broader audience. But as it is, the intergrity in the script remains intact, and as an exploration of one kind of relationship, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
8.5 out of 10.
Copying Beethoven
Allow me to divert a little from the lovefest that is my movie blog right now, to a movie i loathed with the intensity of a thousand burning desert suns.
Copying Beethoven.
One would think that this film had several things going for it. Ed Harris, Beethoven's 9th, Beethoven himself, the period in Germany, Germany itself etc etc. With a character like Beethoven to work with - a deaf composer for God's sake! - you'd think this film would be a meaty tribute to a fantastic composer. Not so.
From this minute this film started up, with German characters making no attempt at any accents other than American, I knew that I was going to tell Rosie who had free tickets, to spend her time watching something else. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the makers had decided that Beethoven's young, innane female copyist was more interesting than him. That her seeming power over a genius was going to please an audience, and that her simpering would come across as strong, yet feminine. Not so.
The performances themselves were terrible, but in the defence of the actors, they had nothing to work with. The dialogue was abysimal - cliche after cliche after cliche is offensive coming out of the mouth of any character, let alone the mouth of Ed Harris playing Beethoven. The costumes were laughably amateur, the staging was poor, and even Beethoven's deafness was inconsistent - he needed his copyist to beat for him to follow in the debut of the 9th, but could hear his own quartet being played at the end?
The one shining point of this movie was the music. But it was Beethoven, it would be a little difficult to stuff it up. Although come to think of it, during the 10 minutes or so when we were treated to the best bits of the 9th Symphony, we did have to watch the bloody copyist with her stilted performance, beating out the time to Ed Harris.
Ugh. Don't waste your braincells on this one.
3 out of 10.
Copying Beethoven.
One would think that this film had several things going for it. Ed Harris, Beethoven's 9th, Beethoven himself, the period in Germany, Germany itself etc etc. With a character like Beethoven to work with - a deaf composer for God's sake! - you'd think this film would be a meaty tribute to a fantastic composer. Not so.
From this minute this film started up, with German characters making no attempt at any accents other than American, I knew that I was going to tell Rosie who had free tickets, to spend her time watching something else. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the makers had decided that Beethoven's young, innane female copyist was more interesting than him. That her seeming power over a genius was going to please an audience, and that her simpering would come across as strong, yet feminine. Not so.
The performances themselves were terrible, but in the defence of the actors, they had nothing to work with. The dialogue was abysimal - cliche after cliche after cliche is offensive coming out of the mouth of any character, let alone the mouth of Ed Harris playing Beethoven. The costumes were laughably amateur, the staging was poor, and even Beethoven's deafness was inconsistent - he needed his copyist to beat for him to follow in the debut of the 9th, but could hear his own quartet being played at the end?
The one shining point of this movie was the music. But it was Beethoven, it would be a little difficult to stuff it up. Although come to think of it, during the 10 minutes or so when we were treated to the best bits of the 9th Symphony, we did have to watch the bloody copyist with her stilted performance, beating out the time to Ed Harris.
Ugh. Don't waste your braincells on this one.
3 out of 10.
The Science of Sleep
From the director of 'Eternal Sunshine...' comes this largely abstract piece, blurring the dreams and reality of a Spanish guy living in France, who apparently sometimes speaks English as well. The beginning of the film sees his dream life and his reality clearly distinct from each other, but as the film progresses, the two blur as he falls for the girl across the hall and invites her into his blurred reality.
The visuals were amazing - bright and abstract and very child like in some ways, but very adult in others. His dream world, according to the people i was with, was very much like their own (but nothing like mine, apparently my dreams are quite dull in comparison, although I have grown quite fond of them!) which I think allowed them to relate to this film a little more than I did. Additionally, i failed to find some of his *ahem* quirks endearing as we were asked to believe the girl across the hall did, which added to my detachment from the film.
However, adding the most to my detachment was the fact that I was absolutely exhausted and actually slept for at least a 3rd of this film, and probably wasn't paying as much attention as I could to the rest of it. I cry post migraine pain as my excuse but honestly, this film really did fail to get me in at the beginning as much as I thought it was going to. I was so convinced I would find this as charming and quirky as everyone else that I went along thinking it would keep me awake. Apparently not!! I was grumpy afterwards and even called this 'quirky for the sake of being quirky' in a very sour tone, which is unlike me - i usually love quirk! this being so uncharacteristic of me, I am prepared to give this a second viewing before I pass judgement with a rating!
At this stage it's a 6 - but I'm open to liking it more the second time.
The visuals were amazing - bright and abstract and very child like in some ways, but very adult in others. His dream world, according to the people i was with, was very much like their own (but nothing like mine, apparently my dreams are quite dull in comparison, although I have grown quite fond of them!) which I think allowed them to relate to this film a little more than I did. Additionally, i failed to find some of his *ahem* quirks endearing as we were asked to believe the girl across the hall did, which added to my detachment from the film.
However, adding the most to my detachment was the fact that I was absolutely exhausted and actually slept for at least a 3rd of this film, and probably wasn't paying as much attention as I could to the rest of it. I cry post migraine pain as my excuse but honestly, this film really did fail to get me in at the beginning as much as I thought it was going to. I was so convinced I would find this as charming and quirky as everyone else that I went along thinking it would keep me awake. Apparently not!! I was grumpy afterwards and even called this 'quirky for the sake of being quirky' in a very sour tone, which is unlike me - i usually love quirk! this being so uncharacteristic of me, I am prepared to give this a second viewing before I pass judgement with a rating!
At this stage it's a 6 - but I'm open to liking it more the second time.
History Boys
Here I am, back again! Never fear, I have been seeing movies but just not writing about them.
So, History Boys. About a bunch of 18ish year old boys, doing their final term at some middle class boys school in the UK, trying to get into Oxford or Cambridge. I went to see this with Rosie only for the purposes of a good laugh and a bit of an escape on a Saturday afternoon and I was pleasantly surprised. Turns out it was translated from stage to screen, so it had that extra little dimension that I like so much. Some reviews said this didn't translate well, and granted, there were aspects that didn't.
Not much surprising plot wise - there is a pretty boy, a gay boy, a couple of gay teachers and some miscellaenous other students - stupid joke, alternative dude etc etc. It's about their interactions were surprisingly human and I think a refreshing change from the way you usually see boys that age portrayed on screen. These guys were actually human, altho still obviously 18 year old boys.
I suppose the gay angle was a bit surprising, as was the way the issue of one of the teachers occasionally um, hitting on his students was handled, But it was all dealt with in a way that I found it strangely easy to accept, if not easy to believe. All topped off with some amusing performances (i saw 'amusing' not 'great' because some of them, especially the headmaster, were a bit 'stagey') and fitting music.
There is a bit of a coda at the end that seemed a little unnecessary, and I think this is where reviewers before me have taken exception. Totally forgiveable in my opinion though. This is a surprising, funny and sometimes genuinely emotional film.
7.5 out of 10
So, History Boys. About a bunch of 18ish year old boys, doing their final term at some middle class boys school in the UK, trying to get into Oxford or Cambridge. I went to see this with Rosie only for the purposes of a good laugh and a bit of an escape on a Saturday afternoon and I was pleasantly surprised. Turns out it was translated from stage to screen, so it had that extra little dimension that I like so much. Some reviews said this didn't translate well, and granted, there were aspects that didn't.
Not much surprising plot wise - there is a pretty boy, a gay boy, a couple of gay teachers and some miscellaenous other students - stupid joke, alternative dude etc etc. It's about their interactions were surprisingly human and I think a refreshing change from the way you usually see boys that age portrayed on screen. These guys were actually human, altho still obviously 18 year old boys.
I suppose the gay angle was a bit surprising, as was the way the issue of one of the teachers occasionally um, hitting on his students was handled, But it was all dealt with in a way that I found it strangely easy to accept, if not easy to believe. All topped off with some amusing performances (i saw 'amusing' not 'great' because some of them, especially the headmaster, were a bit 'stagey') and fitting music.
There is a bit of a coda at the end that seemed a little unnecessary, and I think this is where reviewers before me have taken exception. Totally forgiveable in my opinion though. This is a surprising, funny and sometimes genuinely emotional film.
7.5 out of 10
Monday, April 2, 2007
Running With Scissors
A bizarre pastiche of family drama and outrageous comedy. Seemingly a good idea, but the elements were so poorly blended that actually, not so much.
Boy raised by dysfunctional parents watches their messy divorce, and ends up stuck with his mentally unstable mother. He ends up under the guardianship of his mother very odd therapist and his very odd family, and starts a relationship with an older, schizophrenic man.
The preview led me to expect a delightfully quirky blend of The Royal Tenenbaums and Tarnation. Instead I was presented with a hateful mix of good performances and some genuinely hilarious moments totally overun by weirdness and poor direction.
I really have no words to describe how I feel about this film except....
Weirdest. Movie. Ever.
5
Boy raised by dysfunctional parents watches their messy divorce, and ends up stuck with his mentally unstable mother. He ends up under the guardianship of his mother very odd therapist and his very odd family, and starts a relationship with an older, schizophrenic man.
The preview led me to expect a delightfully quirky blend of The Royal Tenenbaums and Tarnation. Instead I was presented with a hateful mix of good performances and some genuinely hilarious moments totally overun by weirdness and poor direction.
I really have no words to describe how I feel about this film except....
Weirdest. Movie. Ever.
5
Sunday, April 1, 2007
The Lives of Others
I have been experiencing a movie slump of late - we've been going through a dry patch of decent movies. So needless to say, I had high expectations for this Best Foreign Film Oscar winner. I passed up a free V-Festival ticket to see it, so if it was anything less than spectacular i was going to be disappointed.
My god. Disappointd could not be further from the actual state of affairs. Pan's Labyrinth was the favourite to win the Oscar, but this was in no way a real upset - how anyone could say that this was less deserving would be beyond me.
The Lives of Others was set in East Germany in the 80s, before the wall came down. Without giving too much away, it's about the Stasi (State Security) surveillance of 'suspicious', potentially subversive artists. Basically, an artist and his actress wife come to the attention of the Stasi, and their apartment is bugged and they begin to be closely watched. The agent put in charge of their case becomes emotionally involved, and the plot is built from there. To say anything else would give it away.
For me, the success of this film lay in the subtlety. The plot could easily have become so convoluted and detracted from the themes, but instead it was restrained and relatively simple, and the facts spoke for themselves. The timing of release couldn't have been better, and the air of suspicion that had fallen over East Germany at the time recalls McCarthyism and Guantanamo Bay.
The subtlety continued over to the technicalities of the film - the score was gorgeous and fitting but never obtrusive. The visuals were stunning, it was gorgeous to look at in a very simple, stripped back way that allowed full immersion into bleak political and social climate of East Germany, without being manipulative.
The people I saw this movie with asked me afterwards if I had cried and my answer was that I was too profoundly moved to think about crying. The emotions, the politics and the human interactions in this film really did enough talking and there was no need for fancy gimmicks to artificially satisfy me. The ending involved a few jumps forward in time and one very poignant moment capped it off - it could so easily have gone awry but stayed dead on track the whole time.
Adding to the greatness of this movie was the fact that apparently the actor who plays the Stasi member monitoring the couple under suspicion was himself monitored in the 80s in East Germany.
I really just can't pick a flaw.
10
My god. Disappointd could not be further from the actual state of affairs. Pan's Labyrinth was the favourite to win the Oscar, but this was in no way a real upset - how anyone could say that this was less deserving would be beyond me.
The Lives of Others was set in East Germany in the 80s, before the wall came down. Without giving too much away, it's about the Stasi (State Security) surveillance of 'suspicious', potentially subversive artists. Basically, an artist and his actress wife come to the attention of the Stasi, and their apartment is bugged and they begin to be closely watched. The agent put in charge of their case becomes emotionally involved, and the plot is built from there. To say anything else would give it away.
For me, the success of this film lay in the subtlety. The plot could easily have become so convoluted and detracted from the themes, but instead it was restrained and relatively simple, and the facts spoke for themselves. The timing of release couldn't have been better, and the air of suspicion that had fallen over East Germany at the time recalls McCarthyism and Guantanamo Bay.
The subtlety continued over to the technicalities of the film - the score was gorgeous and fitting but never obtrusive. The visuals were stunning, it was gorgeous to look at in a very simple, stripped back way that allowed full immersion into bleak political and social climate of East Germany, without being manipulative.
The people I saw this movie with asked me afterwards if I had cried and my answer was that I was too profoundly moved to think about crying. The emotions, the politics and the human interactions in this film really did enough talking and there was no need for fancy gimmicks to artificially satisfy me. The ending involved a few jumps forward in time and one very poignant moment capped it off - it could so easily have gone awry but stayed dead on track the whole time.
Adding to the greatness of this movie was the fact that apparently the actor who plays the Stasi member monitoring the couple under suspicion was himself monitored in the 80s in East Germany.
I really just can't pick a flaw.
10
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Becoming Jane
I saw this tonight with a free pass, in advance screenings. And quite frankly, I wasn't expecting much. Except of course a giant perve at James McAvoy. Which I got. Oh yes, I did.
Anyway.
The movie is the stort of Jane Austen before she became a published author. After crap previews (all sequels or three-quels, terrible business) I was feeling even more negative. I'm not naturally predisposed to period pieces, and after the debacle earlier in the year with Marie Antoinette (yes! I got in another dig!) I wasn't expecting to magically become disposed. I don't generally like the whole disposing of human emotions and reactions for the sake of the tone of the period thing.
But that's where the beauty of Becoming Jane lay (except in James McAvoy, i would like to lie with him myself ha ha ha). The tone of the period remained intact, but the chemistry between Jane Austen and Thomas Lefroy was never denied, and in fact it was often acted upon - not in a totally modern day jump into bed kind of fashion, but there was more than the standard issue period piece long brooding gazes. The onscreen chemistry between Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy was enough to make me think they MUST have hooked up at least once after a day of filming, and in fact the performance even allowed Anne Hathaway to endear herself to me - not an easy task.
Additionally, I was concerned that the parallels between what was going on in the movie and the book she was writing at the time (Pride and Prejudice) were going to be smacking me in the face but they were thankfully subtle. The film was a bit long which is a standard gripe for me, and proceedings could definitely have been a little more succinct. And there was a bizarre bit at the end where it was 15 years into the future or whatever that I didn't really appreciate, but all in all this was a really enjoyable film experience, and a cut above most period pieces.
8 out of 10.
ps: James McAvoy. Omg.
Anyway.
The movie is the stort of Jane Austen before she became a published author. After crap previews (all sequels or three-quels, terrible business) I was feeling even more negative. I'm not naturally predisposed to period pieces, and after the debacle earlier in the year with Marie Antoinette (yes! I got in another dig!) I wasn't expecting to magically become disposed. I don't generally like the whole disposing of human emotions and reactions for the sake of the tone of the period thing.
But that's where the beauty of Becoming Jane lay (except in James McAvoy, i would like to lie with him myself ha ha ha). The tone of the period remained intact, but the chemistry between Jane Austen and Thomas Lefroy was never denied, and in fact it was often acted upon - not in a totally modern day jump into bed kind of fashion, but there was more than the standard issue period piece long brooding gazes. The onscreen chemistry between Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy was enough to make me think they MUST have hooked up at least once after a day of filming, and in fact the performance even allowed Anne Hathaway to endear herself to me - not an easy task.
Additionally, I was concerned that the parallels between what was going on in the movie and the book she was writing at the time (Pride and Prejudice) were going to be smacking me in the face but they were thankfully subtle. The film was a bit long which is a standard gripe for me, and proceedings could definitely have been a little more succinct. And there was a bizarre bit at the end where it was 15 years into the future or whatever that I didn't really appreciate, but all in all this was a really enjoyable film experience, and a cut above most period pieces.
8 out of 10.
ps: James McAvoy. Omg.
Hot Fuzz
I saw this movie last weekend, and can't remember many specific details except to say....
It was hilarious. It was clever. And for me, it was every bit as awesome as Shaun of the Dead.
8 out of 10.
It was hilarious. It was clever. And for me, it was every bit as awesome as Shaun of the Dead.
8 out of 10.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Bobby
Bobby deals with the day leading up to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in the US, and loosely with the politics surrounding the event. I say 'loosely' because that really was the problem with Bobby - the whole thing was too loose.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Music and Lyrics
Music and Lyrics is the latest in a long of Hugh Grant specials, where he plays the smarmy but ultimately delightful English fop, who manages to make a lof of mistakes but still get the girl. OMG I totally just spoiled the ending, but cmon, we all knew it anyway.
In this particular incarnation of the tried and true formula, Hugh Grant is a fading 80s pop star left to do shows at theme parks for middle aged women, and Drew Barrymore is the girl who has come to water his plants who he teams up with to write a song for Cora, the movie's version of Christina Aguilera or Brittney Spears. They end up falling in love, obviously.
I love Hugh Grant. And I love Drew Barrymore. Really I do. But put the two of them together and you have the worst case of lack of onscreen chemistry I have seen in a long time. Unfortunately I could never bring myself ot believe that these two characters would like each other, even considering their delightful quirks. Kiryn pointed out to me that early on, Drew Barrymore's character was made out to be a hypochondriac, which could have made a hilarious sub plot, however it was just ditched about a third of the way through. In fact her character was just outright irritating. Hugh Grant didn't even come out as particularly loveable and damn, he's looking old. The popstar character could have been made into a hilarious charicature, and that was experimented with but it never came through for me.
Some funny moments, but really, i was waiting for this to finish most of the time - it failed to suck me in the way a lot of romantic comedies do (as a light piece of entertainment).
6.
In this particular incarnation of the tried and true formula, Hugh Grant is a fading 80s pop star left to do shows at theme parks for middle aged women, and Drew Barrymore is the girl who has come to water his plants who he teams up with to write a song for Cora, the movie's version of Christina Aguilera or Brittney Spears. They end up falling in love, obviously.
I love Hugh Grant. And I love Drew Barrymore. Really I do. But put the two of them together and you have the worst case of lack of onscreen chemistry I have seen in a long time. Unfortunately I could never bring myself ot believe that these two characters would like each other, even considering their delightful quirks. Kiryn pointed out to me that early on, Drew Barrymore's character was made out to be a hypochondriac, which could have made a hilarious sub plot, however it was just ditched about a third of the way through. In fact her character was just outright irritating. Hugh Grant didn't even come out as particularly loveable and damn, he's looking old. The popstar character could have been made into a hilarious charicature, and that was experimented with but it never came through for me.
Some funny moments, but really, i was waiting for this to finish most of the time - it failed to suck me in the way a lot of romantic comedies do (as a light piece of entertainment).
6.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Little Children (partial spoiler)
I saw this movie last night, and didn't know what to think before I went in. I expected the performances to be good, but other than that I had heard many different things - the styles were weird, the narration was irritating, the preview was misleading etc.
All of these things contained a grain of truth. The preview was very misleading - it makes it look like a tense drama/thriller, and it is not, although by I hadn't been so physically stressed in a movie for a long time. The narration was certainly obvious, but I found it strangely endearing. There were definitely two distinct styles blended into one film, but despite a few jarring moments, it worked for me. And the performances were a triumph - Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley fully deserve their Oscar nominations.
This film focuses on American suburbia and its inhabitants, primarily young families. Done, right? Not so much apparently. This quirky blend of black comedy and discomforting drama still retains a sense of individuality. It addresses marriage, adultery, depression, lonliness and aside from all these themes, the very real issues of a sex offender living in a community of children. The sex offender issue is the main player in a very real subplot that was so strong it was in fact in danger of stealing the film from the main story line of adultery and longing for something more.
This film began slowly and artfully built up the tension even through several laugh out loud moments, black comedy, and some very jarring collisions of genres. The tension built up to such a point that I was almost SURE it was going to have my favourite 'everyone loses' ending. But once again, like Breaking and Entering, it seemed to 'cop out'. To me it seemed that everyone got to take the easy option, albeit not the one their reckless passion led them to want. However after some furious emailing with David today, it would seem that there is another take on the ending - that everyone did lose, and things ended as they should have. You'll need to decide that one for yourself - to me, to end in such a way was just a massive waste of my tooth grinding stomaching tensing stress.
Overall, this film has many surprising aspects - most of all, that I still like it despite what i considered to be an unsatisfactory ending.
8.
All of these things contained a grain of truth. The preview was very misleading - it makes it look like a tense drama/thriller, and it is not, although by I hadn't been so physically stressed in a movie for a long time. The narration was certainly obvious, but I found it strangely endearing. There were definitely two distinct styles blended into one film, but despite a few jarring moments, it worked for me. And the performances were a triumph - Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley fully deserve their Oscar nominations.
This film focuses on American suburbia and its inhabitants, primarily young families. Done, right? Not so much apparently. This quirky blend of black comedy and discomforting drama still retains a sense of individuality. It addresses marriage, adultery, depression, lonliness and aside from all these themes, the very real issues of a sex offender living in a community of children. The sex offender issue is the main player in a very real subplot that was so strong it was in fact in danger of stealing the film from the main story line of adultery and longing for something more.
This film began slowly and artfully built up the tension even through several laugh out loud moments, black comedy, and some very jarring collisions of genres. The tension built up to such a point that I was almost SURE it was going to have my favourite 'everyone loses' ending. But once again, like Breaking and Entering, it seemed to 'cop out'. To me it seemed that everyone got to take the easy option, albeit not the one their reckless passion led them to want. However after some furious emailing with David today, it would seem that there is another take on the ending - that everyone did lose, and things ended as they should have. You'll need to decide that one for yourself - to me, to end in such a way was just a massive waste of my tooth grinding stomaching tensing stress.
Overall, this film has many surprising aspects - most of all, that I still like it despite what i considered to be an unsatisfactory ending.
8.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (aka. even Dustin Hoffman couldn't save this one for me)
Where to start....this film is about a French dude with a heightened sense of smell, who becomes a creepy perfumer, determined to capture the scent of innocence for all eternity. Obviously the best way to do this is kill virgins and gather their scent. With animal fat. Duh.
That's really all there is to the premise of the movie. I'll start with a couple of good things. Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman were in it. Why? I have no idea. Dustin Hoffman's character was one of the only things I liked about it, but was inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the film. What I would really love to know is what possessed the two of them to agree to be in this disaster of a movie. Maybe they'd both read the book - I've had several people tell me it's excellent. If you are one of these people then DON'T SEE THE FILM IT WILL RUIN IT FOR YOU!
I have nothing else nice to say so let the ranting begin.
Kiryn pointed out that the director also did the music, some of the writing and a few other things, and perhaps the problem was he was too involved in the film to be able to see its flaws. It's many flaws. I think Kiryn is too kind - I want to know how Tom Twyker (who is now on my list) could watch this back and think that it was ok. All my petty problems aside, even the special effects were crap. Honestly.
The film was narrated - but inconsistently. When the narration kicked in, not only was it naff but the tone was too light for the subject matter and tone of what we were watching. This was further compounded by the fact that the narration always seemed to come in during crowd scenes - maybe in a devious attempt to distract the viewer from the fact that they were incredibly contrived and pathetic - especially the 'ecstacy of the peasants' scene at the end (phrase stolen from Kiryn). Not only were the performances of the extras bad, but the lead performance was terrible. He didn't say much at all, which can work if everything else is in place. It wasn't.
It seems from my rant thus far that there was nothing subtle about this film. Not so! Apparently, the time for the director to attempt to redeem himself with a bit of subtlety was 10 minutes from the end, with a vague and meaningless montage of the first killing - so vague it seemed to have no place at all. Additionally, the final fate of the main character was very obscure - and by this stage, my brain was so bludgeoned with lameness that I didn't care to work it out. The rest of the film was not subtle and the tail end of a two and a half hour film (yes, two and a half hours, but that's a whole rant in itself) was not the time to attempt to make it so.
But seriously for a second, I think the real flaw of this film lay in the translation of the concept from book to screen. I tend to believe that it's much easier to suspend disbelief when reading. It can be done in film, but it takes a damn good director to translate that to film. It just didn't work here. Without fantastic direction who is going to believe that some weedy, stalking psycho can follow his nose half way across France to find the final 'note' of innocence for his master perfume? No one. I could rant more about what wasn't believable but it would spoil the ending.
This, like Marie Antoinette (which I have decided since, was nothing but a vehicle for gorgeous but not particularly original costumes) was a serious case for me of wondering how the makers could watch it back on the big screen and think it was any good.
Oh, and there was an orgy. WTF?
Three words. Three point five.
That's really all there is to the premise of the movie. I'll start with a couple of good things. Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman were in it. Why? I have no idea. Dustin Hoffman's character was one of the only things I liked about it, but was inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the film. What I would really love to know is what possessed the two of them to agree to be in this disaster of a movie. Maybe they'd both read the book - I've had several people tell me it's excellent. If you are one of these people then DON'T SEE THE FILM IT WILL RUIN IT FOR YOU!
I have nothing else nice to say so let the ranting begin.
Kiryn pointed out that the director also did the music, some of the writing and a few other things, and perhaps the problem was he was too involved in the film to be able to see its flaws. It's many flaws. I think Kiryn is too kind - I want to know how Tom Twyker (who is now on my list) could watch this back and think that it was ok. All my petty problems aside, even the special effects were crap. Honestly.
The film was narrated - but inconsistently. When the narration kicked in, not only was it naff but the tone was too light for the subject matter and tone of what we were watching. This was further compounded by the fact that the narration always seemed to come in during crowd scenes - maybe in a devious attempt to distract the viewer from the fact that they were incredibly contrived and pathetic - especially the 'ecstacy of the peasants' scene at the end (phrase stolen from Kiryn). Not only were the performances of the extras bad, but the lead performance was terrible. He didn't say much at all, which can work if everything else is in place. It wasn't.
It seems from my rant thus far that there was nothing subtle about this film. Not so! Apparently, the time for the director to attempt to redeem himself with a bit of subtlety was 10 minutes from the end, with a vague and meaningless montage of the first killing - so vague it seemed to have no place at all. Additionally, the final fate of the main character was very obscure - and by this stage, my brain was so bludgeoned with lameness that I didn't care to work it out. The rest of the film was not subtle and the tail end of a two and a half hour film (yes, two and a half hours, but that's a whole rant in itself) was not the time to attempt to make it so.
But seriously for a second, I think the real flaw of this film lay in the translation of the concept from book to screen. I tend to believe that it's much easier to suspend disbelief when reading. It can be done in film, but it takes a damn good director to translate that to film. It just didn't work here. Without fantastic direction who is going to believe that some weedy, stalking psycho can follow his nose half way across France to find the final 'note' of innocence for his master perfume? No one. I could rant more about what wasn't believable but it would spoil the ending.
This, like Marie Antoinette (which I have decided since, was nothing but a vehicle for gorgeous but not particularly original costumes) was a serious case for me of wondering how the makers could watch it back on the big screen and think it was any good.
Oh, and there was an orgy. WTF?
Three words. Three point five.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Stranger Than Fiction
Who woulda thunk it - Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffmann and Queen Latifah in a movie together. A good movie. A really really good movie.
Will Ferrell is Harold Crick, an auditor for the IRS (taxman!). Emma Thompson is a writer with writers block who is trying to work out how to kill her main character, Harold Crick. Harold is a real person and can hear her narration in his head. Dustin Hoffmann is the literary professor he consults to try to work out this little....problem.
The concept of this movie does not really ask for real life belief. It asks for a temporary suspension of disbelief, and delivers the material to allow it. Dustin Hoffmann's character is really at the heart of this movie, and the musings he delivers on literary conventions in order to get the core of the issue really tie the movie together. The interplay of the conventions with the film making conventions used in the film are clever, hilarious and suitably understated.
Will Ferrell gives the performance of his career thus far, and even his tender fascination with the anarchist baker (yes, an anarchist baker) played by Maggie Gyllenhaall is sweet and just lovely to watch. Emma Thompson is as always, sublime (lady crush alert). Maggie Gyllenhaal will win an Oscar one day - she is destined for great things and a pleasure to watch. Queen Latifah once again proves she is serious about her acting, and Dustin Hoffmann in my opinion completes the film.
And to top it off, it was riddled with one liners. I am never above one liners.
Fantastic - 9.5.
Will Ferrell is Harold Crick, an auditor for the IRS (taxman!). Emma Thompson is a writer with writers block who is trying to work out how to kill her main character, Harold Crick. Harold is a real person and can hear her narration in his head. Dustin Hoffmann is the literary professor he consults to try to work out this little....problem.
The concept of this movie does not really ask for real life belief. It asks for a temporary suspension of disbelief, and delivers the material to allow it. Dustin Hoffmann's character is really at the heart of this movie, and the musings he delivers on literary conventions in order to get the core of the issue really tie the movie together. The interplay of the conventions with the film making conventions used in the film are clever, hilarious and suitably understated.
Will Ferrell gives the performance of his career thus far, and even his tender fascination with the anarchist baker (yes, an anarchist baker) played by Maggie Gyllenhaall is sweet and just lovely to watch. Emma Thompson is as always, sublime (lady crush alert). Maggie Gyllenhaal will win an Oscar one day - she is destined for great things and a pleasure to watch. Queen Latifah once again proves she is serious about her acting, and Dustin Hoffmann in my opinion completes the film.
And to top it off, it was riddled with one liners. I am never above one liners.
Fantastic - 9.5.
Notes on A Scandal
For those of you who don't know, this was a film about the teacher in the UK (Sheba, played by Cate Blanchett) who had an affair with her 15 year old student (Stephen) and got found out. Seemingly terrible premise for a movie, yes? I thought so, but figured if Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett had both read the script and agreed to be in it, then it must be ok.
And 'ok' is the understatement of the century. This film was phenomenal. The tension built up slowly through the first third, but once it did, it stayed tense. The score played a large part in that, it deserves the Oscar nomination it has since received. Not once was the premise unbelieveable for me, thanks in a large part to the Oscar nominated performances of Judi Dench (lead) and Cate Blanchett (supporting). I have never seen Judi Dench so good, and the on screen chemistry between her and Cate Blanchett was like nothing I have ever seen before.
Creepy and pathetic old women are a grossly under represented category in film, and Judi Dench has set the benchmark sky high, playing this role to perfection. Her obsession with Sheba was creepy, but never became comical. I particularly enjoyed the 'is she or isn't she gay' angle. Once a bit of history was revealed, it seems that her character had behaved in this way with sparkling younger women before, and had never been attached to a man or a woman. Which led me to the interesting conclusion that her obsession was nothing to do with her sexuality, because her sexuality is something she had never fully explored. I find issues of sexuality absolutely intriguing, and love to seem them delicately and subtely explored in film.
Another theme also running through this movie was the one of the seductive attraction of youth. Sheba was much younger than her husband, obviously Stephen (the student) was much younger than Sheba. In turn, Judi Dench's character was seemingly irresistably attracted to younger women, in a sexual way or not. Even Sheba's daughter Polly had an older boyfriend. In the aspect, some of the relationships turned out well, some not so well. Some remained tender and some turned violent. The film never preached on these aspects.
Note on a Scandal was almost flawless. The score, the direction, the performances - especially the performances. The casting was impeccable. I can't emphasise enough how satisfying this movie experience was. Thought provoking but never moralising and suggesting answers - loved it.
9.5
And 'ok' is the understatement of the century. This film was phenomenal. The tension built up slowly through the first third, but once it did, it stayed tense. The score played a large part in that, it deserves the Oscar nomination it has since received. Not once was the premise unbelieveable for me, thanks in a large part to the Oscar nominated performances of Judi Dench (lead) and Cate Blanchett (supporting). I have never seen Judi Dench so good, and the on screen chemistry between her and Cate Blanchett was like nothing I have ever seen before.
Creepy and pathetic old women are a grossly under represented category in film, and Judi Dench has set the benchmark sky high, playing this role to perfection. Her obsession with Sheba was creepy, but never became comical. I particularly enjoyed the 'is she or isn't she gay' angle. Once a bit of history was revealed, it seems that her character had behaved in this way with sparkling younger women before, and had never been attached to a man or a woman. Which led me to the interesting conclusion that her obsession was nothing to do with her sexuality, because her sexuality is something she had never fully explored. I find issues of sexuality absolutely intriguing, and love to seem them delicately and subtely explored in film.
Another theme also running through this movie was the one of the seductive attraction of youth. Sheba was much younger than her husband, obviously Stephen (the student) was much younger than Sheba. In turn, Judi Dench's character was seemingly irresistably attracted to younger women, in a sexual way or not. Even Sheba's daughter Polly had an older boyfriend. In the aspect, some of the relationships turned out well, some not so well. Some remained tender and some turned violent. The film never preached on these aspects.
Note on a Scandal was almost flawless. The score, the direction, the performances - especially the performances. The casting was impeccable. I can't emphasise enough how satisfying this movie experience was. Thought provoking but never moralising and suggesting answers - loved it.
9.5
For Your Consideration
I saw three films today, and had a really late night last night. I am prone to falling asleep in cinemas when I am tired, even during a really good movie.
Yet strangely, 'For Your Consideration' (by the same people as A Mighty Wind and Best in Show ie. hilarious mockumentaries) is the only one I fell asleep in today. And it wasn't the last of the day either. It just failed to grab my attention, and therefore I feel as though I can't rate it because well, I didn't see all of it.
I do remember a few laugh out loud moments though, but no one woke me up and no one i saw it with really thought it was anything special either.
To the people i saw it with - please post comments!
omg. I fell asleep.
The End.
Yet strangely, 'For Your Consideration' (by the same people as A Mighty Wind and Best in Show ie. hilarious mockumentaries) is the only one I fell asleep in today. And it wasn't the last of the day either. It just failed to grab my attention, and therefore I feel as though I can't rate it because well, I didn't see all of it.
I do remember a few laugh out loud moments though, but no one woke me up and no one i saw it with really thought it was anything special either.
To the people i saw it with - please post comments!
omg. I fell asleep.
The End.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth
I had heard an awful lot of hype about this movie before I saw it, whih never seems to work too well for me. I'd heard it was disturbing, gory, moving etc etc etc. I didn't really find it any of those things - except gory. When stuff like this happens I worry that I see too many films and I have genuinely become desensitised.
So as everyone has probably heard by now, this is a war movie/fairy tale hybrid. The combination intrigued me and I think it actually worked really well. The fairy tale sequences fell into the more grounded 'war' part nicely, acting as a sort of escape for Ofelia, the little girl who had come to live with a Captain because her mother had married him. None of the roles were ever overplayed, despite the fact there was ample opportunity for it because of the fairy tale side of the movie.
The whole thing was suitably mystical, and believable from a number of levels. The realists among us can chose to believe the fairy tale parts were her escape, and those more willing to believe in magic can believe that she really did experience these things. The mythical characters were all delightful without being disgustingly sweet - even most of the monsters, except one which was totally gut turning for me for some reason (probably because Catherine had given me a heads up hehe). And the fantasy side had the suitably grim edge that I think really works well in all things fairy tale.
The war side of the film was where most of the gore came in. Some things are just very graphic, and there is a lot of shooting, and viewing of the aftermath of post WWII style violence. I did have to look away more than once.
I found this film to be just as I imagined it would have been. Nothing out of this world spectacular, but entertaining and mythical to the point where I could just lose myself in it for a couple of hours. I would really be interested in seeing what other people have to say about it - I think i'm just on the cusp of really loving this film.
EDIT - I am no longer on the cusp of loving this film. After a day to think about it, I was too underwhelmed to give it any more than 7.5. Sure it was good, but it could have been great. See the comment posted for further clarifications...i agree with both, I think the 'moral' discussed in the second one was dealt with too subtley for a film of this nature, so much so that it was lost.
7
So as everyone has probably heard by now, this is a war movie/fairy tale hybrid. The combination intrigued me and I think it actually worked really well. The fairy tale sequences fell into the more grounded 'war' part nicely, acting as a sort of escape for Ofelia, the little girl who had come to live with a Captain because her mother had married him. None of the roles were ever overplayed, despite the fact there was ample opportunity for it because of the fairy tale side of the movie.
The whole thing was suitably mystical, and believable from a number of levels. The realists among us can chose to believe the fairy tale parts were her escape, and those more willing to believe in magic can believe that she really did experience these things. The mythical characters were all delightful without being disgustingly sweet - even most of the monsters, except one which was totally gut turning for me for some reason (probably because Catherine had given me a heads up hehe). And the fantasy side had the suitably grim edge that I think really works well in all things fairy tale.
The war side of the film was where most of the gore came in. Some things are just very graphic, and there is a lot of shooting, and viewing of the aftermath of post WWII style violence. I did have to look away more than once.
I found this film to be just as I imagined it would have been. Nothing out of this world spectacular, but entertaining and mythical to the point where I could just lose myself in it for a couple of hours. I would really be interested in seeing what other people have to say about it - I think i'm just on the cusp of really loving this film.
EDIT - I am no longer on the cusp of loving this film. After a day to think about it, I was too underwhelmed to give it any more than 7.5. Sure it was good, but it could have been great. See the comment posted for further clarifications...i agree with both, I think the 'moral' discussed in the second one was dealt with too subtley for a film of this nature, so much so that it was lost.
7
The Last King of Scotland
Let me start this with an actual rant. I am sick to death of actors who play essentially one dimensional characters getting nominated for awards. Meryl Streep in Devil Wears Prada kicked off this hatred, but it's now been further compounded by Forrest Whittaker (spelling, whatever) in this film. Ok, so it was a historically prominent character. Charming but insane. All that. But honestly, I don't see that it was deserving of an Oscar nomination. It'll be an outrage if he wins. Furthermore, I really don't see this as a lead role, which is what he has been nominated for - to me, it was supporting.
Onwards!
For those of you who don't know, this is a film about a young Scottish doctor in the 70s who goes to Uganda to do some medical work at a mission. Due to a strange turn of circumstances, he ends up the personal physician and sometime political advisor of Idi Amin, the leader of the regime at the time which killed 300 000 Ugandans. Boyish, happless and arrogant, the trappings and new found status of his role keep him largely blind to what is going on around him for quite some time, and when he discovers, it's almost too late. The British government wants him to kill Idi Amin, and he simply wants to get out of the country.
I'll have to invoke my favourite cop out commentary for this film - something just didn't sit right with me. I'm not sure what it was, but I felt as though a film dealing with such subject matter should ellicit a more passionate response from me. And it just didn't. The first 2/3s were spent setting the scene and showing the trappings of life as the physican of Idi Amin. Only almost imperceptible hints of what was to come were given. So imperceptible that they almost weren't there, and not in a good way.
The tone rapidly takes a downward and sinister turn - too rapidly I think. I get that the film makers were probably trying to do some kind of commentary about how the doctor had kept himself in the dark for so long, and then suddenly it all came out when it was almost too late. But I'm afraid to say that I think that for an audience to invest (omg overused term alert) in the progression of a film, there needs to be a smoother (or if not smoother, at the very least, neater) transition to the second part of the film.
To me, this film didn't really say anything. It wasn't solid enough to give a decent commentary of 'young white guy goes to Africa to do some outreach work to make himself feel like a hero, but it all goes horribly wrong and he learns a lesson' but it also wasn't strong enough to be a meaningful historical commentary, from whatever angle. I suppose on a higher 'theme' level it was trying to talk about how people can hide from the truth depending on their point of view - but thematically, that angle was never developed either. The subject matter also deserved a grittier treatment.
I'm not sure I understand what this film was trying to do - and I'm not sure the film makers did either.
7
Onwards!
For those of you who don't know, this is a film about a young Scottish doctor in the 70s who goes to Uganda to do some medical work at a mission. Due to a strange turn of circumstances, he ends up the personal physician and sometime political advisor of Idi Amin, the leader of the regime at the time which killed 300 000 Ugandans. Boyish, happless and arrogant, the trappings and new found status of his role keep him largely blind to what is going on around him for quite some time, and when he discovers, it's almost too late. The British government wants him to kill Idi Amin, and he simply wants to get out of the country.
I'll have to invoke my favourite cop out commentary for this film - something just didn't sit right with me. I'm not sure what it was, but I felt as though a film dealing with such subject matter should ellicit a more passionate response from me. And it just didn't. The first 2/3s were spent setting the scene and showing the trappings of life as the physican of Idi Amin. Only almost imperceptible hints of what was to come were given. So imperceptible that they almost weren't there, and not in a good way.
The tone rapidly takes a downward and sinister turn - too rapidly I think. I get that the film makers were probably trying to do some kind of commentary about how the doctor had kept himself in the dark for so long, and then suddenly it all came out when it was almost too late. But I'm afraid to say that I think that for an audience to invest (omg overused term alert) in the progression of a film, there needs to be a smoother (or if not smoother, at the very least, neater) transition to the second part of the film.
To me, this film didn't really say anything. It wasn't solid enough to give a decent commentary of 'young white guy goes to Africa to do some outreach work to make himself feel like a hero, but it all goes horribly wrong and he learns a lesson' but it also wasn't strong enough to be a meaningful historical commentary, from whatever angle. I suppose on a higher 'theme' level it was trying to talk about how people can hide from the truth depending on their point of view - but thematically, that angle was never developed either. The subject matter also deserved a grittier treatment.
I'm not sure I understand what this film was trying to do - and I'm not sure the film makers did either.
7
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Dreamgirls
Once upon a time, there was an inoffensive movie with lots of great music and costumes. It was entertaining and lots of fun and has this great new actress who is a total shoe in for Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars because not only can she sing, which Mr Oscar loves, but apparently she can also act. And that's really all I can say about this movie.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I love music, I love the particular style of music, and I love musical theatre. But therein lies the problem. Was this a movie with music? Or was it a musical? Did the songs replace the dialogue, and really tell the story? Or was it an fairly unsurprising movie with great songs and musical numbers to augment the script? Unfortunately I'm not sure Dreamgirls ever made up its mind. The styling suffered the same issues - some sequences were very stylised in true 'musical' form, but other were just a film with some great numbers.
But does any of this really matter?
Not really. Dreamgirls was fantastic to look at, the costuming in particular was spectacular. The decor, the lighting, the girls, everything - was gorgeous (side note OMG Beyonce is hott). The music, no matter how it was used, was great in its own right. Although the first performance of one particular song about family was laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame but every musical/film with music needs a laaaaaaaaaaaaame number.
There were some moving moments, but nothing to take away from the happy, fun musical goodness. And with that, there really isn't much more I can say about Dreamgirls. I won't go into the plot, everyone knows what it was about. It was a little long, but there was singing which more than compensates in my book.
Anyway.
We all knew it was going to turn out well, and honestly, as much as I go on about 'important' films and gritty realistic endings - sometimes the world just needs a feelgood musical.
With awesome costumes.
And Beyonce.
7.5
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I love music, I love the particular style of music, and I love musical theatre. But therein lies the problem. Was this a movie with music? Or was it a musical? Did the songs replace the dialogue, and really tell the story? Or was it an fairly unsurprising movie with great songs and musical numbers to augment the script? Unfortunately I'm not sure Dreamgirls ever made up its mind. The styling suffered the same issues - some sequences were very stylised in true 'musical' form, but other were just a film with some great numbers.
But does any of this really matter?
Not really. Dreamgirls was fantastic to look at, the costuming in particular was spectacular. The decor, the lighting, the girls, everything - was gorgeous (side note OMG Beyonce is hott). The music, no matter how it was used, was great in its own right. Although the first performance of one particular song about family was laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame but every musical/film with music needs a laaaaaaaaaaaaame number.
There were some moving moments, but nothing to take away from the happy, fun musical goodness. And with that, there really isn't much more I can say about Dreamgirls. I won't go into the plot, everyone knows what it was about. It was a little long, but there was singing which more than compensates in my book.
Anyway.
We all knew it was going to turn out well, and honestly, as much as I go on about 'important' films and gritty realistic endings - sometimes the world just needs a feelgood musical.
With awesome costumes.
And Beyonce.
7.5
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Volver
Well. I had heard nothing but raves about this movie, but still knew basically nothing going into it. Which I like doing occasionally, but I was so surprised by elements of this film that I could have done with a bit of background I think. On a very basic level, this movie is about three generations of Spanish women reconnecting over a series of events in their life.
But on another level, the film was a whole bunch of contradictions. Colourful, but dark. Quirky humour, but serious themes. Superstitions galore addressed, but with a healthy dose of realism. I'm still not entirely convinced that it all worked well, but I do know that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I liked that a whole series of events happened at the beginning, and it was not entirely evident how they were all connected. But as more characters were introduced, all the stories came together as one, and despite the underlying theme of 'women and family becoming empowered' or similar, it was never soppy. I like it when it's not soppy.
I particularly appreciated the way some delicate issues were addressed, particularly that of child sexual abuse. Whilst it was obvious what was being dealt with, the movie never got bogged down in the gritty details, but rather the way that the aftermath was dealt with. Not of say of course that gritty details don't have a place, but it's not what this film was about. Somehow the quirky aspects of this film never took away from the seriousness that other parts deserved. A fine balance to strike indeed.
Having said that, something I can't put my finger on just didn't sit properly with me in this film. Maybe it's my lack of experience with the Spanish culture and not being able to fully invest (omg most overused term ever) in the beliefs and superstitions surrounding death that did pervade a lot of this movie. Who knows. But overall, it was delightful.
7
But on another level, the film was a whole bunch of contradictions. Colourful, but dark. Quirky humour, but serious themes. Superstitions galore addressed, but with a healthy dose of realism. I'm still not entirely convinced that it all worked well, but I do know that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I liked that a whole series of events happened at the beginning, and it was not entirely evident how they were all connected. But as more characters were introduced, all the stories came together as one, and despite the underlying theme of 'women and family becoming empowered' or similar, it was never soppy. I like it when it's not soppy.
I particularly appreciated the way some delicate issues were addressed, particularly that of child sexual abuse. Whilst it was obvious what was being dealt with, the movie never got bogged down in the gritty details, but rather the way that the aftermath was dealt with. Not of say of course that gritty details don't have a place, but it's not what this film was about. Somehow the quirky aspects of this film never took away from the seriousness that other parts deserved. A fine balance to strike indeed.
Having said that, something I can't put my finger on just didn't sit properly with me in this film. Maybe it's my lack of experience with the Spanish culture and not being able to fully invest (omg most overused term ever) in the beliefs and superstitions surrounding death that did pervade a lot of this movie. Who knows. But overall, it was delightful.
7
Breaking and Entering (contains spoilers)
Let it be known that I had very low expectations of this movie. I am the first to admit that I really only went for a perve at Jude Law. Fortunately I was pleasantly surprised. The basic premise is that Jude Law (I think his character's name was Will) has a new fancy pants landscape design warehouse office full of expensive computers in the middle of Kings Cross in London. Some little punks break in twice very early on in its running. The parallel story is Jude's home life with his Swedish partner, and Bea, his partner's (and his really, but not biologically) daughter, who is having a lot of problems and its made out as though she is possibly autistic or OCD. Anyway.
Basically Will becomes obsessed with finding the people that break in. He tracks down the 15 year old kid, and through quite devious means, meets his mother (Juliette Binoche). Basically he starts and affair with the mother partially in response to his screwed up home life (him and his partner are becoming increasingly distant) and partially, we are lead to believe, to bring him closer to the kid who is part of the crime ring that has broken in to his office.
The movie had plenty of interesting twists, and lots of interesting takes on his home life, his work life, his relationship with his daughter and his wife it. It had some quirky moments, like his friendship with the prostitute he befriends while staking out his office at night time. And towards the end, it genuinely looked to me as though everything was going to fall apart for everything and there was going to be one of the best movie endings - the 'everything has gone to shit' ending. As Catherine put it 'I like it when people reap what they sow'.
But, there was a serious lack of chemistry between Jude Law and Juliette Binoche's characters, making the affair seem disjointed and unrealistic. For such a convoluted situation, everything all tied up far too neatly at the end, to the point where I actually felt extreme disappointment at what I think was a total cop out of an ending.
All in all, this movie was actually pretty engrossing until the end - despite the lack of chemistry the atmosphere was created well and the fact that the kid and his mother were Bosnian (and a little of the background was offered by way of explanation for their behaviour) added a lot of depth. But as soon as it became evident that the ending was going to be a cop out, I couldn't invest anything more in this film.
6.5
Basically Will becomes obsessed with finding the people that break in. He tracks down the 15 year old kid, and through quite devious means, meets his mother (Juliette Binoche). Basically he starts and affair with the mother partially in response to his screwed up home life (him and his partner are becoming increasingly distant) and partially, we are lead to believe, to bring him closer to the kid who is part of the crime ring that has broken in to his office.
The movie had plenty of interesting twists, and lots of interesting takes on his home life, his work life, his relationship with his daughter and his wife it. It had some quirky moments, like his friendship with the prostitute he befriends while staking out his office at night time. And towards the end, it genuinely looked to me as though everything was going to fall apart for everything and there was going to be one of the best movie endings - the 'everything has gone to shit' ending. As Catherine put it 'I like it when people reap what they sow'.
But, there was a serious lack of chemistry between Jude Law and Juliette Binoche's characters, making the affair seem disjointed and unrealistic. For such a convoluted situation, everything all tied up far too neatly at the end, to the point where I actually felt extreme disappointment at what I think was a total cop out of an ending.
All in all, this movie was actually pretty engrossing until the end - despite the lack of chemistry the atmosphere was created well and the fact that the kid and his mother were Bosnian (and a little of the background was offered by way of explanation for their behaviour) added a lot of depth. But as soon as it became evident that the ending was going to be a cop out, I couldn't invest anything more in this film.
6.5
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
2006 Top Ten
- Junebug (10)
- Kenny (10)
- Children of Men (9.5)
- Babel (9.5)
- Candy (9.5)
- Brokeback Mountain (9.5)
- The Departed (9)
- The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (9)
- Little Miss Sunshine (9)
- Friends with Money/Match Point (tied) (9)
Apparently it was a good year at the movies.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The Pursuit of Happyness
Dave encapsulated my feelings going into this movie perfectly when he said 'I wanted to refer to it as Sappyness or Happymess, but it's actually genuinely engaging with well judged performances. A lovely surprise'.
SO TRUE. My expectations were low going into this movie. Basically I was expecting it to be a shameless Oscar bid by Will Smith. Yes, it was an Oscar bid, but shameless it was not. Now if you don't know the premise behind this film, it's about a a family - the mother leaves, leaving the son and the broke father to try to make a life for themselves. Determined not to be broke anymore, the father takes an unpaid internship at a stockbroking firm, and he and his son have to live off next to nothing, sometimes sleeping in homeless shelters, bathrooms etc.
And it's based on a true story. A recipe for sugary sweetness, right? Not so.
A story like this was always going to be a little bit heartwarming, it's just the way it is. But the performances were subtle, and even the father/son dynamic (played by Will Smith and his real life son) wasn't overplayed. The tension and feeling of hopelessness was there, but never manipulative. There were some very 'real' little moments that saved it from that I think - the son having enough eventually and having a bit of a tanty, the father trying to have a word to the daycare provider about a few things he wasn't happy with etc. And most importantly, Will Smith's character was flawed enough to make him believable.
It did take me a bit to warm to this film because there were some jarring moments in the beginning, like when the mother first takes the son, Will Smith sat on the bed holding one of the son's shoes. We get it already, he's sad about losing his son. And there was a bit of an irritating rubix cube theme as well, but that thankfully only lasted a little while. Rosie has said that she was expecting sappiness, but swung to the other extreme to the point where she felt she didn't connect emotionally with the characters, but felt she should have. Like watching someone tell the story, instead of feeling the story. I can see the truth in this, and suffered from this a little myself, but I suppose when you're expecting to be smacked in the face with emotion and you're not, it does take that little bit extra to invest in the characters you're watching.
So, if you don't like a side serving of sugar with your film, and are hesitant to see The Pursuit of Happyness because of it, don't be. Sit tight through the beginning and I think it'll pay off as a great piece of entertainment, even for those with the lowest of sappiness thresholds.
8 for me.
SO TRUE. My expectations were low going into this movie. Basically I was expecting it to be a shameless Oscar bid by Will Smith. Yes, it was an Oscar bid, but shameless it was not. Now if you don't know the premise behind this film, it's about a a family - the mother leaves, leaving the son and the broke father to try to make a life for themselves. Determined not to be broke anymore, the father takes an unpaid internship at a stockbroking firm, and he and his son have to live off next to nothing, sometimes sleeping in homeless shelters, bathrooms etc.
And it's based on a true story. A recipe for sugary sweetness, right? Not so.
A story like this was always going to be a little bit heartwarming, it's just the way it is. But the performances were subtle, and even the father/son dynamic (played by Will Smith and his real life son) wasn't overplayed. The tension and feeling of hopelessness was there, but never manipulative. There were some very 'real' little moments that saved it from that I think - the son having enough eventually and having a bit of a tanty, the father trying to have a word to the daycare provider about a few things he wasn't happy with etc. And most importantly, Will Smith's character was flawed enough to make him believable.
It did take me a bit to warm to this film because there were some jarring moments in the beginning, like when the mother first takes the son, Will Smith sat on the bed holding one of the son's shoes. We get it already, he's sad about losing his son. And there was a bit of an irritating rubix cube theme as well, but that thankfully only lasted a little while. Rosie has said that she was expecting sappiness, but swung to the other extreme to the point where she felt she didn't connect emotionally with the characters, but felt she should have. Like watching someone tell the story, instead of feeling the story. I can see the truth in this, and suffered from this a little myself, but I suppose when you're expecting to be smacked in the face with emotion and you're not, it does take that little bit extra to invest in the characters you're watching.
So, if you don't like a side serving of sugar with your film, and are hesitant to see The Pursuit of Happyness because of it, don't be. Sit tight through the beginning and I think it'll pay off as a great piece of entertainment, even for those with the lowest of sappiness thresholds.
8 for me.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
To give you an idea of my taste in movies....
My top ten for 2005 and their ratings....These give away my soft spot for Australian film, movies with a strong conceptual theme running through them (eg. Look Both Ways - death, Crash - racism, The Sea Inside -euthanasia, Mysterious Skin - child sexual abuse) and very atmospheric films.
01. Closer (10)
02. Shopgirl (10)
03. Look Both Ways (9.5)
04. The Proposition (9.5)
05. Crash (9.5)
06. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (9.5)
07. The Sea Inside (9)
08. Mysterious Skin (9)
09. Tarnation (9)
10. Hotel Rwanda (9)
NB: Dismal failure for the year - Last Days, the second rate homage to Kurt Cobain's last days, by Gus Van Sant. It just missed the mark so badly, I can't even express it in writing.
My top ten movies for 2004 and their ratings....Unfortunately these reveal my secret love for musical theatre (Camp and Phantom), and also docos and once again, very atmospheric and subtle films that don't necessarily have a lot of action in them (The Return, The Station Agent, The Weeping Camel which is also a doco, Girl with a Pearl Earring).
01. Garden State (10)
02. Girl with a Pearl Earring (10)
03. The Return (10)
04. Coffee and Cigarettes (10)
05. The Station Agent (9.5)
06. Camp (9.5)
07. The Phantom of the Opera (9.5)
08. The Weeping Camel (9.5)
09. To Be and To Have (9.5)
10. Eternal Sunshine... (9.5)
NB: This was my first year of rating things on the DaveScale and I didn't yet understand the concept of outright failing things. My lowest mark was 5.5 for Anchorman, which I have since come to love since shedding my snobbery relating to ridiculous comedies. I do remember being incredibly disappointed by The Human Stain (it had Nicole Kidman in it, but she redeemed herself with Birth) and The House of Sand and Fog. In fact, I was quite passionate about the latter, but that was more to do with the irritation caused by Jennifer Connelly's character. I would probably also revise Garden State down to a 9 now, thus pushing it out of the top 10, making Girl with a Pearl Earring number 1 and bringing either In America, 21 Grams, Big Fish or Life and Death of Peter Sellars (all on 9) into the top 10.
I was going to paste some honourable mentions, but I want to go to bed. Might update this later so check back if you care.
Tomorrow I'm seeing 'The Pursuit of Happyness'. Will Smith will probably get an Oscar nomination for it so I feel it's my duty to see it, even though I don't have high hopes. 2006 top ten coming soon i hope....
01. Closer (10)
02. Shopgirl (10)
03. Look Both Ways (9.5)
04. The Proposition (9.5)
05. Crash (9.5)
06. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (9.5)
07. The Sea Inside (9)
08. Mysterious Skin (9)
09. Tarnation (9)
10. Hotel Rwanda (9)
NB: Dismal failure for the year - Last Days, the second rate homage to Kurt Cobain's last days, by Gus Van Sant. It just missed the mark so badly, I can't even express it in writing.
My top ten movies for 2004 and their ratings....Unfortunately these reveal my secret love for musical theatre (Camp and Phantom), and also docos and once again, very atmospheric and subtle films that don't necessarily have a lot of action in them (The Return, The Station Agent, The Weeping Camel which is also a doco, Girl with a Pearl Earring).
01. Garden State (10)
02. Girl with a Pearl Earring (10)
03. The Return (10)
04. Coffee and Cigarettes (10)
05. The Station Agent (9.5)
06. Camp (9.5)
07. The Phantom of the Opera (9.5)
08. The Weeping Camel (9.5)
09. To Be and To Have (9.5)
10. Eternal Sunshine... (9.5)
NB: This was my first year of rating things on the DaveScale and I didn't yet understand the concept of outright failing things. My lowest mark was 5.5 for Anchorman, which I have since come to love since shedding my snobbery relating to ridiculous comedies. I do remember being incredibly disappointed by The Human Stain (it had Nicole Kidman in it, but she redeemed herself with Birth) and The House of Sand and Fog. In fact, I was quite passionate about the latter, but that was more to do with the irritation caused by Jennifer Connelly's character. I would probably also revise Garden State down to a 9 now, thus pushing it out of the top 10, making Girl with a Pearl Earring number 1 and bringing either In America, 21 Grams, Big Fish or Life and Death of Peter Sellars (all on 9) into the top 10.
I was going to paste some honourable mentions, but I want to go to bed. Might update this later so check back if you care.
Tomorrow I'm seeing 'The Pursuit of Happyness'. Will Smith will probably get an Oscar nomination for it so I feel it's my duty to see it, even though I don't have high hopes. 2006 top ten coming soon i hope....
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Blood Diamond
So, the end of this weekend's movie binge was Blood Diamond. I didn't know a lot about this film going in (I'd only seen one preview and apparently have had my head up my arse for sometime because it's gotten quite a bit of publicity) and wasn't expecting a lot.
What I got was what I would expect from an essentially 'Hollywoodised' account of the diamond conflict/civil war in Sierra Leone. It was unsubtle, and nothing was left to the imagination. The action sequences were brutal and full on, but the performances were strong. Even Leonardo Di Caprio's South African accent didn't grate on my as much as I thought it would.
David made an important observation - the grittier nature of the issue this film dealt with would have been better off framed in a drama, rather than an action/thriller which is really what Blood Diamond was. The action/thriller elements took up a lot of time that I feel could have been better used explaining the conflict more fully. Even the quiet personal moments were always interrupted by perfectly timed, hollywood gunfire. A little infuriating. Having said that, I realise that I am predisposed to liking movies that delve into the issues deeply, and this movie can definitely be enjoyed without the political side of it all being addressed in any depth.
That aside, this film had some good points. It was entertaining (which is something that should never be underestimated in a film in my opinion) and the performances were strong. But for me, the best part about this film was that it is bringing several incredibly huge issues to the public in a very accessible way - on the smaller scale, the black market in 'conflict' diamonds and civil war in Sierra Leone, and on a larger scale the situation in Africa and the plight of Africa's refugees and child soldiers. So as much as I whinge about it not being in depth enough for me, I think that's almost outweighed by the fact that it has brought attention to something so important.
7 for me.
What I got was what I would expect from an essentially 'Hollywoodised' account of the diamond conflict/civil war in Sierra Leone. It was unsubtle, and nothing was left to the imagination. The action sequences were brutal and full on, but the performances were strong. Even Leonardo Di Caprio's South African accent didn't grate on my as much as I thought it would.
David made an important observation - the grittier nature of the issue this film dealt with would have been better off framed in a drama, rather than an action/thriller which is really what Blood Diamond was. The action/thriller elements took up a lot of time that I feel could have been better used explaining the conflict more fully. Even the quiet personal moments were always interrupted by perfectly timed, hollywood gunfire. A little infuriating. Having said that, I realise that I am predisposed to liking movies that delve into the issues deeply, and this movie can definitely be enjoyed without the political side of it all being addressed in any depth.
That aside, this film had some good points. It was entertaining (which is something that should never be underestimated in a film in my opinion) and the performances were strong. But for me, the best part about this film was that it is bringing several incredibly huge issues to the public in a very accessible way - on the smaller scale, the black market in 'conflict' diamonds and civil war in Sierra Leone, and on a larger scale the situation in Africa and the plight of Africa's refugees and child soldiers. So as much as I whinge about it not being in depth enough for me, I think that's almost outweighed by the fact that it has brought attention to something so important.
7 for me.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Marie Antoinette
After seeing this movie I have to reneg on a statement I made back in that first post. Art direction apparently cannot sustain me for a whole movie. If there was ever a film that relied on art direction to get it through, it's this one. Sure, the costumes are amazing. Sure, it's shot entirely in and around the undeniably spectacular Versailles. However, without decent character development, a decent plot or theme development and consistent art direction, all that is going to fail to entertain me. I realise that this was never meant to be a informative account of history, rather a portrait of the times. But.
This movie for me was basically watching young, rich and beautifully costumed people for a portion of their substantially dull lives. The traditions of the French court are only interesting the first time you learn about them. After that there needs to be some development of tension, something that makes the history part seem like a story instead of a pesky sideline to the prettiness of it all. Surely the history needs to at least be acknowledged to understand the way the court operated?
I also had major issues with the inconsistency of this film. For example, the first part was largely preoccupied with the struggle of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI (I think?) to consummate their marriage and produce an heir. This was drawn out for far too long, and it was almost like the makers lost interest in that story line before it was even resolved because although it was eventually sorted out, that part of the story had petered out well beforehand. The rest of the film is a bit a mixture between the political doings of Louis and whatever Marie Antoinette was doing at the time. So basically, some poorly explained and developed history with no tension, and pretty young things bullshitting their time away. Not the stuff of great films I'm afraid.
There has been much ado about the music in this film as well. Firstly, a lot of the soundtrack (classical and modern) is downright intrusive in my opinion. The mix of music is strange - i got that there was a transition to more 'modern' music when the young royals were at parties and having fun doing young people things in contrast to the classical music in the earlier part of the film which is preoccupied with tradition. But when the film goes back down the 'serious' road it's like they couldn't decide what to do with the music so just decided on an annoying mish mash instead. The modern stuff had the potential to work, and so did the classical - but the way it was used was a mistake.
Just talked to David about this and was reminded about how much I was irked by the inconsistency of the accents. I can handle that no one spoke French - but there was no uniformity with the accents either. I probably could have even handled that except for the fact that Judy Davis had a French accent....but only some of the time! wtf? Attention to detail people, it needs to extend past the costuming.
So in summary, this movie looked gorgeous. But not gorgeous enough to make me think it was any good.
Only a 5 for me I'm afraid. Sofia Coppola - what were you thinking?!
This movie for me was basically watching young, rich and beautifully costumed people for a portion of their substantially dull lives. The traditions of the French court are only interesting the first time you learn about them. After that there needs to be some development of tension, something that makes the history part seem like a story instead of a pesky sideline to the prettiness of it all. Surely the history needs to at least be acknowledged to understand the way the court operated?
I also had major issues with the inconsistency of this film. For example, the first part was largely preoccupied with the struggle of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI (I think?) to consummate their marriage and produce an heir. This was drawn out for far too long, and it was almost like the makers lost interest in that story line before it was even resolved because although it was eventually sorted out, that part of the story had petered out well beforehand. The rest of the film is a bit a mixture between the political doings of Louis and whatever Marie Antoinette was doing at the time. So basically, some poorly explained and developed history with no tension, and pretty young things bullshitting their time away. Not the stuff of great films I'm afraid.
There has been much ado about the music in this film as well. Firstly, a lot of the soundtrack (classical and modern) is downright intrusive in my opinion. The mix of music is strange - i got that there was a transition to more 'modern' music when the young royals were at parties and having fun doing young people things in contrast to the classical music in the earlier part of the film which is preoccupied with tradition. But when the film goes back down the 'serious' road it's like they couldn't decide what to do with the music so just decided on an annoying mish mash instead. The modern stuff had the potential to work, and so did the classical - but the way it was used was a mistake.
Just talked to David about this and was reminded about how much I was irked by the inconsistency of the accents. I can handle that no one spoke French - but there was no uniformity with the accents either. I probably could have even handled that except for the fact that Judy Davis had a French accent....but only some of the time! wtf? Attention to detail people, it needs to extend past the costuming.
So in summary, this movie looked gorgeous. But not gorgeous enough to make me think it was any good.
Only a 5 for me I'm afraid. Sofia Coppola - what were you thinking?!
Babel
From the flier: Babel: (noun) 1. In the Bible, a famous tower built by a united humanity to reach toward heaven, causing God in his anger to make each person involved speak a different language, halting the project and scattering a confused and disconnected people across the planet.
I will admit, I was hazy on what the term ‘Babel’ meant before I read the brochure. I’m glad it was cleared up for me before the movie; I think I watched in a different manner because of it. And my god, what a phenomenal movie to kick off 2007 with. Editing wise, it’s very much like Crash. Slightly non-linear, a few stories edited together and eventually colliding at the end. But where Crash’s ‘theme’ is racism, this one essentially comes back to the above concept of Babel and the language barrier and the way it can interfere in so many things. However, the real strength of this movie was that it didn’t deal with just the language barrier but also a deeper themes of cultural and language disconnect, and even went so far as to broach these issues within the context of authority and generations. The three stories are set in three different locations – Morocco, Japan and the US/South America. You couldn’t really get three more different locations and this is where my only criticism comes into play – the link to the Japanese portion of the story was tenuous for me, but at the same time the Japanese part was so interesting and challenging that I’ll forgive it for that. The value of this movie for me personally lay in the issues it raises about (to borrow a term from the flier again) ‘the barriers that seem to separate humankind’. The film deals with them in such a way that even the warm and ‘happy’ parts are never soppy and condescending, and it never preaches which I always appreciate in a film. The cast is uniformly outstanding, which is great considering that it was filmed over three continents and in four languages and not all the actors are professionals. The real strength of this movie is really in its characters and the interactions between them in the scenarios they have been placed in.
Overall, a massively high benchmark for the year – 9.5
ps: I keep editing this review, because I can't work out how to add in that it's just such an important film. Not only is it great as a film, but the theme at its heart is something that's so important for everything to think about, and dare I say, dwell on. I will be seeing this film again and won't be able to stop thinking about it for some time.
I will admit, I was hazy on what the term ‘Babel’ meant before I read the brochure. I’m glad it was cleared up for me before the movie; I think I watched in a different manner because of it. And my god, what a phenomenal movie to kick off 2007 with. Editing wise, it’s very much like Crash. Slightly non-linear, a few stories edited together and eventually colliding at the end. But where Crash’s ‘theme’ is racism, this one essentially comes back to the above concept of Babel and the language barrier and the way it can interfere in so many things. However, the real strength of this movie was that it didn’t deal with just the language barrier but also a deeper themes of cultural and language disconnect, and even went so far as to broach these issues within the context of authority and generations. The three stories are set in three different locations – Morocco, Japan and the US/South America. You couldn’t really get three more different locations and this is where my only criticism comes into play – the link to the Japanese portion of the story was tenuous for me, but at the same time the Japanese part was so interesting and challenging that I’ll forgive it for that. The value of this movie for me personally lay in the issues it raises about (to borrow a term from the flier again) ‘the barriers that seem to separate humankind’. The film deals with them in such a way that even the warm and ‘happy’ parts are never soppy and condescending, and it never preaches which I always appreciate in a film. The cast is uniformly outstanding, which is great considering that it was filmed over three continents and in four languages and not all the actors are professionals. The real strength of this movie is really in its characters and the interactions between them in the scenarios they have been placed in.
Overall, a massively high benchmark for the year – 9.5
ps: I keep editing this review, because I can't work out how to add in that it's just such an important film. Not only is it great as a film, but the theme at its heart is something that's so important for everything to think about, and dare I say, dwell on. I will be seeing this film again and won't be able to stop thinking about it for some time.
Friday, January 5, 2007
It had to happen.....
So the inevitable has happened. I talk about films so much that I figure why not just write it all down so you can read it at your leisure. I figure I should let you know a few things about the way I rate things. First of all, I use the DaveScale, created by my cousin Dave:
1 - 4.5: Fail, based on how fired up I get about it's crapness.
5 - 5.5: Thumbs down but a pass (something like a C-)
6 - 7.5: Fair to Good - a good way of thinking about this is a really good bad movie (a guilty pleasure or similar) or a film that should have been higher but just missed the mark.
8: The first mark for a very good film, 4 stars. This mark and above is really a matter of taste.
9: something like an A grade
9.5 -10: A+
It seems that I rate things generously/highly. And I do, but there is one reason for that which will betray my snobbish outlook from the beginning - I don't see anything crap. I don't see production line teen comedies, brainless action flicks (although I do like a good, violent film if done well) and stupid infeasible chick flicks etc. Occasionally I will fail something and get very passionate about failing it. I get so fired up about the fail usually because I have expected some basic level of quality and been horribly, horribly disappointed *ahemLastDaysahemPoorHomageToKurtCobainAhem*. Having said this, I am actually quite open to acknowledging that people enjoy films for different reasons. The things I talk about here are merely the reasons that I enjoy movies.
I also have a massive preference for character/theme driven films over plot driven films.
I like art direction and it's my dirty secret that it can sustain me for a whole film, be it sexy, highly stylised, dark and brooding.
I love well used, sexy violence. Examples would be The Departed and the Proposition.
I use the term 'sexy' far too much.
I am a film snob. I like 'arty farty' movies.
I often have a lot of typos, grammatical errors etc. that I can't be arsed fixing. I often just swear instead of thinking of something more eloquent. But, I usually write the reviews right after I've seen the movie and just want to get it all out. Deal with it.
I may from time to time use this as a forum to have a rant about poor cinema behaviour, be excited about upcoming films and other movie things in general.
I daresay I will mainly review things I have seen at the cinema.
Feel free to use the comments as a place for discussion - buut if you are viewing them, be warned they may contain spoilers.
And importantly....I realise I am prone to being long winded.....in real life, in emails, in my old blog....so I am going to endeavour to keep these reviews short and sweet. If you have any questions, please ask in the comments.
1 - 4.5: Fail, based on how fired up I get about it's crapness.
5 - 5.5: Thumbs down but a pass (something like a C-)
6 - 7.5: Fair to Good - a good way of thinking about this is a really good bad movie (a guilty pleasure or similar) or a film that should have been higher but just missed the mark.
8: The first mark for a very good film, 4 stars. This mark and above is really a matter of taste.
9: something like an A grade
9.5 -10: A+
It seems that I rate things generously/highly. And I do, but there is one reason for that which will betray my snobbish outlook from the beginning - I don't see anything crap. I don't see production line teen comedies, brainless action flicks (although I do like a good, violent film if done well) and stupid infeasible chick flicks etc. Occasionally I will fail something and get very passionate about failing it. I get so fired up about the fail usually because I have expected some basic level of quality and been horribly, horribly disappointed *ahemLastDaysahemPoorHomageToKurtCobainAhem*. Having said this, I am actually quite open to acknowledging that people enjoy films for different reasons. The things I talk about here are merely the reasons that I enjoy movies.
I also have a massive preference for character/theme driven films over plot driven films.
I like art direction and it's my dirty secret that it can sustain me for a whole film, be it sexy, highly stylised, dark and brooding.
I love well used, sexy violence. Examples would be The Departed and the Proposition.
I use the term 'sexy' far too much.
I am a film snob. I like 'arty farty' movies.
I often have a lot of typos, grammatical errors etc. that I can't be arsed fixing. I often just swear instead of thinking of something more eloquent. But, I usually write the reviews right after I've seen the movie and just want to get it all out. Deal with it.
I may from time to time use this as a forum to have a rant about poor cinema behaviour, be excited about upcoming films and other movie things in general.
I daresay I will mainly review things I have seen at the cinema.
Feel free to use the comments as a place for discussion - buut if you are viewing them, be warned they may contain spoilers.
And importantly....I realise I am prone to being long winded.....in real life, in emails, in my old blog....so I am going to endeavour to keep these reviews short and sweet. If you have any questions, please ask in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
