Movie Reviews (such as they are)

The Dark

2012-02-09T09:38:00.003Z

Sean Bean and Maria Bello, ably assisted by Maurice Roëves, star in The Dark: what could possibly go wrong? At the very least, we are sure to see Maria with her tits out and/or getting head (like she seems to in almost every film), no?

Alas, it was not to be this time around, on either count.

Instead, she runs around like a blue-assed fly shouting "Sarah!" a lot, Sarah being the name of her daughter, who is missing presumed drowned on a trip to see her father (Bean) in Wales.

I know Mr Bean (heh heh) has his admirers, but I can't help but say I think he's a really poor actor. I don't think I've ever seen him good in anything, with the possible exception of Patriot Games and an honourable mention for Flightplan, the latter being the only film in which I can honestly say Sean Bean was underused, so awful was everything else.

I can't even bring myself to say much more. Really rather bad. I dunno: 28 out of 100?

The Game

2012-02-08T10:28:00.007Z

I'll say upfront that it's hard-ish for me to be critical of Fincher. I've liked him since Alien³, which I always thought was significantly better than Aliens. Yes, I am that ahead of my time.

So, I thought I'd give The Game another go. I remember it being fun.

Yeah, it's got Michael Douglas in it, but sometimes Mikey is great. I mean, who doesn't love him in Traffic (recently rewatched; review coming soon) or Falling Down? And Sean Penn. Come on. How can this film fail?

And it doesn't.

Conrad (Penn) buys super-wealthy brother Nicholas (Douglas) a gift certificate to partake in a "game" of some sort, but he gives no clues about what it involves. There follows a veritable plague of calamities that befall our hapless (but frankly not very likable) hero Nick.

Is this part of the game? Or has Nick been taken for a ride by a bunch of conmen? Is Conrad involved? How about waitress Christine (Deborah Kara Unger), who Nick has picked up along the way?

Full of twists and turns, this movie should keep you guessing even while it increases the heights to which you're asked to suspend your disbelief. But it's a fun couple of hours, even on a repeat viewing.

Ultimately, though, this is a film that entertains. Nothing more, nothing less. For that, I award The Game a solid 70 points.

Brighton Rock (2010)

2012-02-05T10:37:00.006Z

Let's start by saying this -- and those who've known me and read my blog posts over the years already know: remakes are almost always unnecessary. Yes, you can say, on occasion, that a film is not a remake but a new attempt at translating a certain source material to the big screen. Sure. And Brighton Rock -- the original classic film -- was made in a time when it couldn't perhaps be as gritty as it should have. Maybe.

So someone decided to make a new one.

But they've moved the action to the 1960s, to coincide with the legendary mods 'n' rockers clashes on the beach in Brighton. This pointless change (with no real impact on the plot) was clearly only made in an attempt to bring in young mod or scooter kids who wouldn't otherwise go and see this film.

Oh, I don't really know where to start...

The acting is awful, with one or two exceptions. By far the best turn of the bunch comes from Andy Serkis. He has a lovely naturalness to him that absolutely nobody else does in this film. Second best is Helen Mirren, looking like a million-dollar fox but, sadly, in the later scenes given nothing but a silly and frankly unbelievable chase scene. Her performance is fine, given the material she had to work with.

Everyone else is just mugging like their lives depend on it, the worst offenders being the two leads.

The drama is just nonexistent. Just... there is nothing thrilling about this film. It is blah and dead and lacking in character and action and soul. Fifty-five minutes in, I was ready to turn it off, to be honest.

I can't be arsed to waste more words, so I'll score this movie 20 out of 100.

Man on the Moon

2012-02-02T08:52:00.008Z

I stayed up realllllly late last night, till 2am. It was like being young again -- though this morning I'm paying the price. I stayed up to revisit Milos Forman’s Man on the Moon, which I saw on its initial release at the cinema and remembered enjoying a lot.

Telling the story of comedian(?)/performance artist(?) Andy Kaufman (with whom I'm still not familiar, in that I don't think I've seen any actual footage of him), Man on the Moon stars Jim Carrey in a lead role that some might say is almost Carrey playing himself -- a full-on, perhaps annoying, supposed funnyman.

I say, Carrey is at his career best here, playing someone who appears to be a comic genius.

There were barely more than three consecutive minutes in the 118-minute running time in which I didn't laugh heartily. This stuff is gold!

Carrey is wonderfully supported by Danny De Vito and Paul Giamatti. Even Courtney Love puts in a good effort.

And once you've seen Vegas superstar Tony Clifton doing "Volare", you will never forget it. Amazing!

I'm going big here (for me) and giving Man on the Moon 82 points.

Follow me on Twitter

2012-01-29T11:47:00.006Z

If you do that tweeting thing, please follow me over at @suchastheyare, and I'll do my best to make it worth your while.

I might even get back to writing some full-length reviews here, too... You just never know.

Thank you.

Surveillance

2009-09-30T16:56:00.003Z

Okay, so I sort of spoiled this one for myself by reading the synopsis in Sight & Sound a few months ago, back before it had a UK distributor. I think I thought I'd never get to see it, so what did it matter, right?

Surveillance is the latest picture from David Lynch's daughter Jennifer. Yes, she of Boxing Helena fame. Those of you who saw Boxing Helena may have decided to give this a wide berth. I, though, have not seen BH, so I dived straight in.

Basic premise is that two FBI agents are in Hicksville to help the local dumb cops after a series of violent roadside homicides. So far, so formulaic. The Feds are played by Julia Ormond and Bill Pullman. Most of the rest of the cast are more or less nobodies, with the exception of Michael Ironside as local cop chief.

To get to grips fully with the situation at hand, Pullman watches over three simultaneous interviews of survivors: one cop, one young woman, and one girl.

The story then unfolds in flashbacks up until the point that some fresh bodies are found in a nearby motel. There follows the denouement.

I found the movie to be nicely shot and edited. Well played. The problem is, truthfully, the storyline. While not bad, it is incredibly slight. And once you've seen it once, you'd have very little reason to watch it again. Which, of course, is directly the opposite feeling from the one I get when I watch a David Lynch film...

It's a long time since my last review, so I'm out of practice on scoring. Let's say 53 out of 100. And that might be being a bit generous.

The Departed

2009-03-22T17:43:00.004Z

This has been a long time coming... Back in 2003, I guess, I heard a lot of buzz about a film that was about to revitalize the Hong Kong movie scene, which had been flagging after a flurry of interest in its "heroic bloodshed" genre in the early 90s, thanks largely to much name-checking from the likes of Quentin Tarantino.

The film that was set to have us all stoked up again was called Infernal Affairs. At the time I heard about it, it had done great things in China but was awaiting release in the UK, so I ordered the DVD straight from the Orient. In truth, I was underwhelmed. It was good, sure; but it was no A Better Tomorrow II, no Hard Boiled, no God of Gamblers...

Then a while later I heard it was going to be remade by Martin Scorsese. I groaned. Not because I dislike Marty -- that would be ridiculous -- but because I dislike remakes.

The Departed arrived in cinemas, and very little was seemingly said about its origins in Hong Kong. That annoyed me. I ignored the movie. It arrived on DVD. I ignored it. Last week, it finally came to terrestrial, or network, TV, so I figured, "What the hell?"

A cop goes deep undercover in a criminal organization. Another cop with close ties to said organization works his way to the top of the team investigating it. A mole on each side.

The premise is great -- just as it was in the Hong Kong original. But truthfully, I was unmoved by any of the relationships. And I despised Jack Nicholson as the "big boss". Man, he's such an old ham! Some of the other performances were okay, once you overlooked the odd accents, but I was just not interested. It was just blah.

Oh, and that terrible song that kept playing, about "Sailor Peg and I lost my leg". Jesus Christ on a bike... Give it a rest.

On the plus side, it did make me want to watch Infernal Affairs again, so...

I give The Departed 50 out of 100 and wish I'd departed before I got to the end.

The Punisher (2004)

2008-11-23T10:49:00.004Z

I watched this on TV about three nights ago, and until I saw it on my list of films to review just now, I'd forgotten I'd seen it. So, totally forgettable, I guess. Points: 16 out of 100

Come and See

2008-10-19T13:10:00.007Z

A few months ago, I went through a few days of watching war movies. It wasn't intentional as such, but the cards just happened to fall that way. One of those films was the 1985 Russian WWII film Come and See (Idi i Smotri).

I'd seen a clip of this movie in a documentary about war films some months earlier, and it was praised for its reality, so I was looking forward to it.

It started slowly, with two boys digging in the sand for guns that were seemingly left behind after previous battles, then playing war games. Later, soldiers arrive at a small village and take one of the boy aways to the army, leaving behind his mother and siblings. The camera angles and close-ups and facial expressions were all disconcerting, seemingly weird for the sake of weird, and frankly it was not doing much for me.

After about half an hour of this, my better half decided she'd had enough and went to bed. I decided to stick with it -- for another half an hour at least.

And boy, am I glad I did. Maybe the weirdness subsided; maybe I merely acclimatized to it. Certainly as it progressed I felt there were certain Lynchian qualities.

There were many disturbing scenes, too, as one might expect in a gritty war movie. Not least among these is a burning-barn sequence. But several others are not much fun either.

The lead actor has pain and confusion etched on his face for almost the duration of the picture. And it seems clear at some point the confusion gives way to insanity.

Probably not for everyone, Come and See is a slow burn of a movie, and it runs a good 140-odd minutes. The camera is often very much in the thick of the action, adding to the feeling of horrifying claustrophobia. Some have spoken about its technical achievements, but I noticed that less than I felt a degree of technical imagination on the part of director Elem Klimov and his crew. It felt like they really wanted to get the film made, even if it might be a little rough around the edges here and there.

On the whole, I like to try to review movies reasonably soon after seeing them, since it is so fresh in my mind that I can go into more detail. But sometimes, a film needs to burn in your heart for a while, I think. Every once in a while since seeing it, I think back to it and want to see it again. One viewing is almost certainly not enough.

I give Come and See 82 points out of 100. Those who are interested, a decent article on the film and DVD can be found here.

Once

2008-10-05T09:22:00.003Z

Apt name. You wouldn't want to watch it more than ... once. Lawdy, what a bore. It's basically like a promo video for an album that you wouldn't want to buy, with a few little dialogue bits thrown in.

She was kind of appealing; he was a dick. And those songs... So, so dull. I got nothing more to say except the numbers: 12 out of 100

Mamma Mia!

2008-08-11T13:14:00.006Z

How do I follow my review of California Dreamin', which was better than any other film I've seen in the past couple of years? How? By reviewing Mamma Mia!, that's how. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Mamma Mia!'s paper-thin plot revolves around the looming wedding of Sophie, the daughter of single mum Donna. The pair of them live on a Greek island. Neither Donna nor Sophie know who is the father of the latter, so she invites all three possibles (taken from her mother's diary) to the wedding, in the hope she will know him when she sees him.

Cue much hilarity. Much hilarity, that is, if you are over 60, for clearly this is the target audience for this piece of fluff masquerading as cinema.

It is, of course, just a showpiece for some of Abba's best-loved tunes and is based on the successful stage musical of the same name.

Granted, I don't much care for musicals. And I've never cared for Abba either. But even by the low standards I'd set for this film in advance of seeing it, it still failed to deliver.

The acting was pretty poor given the talent attached (Streep, Brosnan, Skarsgård et al), and there was barely an acceptably pitched note to be heard in many of the "singing" parts.

Slight, predictable, insulting, embarrassing. Truly awful. Avoid at all costs. The only moments I laughed were at the terrible acting and singing. I award Mamma Mia! a dismal 19 points out of 100.

California Dreamin’ (endless)

2008-07-31T14:56:00.007Z

Please ignore the utterly horrendous poster for this film. Why, why, why?

Some might say that the "endless" in parentheses in the title California Dreamin’ (endless) is simply a mistranslation that should read "unfinished". While this may not be the case, it's a debate not without merit, given that director Cristian Nemescu was killed in a car accident before he was able to complete this, his debut feature.

It's a shame that we won't get to see his talent grow, as surely it would have done, but it is wonderful news indeed for all lovers of cinema that someone somewhere saw fit to release this movie as it stood at the time of Nemescu's death.

Set in 1999, at the time of the Kosovo/Yugoslavia conflict, in a village in the middle of nowhere-ville, Romania, the story centres around Doiaru, the man who runs the railway station. He has lived in the village his whole life and, among other things, is something of a smalltime gangster, keeping the villagers poor while lining his own pockets (though you wouldn't guess it to look at him).

One day, news arrives that a train carrying US Marines and the equipment they need for a job in Serbia must pass through. They must be given permission to proceed unhindered. "Not in my town," thinks Doiaru. "The law's the law, and I must see their papers." Of course, they have no papers. And so starts a long wait for the correct documentation...

This synopsis is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg here. Black-and-white flashbacks to World War II introduce us to an unnamed boy and his family. Cuts between various governmental/ministerial offices tell a tale of total disorganization and unwillingness to cooperate at every level. Social uprising. Family relationships. The clashing of cultures...

This is a rich tapestry. In some ways you could consider it a Romanian Short Cuts or something of that ilk. It takes a while to get going: it may be that half an hour has passed before you really start to grasp what is happening and who is who. But once the film eventually lets you in, as though you have to earn the right, it then hits you with an almost omnipresent air of looming disaster. The tension is palpable. And then once in a while you get some light relief, and you laugh out loud. An early example of the latter is the Pavlov's dog-style response of the Marines as the local military band unexpectedly begins playing the "Star-Spangled Banner" as a welcome gesture.

At 155 minutes, this is not a short film, and maybe Nemescu would have tightened it up had he lived to complete it. But that may have done away with some of the beautiful pacing of the film. The large amount of translating between people who don't speak each other's language might have been some of the first to hit the cutting-room floor, perhaps. But it all adds to the chaos of the situation. Perhaps it would have been trimmed to appear like fewer days passing; but those of us familiar with both cuts of the original Wicker Man know that this can be unsatisfactory. We need to be with these people as long as it takes, to sense their impatience, to feel their frustration.

The cast here are, to my eyes at least, almost entirely unknown, with the obvious exception of Armand Assante. Many of the non-speaking parts would appear to be "non-actors", too, which adds to the sense of realism. As does the verité style adopted for the photography: focus shifts and wobbly cam aplenty. Personally, I adore this style of shooting, so it was great for me.

There is really very little I can say in criticism of this film, especially given that it is, essentially, a work in progress. Yes, it could be shorter, but there may be a cost. I think I need to see it again. And maybe even again after that. It could be that it's already one of my top 20 movies of all time. It left me feeling something I almost never feel at a film anymore, unfortunately, and yet it didn't seem to be manipulating me. I was moved. As the final scene cut to the credits, I felt an incredible sadness, melancholy. Maybe it's the real tragedy of the film-maker, but I'm pretty sure not. I think, actually, it had a real truth to it.

If you have read this to the end, I hope it's piqued your interest enough to hunt down this film. Watch it now so you can say, in five years' time, when everyone is talking about it, "I knew this was going to become a classic when I saw it way back when."

I give California Dreamin’ (endless) a huge 90 points out of 100, which is the highest score yet awarded to any film fully reviewed on this blog.

300

2008-07-18T08:58:00.007Z

I like comic books as much as the next guy who used to work in a comic-book store, and I have enjoyed some comic-book movies in my time. The movie 300 is based on a graphic novel (read: comic book for grown-ups) by the legendary Frank Miller (responsible for reviving the comic-book fortunes of Batman and Daredevil among others), which in turn was based on an old movie called 300 Spartans, which in turn was based on a 2,500-year-old battle between the Ancient Greeks and the Persians. So, we're talking historical re-enactment or re-telling.

First up, 300 is so full of close-ups that it was obviously designed with Blu-ray Disc in mind. And on that level the faux reality looks quite amazing.

But. And it's a big but.

The script is fucking appalling. Also, the acting is by and large very bad (none of the actors are good enough to single out by name here), and the direction (of the actors at least) would appear to be average. What is good, though -- indeed, very good -- is the fight choreography.

And that's about all.

And another thing: the CGI blood spatters were soooo ripped off of Takeshi Kitano's Zatoichi (2003)... Grr. And the CGI wolf was really bad.

I wasn't disappointed as such, because I expected nothing. This is not a patch on Sin City, also based on a Miller graphic novel. I'll give 300 52 points out of 100.

The Science of Sleep

2008-06-30T08:55:00.005Z

Having not seen Michel Gondry's earlier film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind when the wife went to see it because I was otherwise engaged at the tattooist, I had very little real idea of what to expect of his work. Sure, I'd seen a few music videos and some clips of his films, but The Science of Sleep was to be my first full-blown Gondry experience.

It is not easy to explain in simple terms what the film is about, although ultimately it is a love story. Or an "is it or isn't it love?" story. When Stéphane moves into an apartment next door to Stéphanie, they soon realize they share a love of the fantastic. And while his view of the world is somewhat askew, he feels he is able to share with her.

What follows is a mish-mash of reality and dreams, and at times it is not obvious which is which. But this matters not, of course, for it is all part of the fun, and you either buy into it and enjoy, or you don't and feel like you're being taken for a mug, I guess. One minute Stéphane might be presenting his own imaginary TV show (in his head or in his room?), the next all seems like a normal day at his office... until he suddenly grows enormous hands. You see what I'm saying?

The lead characters, played by Gael Garcia Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, are both very appealing, though he more so than her, while the peripheral roles are also great fun. Stéphane's work colleagues are just so painfully awful, you have to feel for him!

And the toys and animation are wonderful, really. Next time I'm in New York I wanna buy some of Lauri Faggioni's stuff, for sure.

I'm glad this wasn't totally what I was expecting. But it was a huge amount of silly fun, with a big dose of cuteness thrown in for good measure. The DVD extras were good, too, for those of you who like such things. I give The Science of Sleep 73 points out of 100.

Born Into Brothels

2008-06-25T10:18:00.005Z

Another documentary viewing. Since I often watch films with very little beforehand knowledge, Born Into Brothels was completely different from what I was expecting from the title.

What I thought I was going to see was a film about kids born into brothels in India, and that was not wrong, but I did not know that it was also a film about photography and liberation.

Film-makers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman decide to show the lives of these kids through their own photographs, so they issue cameras and film to eight of them. Kids whose mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers are all on the streets; whose fathers are strung out on dope; whose lives are filled with chores from dawn till dusk and later, and yet whose families cannot afford 25 US cents to hire a babysitter for the evening. These are kids and their families living in the kind of abject poverty most of us can barely imagine.

And the funny thing is: almost the most heartbreaking part of that is that the kids know they have no future, that they will probably end up working the streets as prostitutes and pimps and pickpockets. They know the way they live is disgusting. You'd almost feel better if they "didn't know any better" and thought this was okay.

So it's incredible to see the enthusiasm with which they take to their new hobby, in order that, as 13-year-old Gour puts it, they can "show in pictures how people live in this city. I want to put across the behavior of man." But there is also a considerable amount of talent within the small group.

There are both tears and laughter throughout the 85-minute running time, good news and bad. But this is a heart-warming documentary that may well stay with you for some time. The DVD includes a couple of good extras too, such as highlights of the kids seeing the film for the first time and taking stock of how their lives have changed over the course of three years.

The film won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar at the 2005 ceremony, and I in turn award Born Into Brothels 80 points out of 100.

Murderball

2008-06-16T15:54:00.005Z

What could be better than a load of paraplegics ramming holy fuck out of each other in specially reinforced wheelchairs? Virtually nothing, that's what!

Murderball -- or wheelchair rugby, to give it its more PC name -- is just that. Oh yeah, and you have to get a ball from one end of the court to the other, just like in able-bodied rugby, football, and other games of that ilk.

The documentary Murderball follows the US and Canadian teams in the run-up to and in the 2004 Olympics, focusing on a few US players, the coach of the Canadian team (himself a former player for the USA), and a recently paraplegickized (that's a word, right?) young man named Keith.

It's a cracking little film, full of fun and tears, and one that ultimately sends a good and positive message. Here's hoping they show some of the Paralympics stuff in this year's Olympics coverage and that murderball might be among the clips shown.

I give this movie 72 points out of 100.

Lars and the Real Girl

2008-06-04T08:07:00.005Z

I'm happy to report that, in Lars and the Real Girl, Ryan Gosling admirably redeems himself as an actor after the travesty that was Half Nelson. The character of Lars is everything that the other character wasn't, not least someone you could care about and someone you believed.

Lars is a lonely man, living in the garage of the house his late parents left to him and his brother. The main house is occupied by his brother Gus and his wife Karin; they are expecting a baby.

The "real girl" of the title is actually a sex doll Lars ordered online, yet she becomes his companion. Will this eccentricity be accepted by the God-fearing community? And what will the impact be?

First-time helmer Craig Gillespie handles directorial duties well, though perhaps the handheld camerawork at times of emotional upset is a tad obvious. Peter Berg's name pops up in the opening credits as executive producer, and Patricia Clarkson's appearance is usually a guarantee of something worthwhile.

On the surface this is a comedy, and certainly it has some good lip-curling moments. But it was absolutely not the laugh riot that the woman behind us in the cinema thought it to be. And when her inappropriate mood-breaking laughter was immediately followed by the phrase "Only in America", I just wanted to punch her. But that's an aside...

This is the best I've seen of the recent spate of tragicomedies hitting our screens, and I would recommend you catching it if you haven't already. I give Lars and the Real Girl 73 points out of 100.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2008-05-07T13:39:00.006Z

I had certain mixed feelings before watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, henceforth to be known as TAJJBCRF (pronounced tadge-buh-cruff). See, the thing was, some people whose views I respect on "proper cinema" were very complimentary, and I was afraid I might be let down. Shea of (un)heralded was one; Avid Andy of Control Z was another; and British film critic hero of mine Mark Kermode was the third. It was with trepidation, therefore, that I approached.

On the whole, though, I need not have worried.

TAJJBCRF is, in my opinion, one of those relatively few movies that look fucking amazing AND carry a good, worthwhile story. And when I say "look amazing", I don't mean overladen with SFX, CGI, and all that bullshit -- or at least not obviously so. It's a relatively simple story told with conviction by all involved and moving at a pace that is completely fitting. Slow and leisurely it unfolds, like the final days of a legend ought to.

That this is only the second film from director Andrew Dominik is almost beyond belief. But perhaps no less incredible is that this is the same director who seven years earlier brought us Chopper, with then stand-up comedian Eric Bana making a career-relaunching role of another legendary outlaw. So there are already some similarities between the films in Dominik's tiny oeuvre.

Brad Pitt is still a big name. The ladies love him, and the men want to be him? Well, I'm not sure about that, but he can act just fine, and he played Jesse James perfectly well, even though the character was rather unlikable.

But the big star here, the one who should have been called the lead actor, was little Casey Affleck. You might remember him from such films as Good Will Hunting, when he was all minor and young and fresh-faced. Now look: he's all groweds-up and a proper fully fledged acting talent.

For me, there is very little to complain about in TAJJBCRF. Except... Maybe it was just me, but I would have like to feel slightly more drawn into that world. I felt a little like an outsider looking in, as though someone was opening a history book for me and reading aloud. Maybe it was the narration (even though I do believe it was necessary); maybe it was the blurred edges of the image, giving the feel of old photographs. Perhaps it was simply the laid-back pace.

The funny thing is, immediately after watching it, I felt like I would probably never sit down to see it again. Now, a week or so later, I feel it calling to me, and I may be too weak to resist its call.

TAJJBCRF is certainly among the finest films I've seen in the past 12 months, and it's almost certainly the best western ever made. I give it 86 points out of 100.

El Orfanato (aka The Orphanage)

2008-04-13T15:30:00.005Z

I'd been looking forward to seeing El Orfanato for some time, so when I saw it for sale in Seville, Spain, on our recent trip there, I figured I should pick it up.

The story revolves around a woman and her husband who have bought an old former orphanage, where the wife was once a resident, to live there with their young son and a few foster kids who need special attention.

Before long, though, the son seems to be talking to ghosts who live in and around the grounds. Imaginary friends are all well and good, but things get serious when the boy disappears...

For a debut feature, El Orfanato is sterling and stirring stuff. The sets are wonderful, the colour palette evocative, and the acting compelling, with lead actress Belén Rueda a standout. Director JA Bayona must surely be going places, not least with Guillermo del Toro as something of a mentor.

While "horror" means different things to different people, I would consider this more of a chiller/thriller than true horror. You might jump in your seat once or twice, yes, but you'll surely get some goosebumps and the creeps several times. And you might even be moved a bit.

This is the sort of film about which you can't say much for fear of ruining the experience, but it's a great movie that is worthy of several viewings, and undoubtedly a US remake will not be long in coming... I give this film 84 points out of 100.

Elf

2008-04-12T14:12:00.004Z

As a general comment, the larger Jon Favreau gets, the less good his work seems to be. I don't mean that in a "fattist" way; just saying. Like, clearly he ain't starving; and we all know that starving artists are the greatest.

Fortunately for all of us, Elf -- Favreau's second proper feature as director -- despite being made deep into his "healthy-eating period", is very fucking funny, if not necessarily the best film ever made. At least, I laughed a shitload. I was like some sort of demented idiot at times, with the crazy laughing and all.

I've got, like, a brazillion reviews to get through, so I'm keeping some of 'em brief. Want fun and laughter? Watch Elf. But you might want to wait till Christmastime for maximum seasonal effect. I score it 69 points out of 100.

Richard Widmark RIP (1914–2008)

2008-03-26T18:11:00.003Z

This film was a rare second viewing for me. Rare these days, that is. I used to rewatch films often, but not so much now.

Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is a real class act that works on several levels. Despite being a film noir, this was actually made more than a decade after The Maltese Falcon, and this distance has helped Fuller to get a bit post-modern on the genre. There is a humour throughout the picture that you just don't see much of in those earlier noirs. The speed with which Candy falls in love with Skip, for example, is laughable, but you go with it because you know you're going to get paid off in spades later. But not in Sam Spades, because this is Fuller's world, and the detective can never be the guy you root for.

The plot revolves around some pickpocketed microfilm of US governmental secrets that is on its way to being sold to the Commies. Well, it's 1953, folks, and the red threat was all around. But this isn't really the point. The microfilm is the MacGuffin that drives the story. Don't get me wrong -- the story is slight, but what do you expect in 80 mins?

What you should expect is fun and action and the subversive take that Fuller brings to all his pictures. Never one to shy away from the ugly truth, Fuller takes the Bogart-style slaps across women's faces that are so commonplace in noir and shows us the deep bruising and swollen jaws that follow. The wide-angle tracking shot that Fuller uses to shoot the brawl between Candy and her traitor boyfriend Joey is a real eye-opener. It's brief, but in these days of fast cutting and close-ups and half the time not having a clue where you're supposed to be looking, this approach looks as fresh now as it did then. Gritty and real. A true tussle unfolding before you in real time.

Aaahh, you know, I liked this film. It's not a great film, as I said, in terms of story, but it's a simple tale brilliantly told and expertly made. If you're not familiar with Fuller's work, pour yourself a Scotch on the rocks, get your best dame beside you, and check this out. Shit, even if you like Fuller and you know this film well, why not pour yourself a Scotch on the rocks, get your best dame beside you, and check this out again?

What's the scores on the doors, then? I'll give it 72 points.

36 Quai des Orfèvres

2008-03-24T10:24:00.005Z

Sometimes a movie's publicity tagline can be offputting. I'd read that 36 Quai des Orfèvres was "a French Heat" referencing Michael Mann's mid-90s De Niro/Pacino policer. I didn't care much for Heat, so this did nothing for me but fill me with trepidation. Still, I do like Daniel Auteuil and Gérard Depardieu, so I thought I'd give it a go.

It takes a while to get a grip on what's going on here. The two leads are both cops but in different departments; one is married to the ex-wife of the other; one has friends in the Parisian underworld. For the first hour, the viewer really could be a bit flummoxed.

But that's all good. We get served up enough exposition in our movies, so once in a while it's nice to be treated like an intelligent adult able to follow a choppy narrative.

This is a taut little flick. The action, like the dialogue, is fast and furious. The performances are strong, and you feel a kinship with certain of the characters, not least the hotheaded, shaven-headed, fiercely loyal Titi, who looks more like a thug than a cop.

The story ducks and weaves, wending its way through a series of characters, and you just know some of them are not going to make it to the end. But it keeps throwing up little surprises right up until the last.

I'd highly recommend 36 Quai des Orfèvres. I seem to say this often, but try to catch it before the pending US remake comes out. (Yawn.) I score this movie 75 points out of 100.

There Will Be Blood

2008-03-21T14:14:00.006Z

I can't remember a title of a film that so literally but unspectacularly promised what was forthcoming. And yet, on that note, There Will Be Blood could equally well have been called There Will Be Sweat, Tears, Humour, Pathos, Grimacing, Deafness, Anger, Sadness, Toil, Riches, Religion, and/or many other things. Because, my dear friends and readers, it is a long time since I saw a film that is as rich in content as this masterpiece from Paul Thomas Anderson.

In fact, since this is a film about the burgeoning oil industry, blood is almost the last thing you might reasonably have expected. Sure, people probably died, but PTA does not shy away from some horrible accidents that might fair make you jump like you were watching a horror flick.

Maybe this is a horror flick. Certainly it is dark and gothic. Certainly there is blood and gore. And there are a lot of things that you wouldn't want to face on a dark night on your own.

The tense opening scenes perfectly set the tone. Pioneering spirit. Adventure. Discovery. Danger. Injury. Difficulty. Reward. And we are asked, as audience members, to watch a opening sequence or two with no words. I'm an impatient type. I feel words are imperative to a film. I like to hear them spoken. So to have to wait what was possibly eight minutes for the first real words was interesting for me. It worked. It worked just fine. But I was glad when they came!

When was the last time I saw a film -- or that you saw a film -- in which you would be laughing heartily one minute and seriously distressed the next? Or when you were almost moved to tears in one moment, only to be chuckling the next? Sure it happens from time to time. But this film took it to an extreme for me. A good extreme. One that wasn't anticipated and was so much the better for that.

And you know? As the last scene ended and the credits began to roll, I realized I was sitting there grinning like a total idiot. And that, too, is rare: for me to actually be smiling after a movie ends, just because it was so damn fulfilling.

I'm not a Daniel Day-Lewis freak. He's never troubled my radar much. But this was by far the best I've seen him. By far. It's a masterclass. Can I realistically put it up there with Welles as Kane and De Niro as La Motta? You know, maybe I can... Maybe. Further viewings are necessary to be absolutely sure, but it's a damn fine show he puts in.

After Punch-Drunk Love, we were all a little scared of what to expect next from PTA, I think. Hard Eight was a nice little thriller; Boogie Nights and Magnolia so perfect; Punch-Drunk Love so... so... not what we wanted, at least not in my house. It's due a second viewing, for sure...

But There Will Be Blood is very, very good. The acting just right throughout. Just spot-on. The photography beautiful. The sets sublime. The music (and this from a guy who doesn't care for scores) was good, if perhaps slightly too much in places.

Arguably the film could be 20 minutes shorter. Arguably. But it matters not. There is such a boldness, a ballsiness to PTA on this movie that you can allow him the tiniest of indulgences. Because what we are witnessing here is a fucking great attempt at something enormous. And it comes pretty damn close. Not once did my attention wander, truly. And I didn't fall asleep during the last words, as was virtually the case in that other Oscar contender this year.

I liked this. A lot. It was far better than No Country for Old Men. I give There Will Be Blood a massive 88 points out of 100, and I look forward to buying the DVD.

Knocked Up

2008-03-16T08:34:00.004Z

Oh, wow...

Knocked Up tells the story of a girl who gets pregnant on a one-night stand and what happens afterwards.

This is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to sit all the way through. And it feels like it lasts about nine months. Absolutely horrible. And almost completely unfunny, unconvincing, and unlikable. Wow.

Since I have to score it, I'll give it 14 points out of 100 -- one point for each good line, and two points for the feat of getting it made.

La Vie en Rose (aka La Môme)

2008-03-04T14:30:00.004Z

So, I was looking forward to La Vie en Rose, not least to see Marion Cotillard's Oscar-winning turn as Edith Piaf.

It's tough to give a synopsis other than it's a bio-pic about a French singing superstar. It spans her life from the age of about 10 to her death at an incredibly old-looking 47.

Hers was a tough life and no messin'. Jesus, it makes Johnny Cash's look like a charmed one, full of love and happiness. Not only was it tough, it also had a lot going on, and this is the main problem with the film. There is just too much information crammed into the running time.

The other significant problem is that unless you have even the most basic knowledge of her life already, you may find yourself wondering what the fuck is going on every once in a while.

Cotillard is phenomenal in the lead role, of that there can be no doubt. As she ages, you can feel every ache in her bones. Her tiny shuffling frame towards the end of her life is almost heartbreaking to behold. And her scenes on stage are quite magnetic. (Don't be put off or swayed by the haters who bitch about her not singing her own songs. The lip-syncing is so good that you never notice anyway.)

But the film is simply not quite as good as she is. I half-wonder whether one day an extended cut might surface on DVD, or perhaps a mini-series-type adaptation, because I'll wager shitloads of footage hit the cutting-room floor to get this work down to some 130 minutes.

All that said, it is a beautiful-looking film, with amazing sets, costumes, and use of colour throughout. And the performances are good from the supporting cast, too, even though many are very brief.

I score La Vie en Rose a "worth watching but slightly disappointing" 70 points out of 100.

Walk The Line

2008-03-01T11:17:00.004Z

Synopsis: Walk The Line is the story of country-and-western singer Johnny Cash.

Y'know, it's funny. Growing up, I seem to recall my dad had the Johnny Cash Fulsom Prison album. And I seem to recall thinking it was extremely dull. And despite the recent renaissance afforded Cash, in light of him being dead and all, I still find myself thinking the same way.

In a world of Presley and Holly, Richard and Lewis, Berry and Cochran, Cash (admittedly in a slightly different genre) just doesn't cut it for me.

And you've seen one bio-pic, you've seen 'em all.

Joaquin Phoenix is one of my favourite "young" actors, though, and I will gladly give him a couple hours of my viewing time. Reese Witherspoon was good, too. But I can't help feeling that, like Cash's music, IMHO, the movie was a whole lotta hoopla about nothing, albeit well-acted and well-directed (by James Mangold, of Cop Land fame) nothing.

I award Walk The Line, story notwithstanding, 64 points out of 100.

Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

2008-02-27T10:23:00.007Z

It's still Oscar season, and Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street was nominated for some Oscars -- three to be precise -- and won one (Art Direction).

The story of Sweeney Todd is one that kids hear from an early age over here in the UK. He's this almost mythical figure we are told about as a side note in history lessons at the age of about 10 or so. When we're learning about old London town and the Tower of London and Guy Fawkes and the Great Fire and all of that, somewhere in the mix Sweeney Todd gets thrown in. Kids love the idea of a barber who cuts the throats of his victims and puts them into pies. I mean, what's not to love?!

In this film version of the story, adapted from the Sondheim stage musical/opera of the same name, Johnny Depp takes the lead role and is a man who has spent 15 years wrongfully imprisoned. He's back in London under a new name to take revenge on the man who sent him away and destroyed his family...

Directed by Tim Burton and starring his two muses, Johnny Depp and "ladyfriend" Helena Bonham Carter, Sweeney Todd is, as one should expect, beautifully shot and acted.

The supporting cast is strong, too, and includes Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, and Sacha Baron Cohen.

I don't like musicals -- there, I've said it. I tend to find them too twee. But some rise above that categorization to become something more than just a musical. Sweeney Todd definitely does that.

I laughed. I cried. Well, no I didn't cry actually, but I did laugh. And I did grimace. Burton has not shied away from the gruesome act of blood-letting. He positively paints every available surface red, like a modern-day Argento. The sticky shiny scarlet stuff splashes superbly.

As with all musical theatre, the lyrics can be a bit rough in places. This is a necessary evil when telling a story, and I can just about put up with that. There are also some nice little rhyming couplets here and there that make up for the rest, almost.

Overall, I had a blast watching Sweeney Todd, and I'll give it 77 points out of 100.

Eastern Promises

2008-02-22T16:48:00.007Z

Seeing as it's Oscar weekend, I figured I'd review Eastern Promises, the latest flick by David Cronenberg, for which lead actor ~~Morten Harket~~ Viggo Mortensen has been nominated for a gong.

I have a love/hate relationship with Cronenberg. Well, that's a bit strong. Maybe a "like a bit/don't much care for" relationship. I read the book Cronenberg on Cronenberg many years ago and found it quite fascinating, and yet when I've watched his films I have often felt cheated. It's like the ideas are great, but something gets lost in the translation.

I actually think he's a very good director, in the sense of being a very good film-maker. I'm not at all convinced, however, that he has the first idea how to direct actors. Viggo comes out of this movie well -- indeed, he shines -- but almost everybody else looks like a huge ham (and no, I'm not including that thing between Viggo's legs in the bathhouse scene, girls).

The story: Naomi Watts works in a hospital. Following the death of a young girl in childbirth, Watts finds her diary, which is all in Russian. She (duh) takes it to the girl's boss -- who also happens to be the head of the local (London) Russian mafia -- for translation, despite her own stepfather being Russian. Big mistake! Let the fun begin...

Naomi Watts is about as bad as I've seen her. That first scene of her on her motorbike? Laughably bad. And her motivations and character choices are absurd. Admittedly this is a script problem, but she doesn't bring any truth to the role either. (I'm horrified to see the screenwriter is co-penning the adaptation of Shutter Island, which is one of my favourite books of recent years. Oh, shit.)

Vincent Cassel presents what I'm sorry to say is yet another cliché-ridden psycho show. It's too bad; he's a great actor. But he's being asked to churn out loony Euro roles far too often.

Armin Mueller-Stahl is also very good. But he is a seasoned actor, and he knows his craft inside out.

All the other acting is bad, bad, bad. And the story is thinner than I've become on my inadvertent diet.

There were some good bits in this film, yes, but it was still rather disappointing overall. Well, at least it was better than A History of Violence. I give this movie 64 points out of 100.

Freddy vs Jason

2008-02-15T18:21:00.005Z

Here's a rad premise. Take Freddy Krueger (of A Nightmare on Elm Street fame), add Jason Voorhees (of Friday the 13th et al), and whaddya got? Freddy vs Jason, dudes!

Helmed by Ronny Yu -- who came up via Hong Kong film-making and hit the US shores with the gloriously silly Bride of Chucky before directing the Liverpool-set Sam Jackson starrer The 51st State -- Freddy vs Jason is almost worth watching for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, who doesn't want to see any member of Destiny's Child getting killed? Actually, I can't even remember if Kelly Rowland gets offed or not, but the anticipation that she might is just too good to miss.

Secondly, Robert Englund always seems to have such a great time as Freddy that it's almost criminal not to watch him.

The plot: Wait, there was a plot? It's a slasher film, guys: teens in house getting killed one by one. Duh.

It was funny, with a few made-ya-jump moments thrown in for good measure. Not as original as New Nightmare, of course, but not a bad way to pass 90 minutes in the dead of the night. Is anyone gonna argue if I say 53 points out of 100?

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

2008-02-13T14:50:00.007Z

What a fucking terrible film.

NOT!

(Of course, this is a Borat in-joke; I would personally never tell a "not joke".)

It took me a long time to get around to watching Borat, it must be said. But I had been reasonably interested since day one. I mean, I liked Ali G and other Sacha Baron Cohen creations back in the day on Channel 4's 11 O'Clock Show, and it was only overfamiliarity that led me to a state of "meh"-ness about the big-screen Borat outing.

Well, after about 75 minutes of constant laughing, chuckling, and "oh-my-God"-ing, suffice to say I recommend it for viewing.

SBC is great in the lead role, as is his sidekick. We know Borat is there simply to make Americans say dumb things, and that he does to perfection. It seems not to take much to get people cheerfully talking about stringing up gays or which weapons are best for slaying Jews. Oh, wait... that's not actually funny at all. It's quite disturbing.

As was the Christian church scene with people running around in the aisles and "speaking in tongues". My mouth was agape throughout that entire thing. So terrified was I that I now want to see such a service in real life. (Don't wait for the "Naaaaaaht!", cos I might just be serious here, I'm not sure yet.)

The whole thing was also directed beautifully by Larry Charles, responsible for the helming and/or writing of several episodes of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Genius.

Borat is short but sweet. I'm gonna award it a very respectable 69 points out of 100.

Best Film Editing

2008-02-09T07:21:00.000Z

This is a first on this site: a post that's not a movie review (such as they are).

I have written an article on Best Film Editing for the Large Association of Movie Blogs (LAMB).

Why not go check it out?

Cheers, and have a great weekend!

Malèna

2008-02-07T15:13:00.000Z

Giuseppe (Cinema Paradiso) Tornatore's film Malèna is a paean to the beauty of the eponymous Sicilian woman, played by Monica Bellucci. As such, it is also an ode to La Bellucci.

And that, my friends, is about all it is.

Plot (such as it is): Malèna is the town sex bomb, turning heads wherever she goes. Her husband is killed in combat. She starts seeing other men and is accused of adultery and shunned by the town's women. Young boy, meanwhile, like all the men, is obsessed with her and fantasizes of being with her.

The story is cute enough, albeit with a bitter, mean scene at the end of the second act that plays out like a bit from some cheap chicks-in-chains exploitation flick.

I mean, the film is wonderful to look at. That old nostalgic World War II Sicily vibe is great. Though I can't help but feel not enough is done to make you care enough for the characters other than Malèna herself. This is a shame, since we are reminded often that they are (misguidedly, maybe) supporters of Italy's fascist leader Mussolini.

Other than that, the film plays out like a farce. It's funny enough. But even at just 90 minutes (I saw the Miram-axed version, shorn of 17 minutes, apparently), it feels 40 minutes too long. The plot of the first hour could easily have been squeezed into 20 minutes -- and it would have been all the better for it.

Monica gets herself into various degrees of undress, though, and that, I fear is the only reason this film was bankrolled. But the thing is, you can see a scanty Monica in most of her films, so you really needn't sit through this one.

Tough to score, this one, because it was at least funny. (Funny to me, a non-Italian. My Italian wife was embarrassed by its depiction of her people... and by one of their own!) But it was also too long and too slight of substance. I'm gonna take a generous stab at 57 out of 100.

Million Dollar Baby

2008-02-06T15:23:00.000Z

So, Million Dollar Baby was on TV the other night, and I figured I'd give it a go, being as it had won a few Oscars and all.

Man, are you fucking shitting me?! What a lame-ass piece of fluff! I mean, come on, people: this is a Tuesday-afternoon disease-of-the-week picture with a bigger budget. It's just So-whats-ville on a major scale.

Let's just tally up those Oscar wins. Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actor. Give me a fucking break. Okay, Freeman was fine, but he was exactly the same as Red in Shawshank. Swank was okay in the tragic-heroine role. The direction was all right, I guess. The picture? Ha! Put it this way, I should have checked who wrote it before bothering. That Paul Haggis is a fucking hack! This and Crash; I know I'm gonna regret that Valley of Elah thing... Finding Neverland lost to this? Wow...

One good thing: Clint was very good in places, and quite excellent towards the very end. But even that's not enough for me to recommend it. This one gets 41 out of 100.

Breakfast on Pluto

2008-02-04T16:57:00.000Z

I had low expectations of Breakfast on Pluto -- is this a common theme in my attitude towards movies?! -- largely because I find director Neil Jordan to be more miss than hit, but it had Cillian Murphy in it, and he has impressed me in a few films lately, so...

All I knew was the following: transvestite yada yada IRA terrorist yada. Not much to go on, is it? And the first few minutes had me baffled, as two robins alighted on top bottles of milk on a doorstep and as they chirruped to one another, their dialogue appeared subtitled on the screen. Already this was not what I had expected. And although this particular gimmick is used very rarely, it (with hindsight) perfectly sets the scene for the modern fairytale that follows.

The film tells the tale of a young man, Patrick, who was adopted out shortly after being born to an unwed mother in a small town in Southern Ireland. The mother then fled to London, where "the biggest city in the world swallowed her up" and no one seemingly heard from her again.

At an early age, our hero begins cross-dressing, and he adopts the name Kitten. We follow him through many of the important chapters in his life, culminating with the decision to track down his now-mythical real mother.

It would be difficult to present (even if it were my way) a synopsis of this film that came anywhere near close to conveying the myriad pleasures within. The story is, at its heart, a simple one; but it is the not just the story that touches and rewards the viewer here.

The performances are all wonderful (even if I did have the odd qualm about Murphy's voice being slightly too soft in parts), and the supporting cast certainly do much more than support, since they are indeed the very foundations upon which this story is built: in order to believe the arc of Kitten, one has to first appreciate the background from which he hails.

My first thought at the end was that this was a great fun yarn. But it is true that there are several dark moments within it: terrorism, bombings, killings, attempted murders, and police beatings all feature. And yet, like in Black Book, the overall vibe of the movie is one of a rollickin' good ride, as we might say here in Blighty.

Do yourself a favour and watch this movie. I'd be surprised if you didn't enjoy it immensely. I give Breakfast on Pluto a massive 80 points out of 100.

Sheitan (aka Satan)

2008-02-01T14:06:00.000Z

What drew me to Sheitan was knowing that it had Vincent Cassel in it. Cassel is a fine actor, and to be honest, I'll watch almost anything with him in (except Ocean's Twelve, natch).

I didn't know what I was letting myself in for...

The basic premise is slasher enough. A few kids go off to a deserted farmhouse in rural France. The house belongs to one of their number. Almost at their destination, the kids (and we the viewers) meet housekeeper/shepherd Joseph, whose wife, we find later, is pregnant.

Before you know it people start getting offed and weird locals are brought into the equation. Throw a bit of incest and voodoo-like dollmaking into the mix, and you're all set for a fun night in. And you even catch a glimpse of Monica Bellucci playing a vampire on a TV screen in one scene.

This is probably one of the maddest films I've seen in a looooong time. Not quite as mad as Takashi Miike's The Happiness of the Katakuris, but pretty fucking wacky nonetheless.

As time has passed, the details have become lost to me, but what remains is just as important: it has left me with a feeling, a fondness, an inquisitiveness towards it, a desire to see it again and try to figure out what the hell is going on. And, for me, that's better than a comprehensive understanding. I give Sheitan 70 points out of 100.

Constantine

2008-01-31T12:45:00.000Z

Back in the day, when I was a comic-store worker, I used to read Hellblazer. It was one of very few DC titles that I read, being more of a Marvel and Dark Horse fan. So when I first heard that a film was being made based on Hellblazer, I was mildly interested.

Despite this interest, it has taken me from then to now to actually get around to watching the film, which came to be known as Constantine and stars Keanu Reeves as the grouchy, chain-smoking eponymous John C.

First up, let me start by saying it's a long time since I last read any of JC's adventures, but the film didn't seem much like I remember from the books. (That might be just me, though, and my poor and fading memory. Old age comes to us all.) As such, I felt like I spent a good chunk of the film trying to work out what was wrong with the film.

The truth is, as a film in its own right, there's not that much wrong with it, per se. But I don't know how much it would work for people who don't know the comics. And you gotta feel for the filmmakers: you tackle a fairly unknown comic-book character (it's not Spider-Man or The Hulk, y'know?) and you have years of source material, but you want to make a fast action movie that will appeal to non-readers, ideally without alienating long-term fans...

The story was okay. The effects were okay. I dunno what to tell you. It was okay overall.

The most interesting performance came from Tilda Swinton as Archangel Gabriel. She is a great actress and always good in androgynous roles. I really enjoyed watching her. Peter Stormare makes an appearance as the Devil himself, and he was fun in that hammy way that he is fun. (Having seen Ray Wise in Reaper, though, I can't help wondering why he hasn't played the Devil more often!) Keanu was Keanu: you know what you're gonna get, more or less. And Rachel Weisz (who shares my birthday) was good and watchable, as ever ("I'm a librarian!", anyone?). Oh yeah, Shia LaBeouf was in it too.

So, all in all, it was okay. But okay just don't cut it in my house, and ultimately I wished I could have back the time I spent watching it. I give Constantine 60 points out of 100.

K2

2008-01-30T14:33:00.000Z

Films such as K2 are almost exactly suited to a blog called "Movie Reviews (such as they are)", because you really need say so little.

Firstly, though: what the hell happened to Michael Biehn? I mean, one minute he was every fan boy's preferred movie star; the next he's hamming it up like the ham store just run out of him in K2, and playing such a completely unappealing character, too.

Remember Vertical Limit? Now that's how you make a perils-up-a-mountain action movie. K2, not so much.

And it even had Matt Craven in it, from the was-oh-so-great-in-Season-1-but-then-they-fucked-it-up-in-Season-2 show Boomtown. Man, this guy knows how to act badly!

So, if I were to sum up K2 in one word, it would probably be: "Ha!" But I do my summing up in numbers, baby, and here's my digits: 19 out of 100.

Black Book (aka Zwartboek)

2008-01-29T10:17:00.000Z

Paul Verhoeven's first Dutch film in quite a few years, Black Book is a World War II tale set in the Netherlands and "inspired by real events". It concerns a Resistance movement, one member of which is a young girl who has witnessed the massacre of her entire family, among a boatload of Jews, while they were all trying to escape the Nazi occupation.

Events conspire to throw her into a conversation with the head of the occupying force on a train journey, and soon after she is asked by her friends whether she would sleep with him -- you know, for the cause. She accepts the assignment, and what follows is a treacherous and dangerous game for all involved.

What follows is also a crazy action ride! The "true story" tag has come to mean very little when attached to movies. I think the Coen brothers may have started (or at least revived) this trend of elasticating the truth when they used a short news story as the catalyst for Fargo. Verhoeven goes one better, with a script that has taken years to finish. At every turn of the the celluloid page there is another incredible piece of derring-do or another implausible case of coincidence. But the film is none the worse for that!

And let's not forget that Verhoeven, while he has put out a few duds in his time, is actually great at what he does. And the colours and sets and cinematography were all great, and Carice van Houten and Sebastian Koch (also seen recently in The Lives of Others) shine in the leads.

You know what I say? At its heart, this is a genuine, old-fashioned wartime picture, so suspend your disbelief, put on your arthouse action movie hat, and enjoy. Black Book is pure fun, and we all need some of that from time to time. I give this movie 73 points out of 100.

No Country for Old Men

2008-01-28T09:45:00.000Z

I've long been a fan of the Coen brothers' work, so I was keen to see No Country for Old Men, which has been touted by many as a return to form, following a couple of near-duds in the form of The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty.

The fact that the film had Javier Bardem in what I would consider the lead role (shame on you, Academy) was yet another reason to spring £6.50 (US$13) on a ticket for the cinema rather than waiting for the DVD.

The plot is actually far simpler than I had imagined. Dude finds money; another dude wants it back and will kill anyone in his way (and pretty much anyone not in his way, too); a third dude tries to stop second dude from killing first dude (while investigating the multiple other killings along the way).

Anyone expecting profundity will be left wanting, I'm afraid, regardless that the source material comes from Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Cormac McCarthy. (BTW, I hate how we're awarding writers who are trying to do away with punctuation.) As a comment on society and the effect money has on people, it doesn't work as well as Sam Raimi's A Simple Plan -- though I appreciate that the intent of No Country is more to do with changing times than with greed and the like.

So that's the premise dealt with. What about the performances, direction, mise en scène?

First up, the performances, as you would expect with a cast of this calibre, are truly wonderful. Bardem steals the show, of course. But I will say this to all those banging on about his hairdo: the film is set in 1980. That hair is completely pertinent. It's the hairdo sported by Josh Brolin that is anachronistic. Nobody looked that fucking cool in 1980s Texas, I'm pretty damn certain!

I've seen Bardem in a few Spanish-language films over the years, and he is a fine actor, so it was no surprise to see him doing great work here as an utterly reprehensible human being.

Brolin was also very good. He's come a long way since Best Laid Plans!

Tommy Lee Jones is a funny one. He sort of leaves me cold as an actor, though I accept that he's good at his job. I feel he always plays essentially the same role, though, and that role kind of bores me. Meh.

Some people are claiming that Kelly Macdonald has been overlooked for an Oscar nomination. My view: no, she hasn't. She simply didn't warrant one. She's okay. She doesn't do enough, though, to be rewarded for her performance... which is as much a comment on the thinness of the characterization as it is on her ability.

The look of the film and the set-ups of the scenes are, as you would expect from the Coens, quite lovely, and the movie looks great and feels great from beginning to end, with that underlying sense of dread you get from all the best thrillers.

So, sort of a mixed bag, overall. Not quite the movie I thought it would be, but a great film nonetheless, in the sense of art created for the movie screen. Great looking, and great entertainment, if the tiniest bit too long. I give No Country for Old Men 72 points out of 100

Mean Girls

2008-01-25T12:06:00.000Z

I watched Mean Girls for a bit of a laugh, really, thinking it was something more suited to my teenage niece than to a seasoned movie-watcher like myself. It appeared on TV one Sunday night, and I happened to be sat there.

And guess what. I actually thought it was really good fun. I mean, I'm not going to rush out and buy the DVD or anything, but it was a worthwhile watch. I've certainly seen worse movies purporting to be serious fare and far worse movies that are supposed to be funny.

If you haven't seen it, I say give it a crack (if it happens to be on TV). It may not be worth actually going to a video store and paying for, y'know...

Lindsay Lohan was fun and more than a little appealing, and the rest of the cast, including 30 Rock's very own Tina Fey, was great too. Like I say, we're not talking classics here, but this is a good example of the genre. I say we give it 66 points out of 100; what say you?

A Self-Made Hero

2008-01-24T13:09:00.000Z

This is a French film. I'm guessing it's about some sort of self-made hero, but two attempts at watching it both put me to sleep within half an hour. I didn't finish it, so I won't score it. And no score is a bad thing, my friends.

Casanova - RIP Heath Ledger

2008-01-23T09:44:00.000Z

Bumping this one back to the front in tribute to Heath Ledger, who died yesterday, Tuesday 22 January 2008, aged 28.

I didn't expect much from Casanova, but we rented it purely to see Venice and cast our minds back to March 2006 and our time in that wonderful, unique city. But what an enjoyable romp it was -- huge fun from beginning to end.

This really is Hollywood at its kitschest, silliest, laugh-out-loud best. The cast are all good, with Oliver Platt putting in a fucking genius performance. This is right up there: 75 points.

DiG!

2008-01-22T09:50:00.000Z

Ostensibly, DiG! tells the story of two rock 'n' roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. The two were friends back in the day, playing gigs together, and the BJM were greatly influential on the Dandys. BJM frontman Anton Newcombe wanted to start a revolution and did not want to play the corporate rock game; the Dandys were happy (at least on the surface) to sell out for success.

What we have here is two parallel tales, informing us how the paths of these two groups diverged. In some ways, it's a cautionary tale; in others, it could be seen as some sort of bible on how to fail in the music biz (in much the same way that Overnight could be seen as how to fail in the movie biz).

This documentary is funny a lot of the time, but there are hints of sadness. Ultimately we are supposed to feel for Newcombe, but although he has some likable traits, it's hard to see him as anything other than a bit of a self-destructive loser. You just wouldn't want to be in a band with him, y'know? (Okay, maybe "loser" is a bit strong; but how else can you term someone who wants success but then bites the hand that tries to feed him every time? It's not like anyone asked him to sell out, y'know.)

The film is a riveting watch, and you may well spend a good amount of the running time slack-jawed with disbelief. While I'm not a fan of either band, it's telling that the least interesting of the two are the biggest success. And I dare say when they're writing the book of rock history in a few decades' time, the Dandys may well be simply a footnote to the creativity of Newcombe and The Brian Jonestown Massacre.

I give DiG! 72 points out of 100.

16 Blocks

2008-01-21T13:02:00.000Z

I barely remember anything about 16 Blocks, I'm sorry to say. It was really very subpar. And I actually like Bruce Willis, so it's not just that I'm hating on Hollywood or anything. Mos Def was fun, but the film was just quite mundane and mediocre. Oh yeah, and there was the obligatory feel-good ending. Ho hum.

Pointage: 43 out of 100.

le dîner de cons (aka The Dinner Game)

2008-01-18T09:59:00.000Z

I had no expectations of le dîner de cons before sitting down to watch it. My wife vaguely remembered some good reviews, so we thought we'd give it a go.

The initial set-up is that every week a group of friends get together for a dinner party, each of them bringing the dumbest person they can find, hence the name of the film, which translates as "The Idiots' Dinner", more or less.

The invited idiots are asked to talk about themselves, and the person who brought the most stupid guest is declared the winner.

So far, so slapstick.

Pierre chooses François, a man who makes world landmarks out of matchsticks, as his idiot and invites him to his house prior to heading to the dinner. But Pierre injures his back, so the pair miss the meal and end up having to spend the evening together in the apartment. Throw in an ex-wife and her lover, and sit back for the fireworks.

As I said above, I had pretty low expectations. European humour doesn't always travel well to other languages (or, rather, to subtitles). But I needn't have worried. le dîner de cons was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. I was close to rolling on the floor.

If you get the chance, you should see this instead of the forthcoming US remake, poetically titled Dinner for Schmucks (vom!). I give le dîner de cons 81 points out of 100.

Signs

2008-01-17T14:45:00.001Z

I saw Signs for the second time a few nights ago. I didn't intend to watch it, but it started up on TV, and the missus was asleep beside me, so I figured what the hell. Plus any film starring a bigoted, anti-Semitic, billion-children-rearing Catholic zealot (allegedly) has got to be worth seeing, right?

We all know the story: smalltown family with dead mum and ex-preacher dad find massive crop circles on their land. Turns out it's a global phenomenon. Aliens are here. And "there'll be a twist, probably, cos, y'know, that whatshisname made it, the one who did The Sixth Sense." "Ah, yeah, The Sixth Sense. Loved that movie."

Well, you know what? I fucking hated The Sixth Sense. It was shit, all right. And after about five minutes it was fucking obvious that Bruce Willis was dead. Jesus, people!

Anyway, I think I digress...

Thing is, for all the spleen I vent about The Sixth Sense, one thing I took away from it was that M Night Shyamalan looked like a pretty decent director. I liked all the handheld camerawork and his choices of angles, which is why I have continued to watch his films.

Bottom line: Signs is some hokey shit, but it's kinda fun while you're in it. The aliens aren't very impressive, either, and the ending... Well, I liked the ending enough. It's not really a twist as such, but it's reasonably interesting, even if it goes slightly in a direction that I didn't want it to...

The performances are good (Joaquin is always good, and you get to see that Little Miss Sunshine girl before she was that Little Miss Sunshine girl) and the direction is solid overall. We get more locked-down camerawork this time out, but it works nicely to create a sense of tension.

So, it's not shit. But we aren't talking a major film of the 21st century here, either. I give Signs 60 points out of 100.

Baise-Moi (aka Fuck Me; aka Rape Me)

2008-01-15T12:49:00.000Z

I like a good controversy, and Baise-Moi, upon release a few years back, was nothing if not controversial. Even its native France was divided over whether such a film should be banned. France?! Considered by many to be the home of cinema and usually above such proletarian concerns as censorship... "My, oh my, che razza di film e' questo?" I wondered to myself.

The basic plot is: two women, strangers who meet one night, go on a crazed kill spree, following the rape of one of them.

They kill on a whim any man who crosses their path and quite a few women too, most notably at an orgy/sex club.

Over here in the UK our version has been shorn of a couple of its most extreme moments, but some of the hardcore sex has been left intact. This is one of that wave of cinema of that time that delighted in including full penetration, and here as in a couple of other flicks a porn star takes one of the leads to help facilitate such scenes.

So, it's Thelma and Louise meets Ms. 45 meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer? Well, maybe.

Does it live up to all the hype? Well, maybe.

Is it any good? Well, maybe...

That's the overriding impression I took from this maybe. It's a bit "Well, maybe." Not a terrible film, as some would have you believe, but a short film that could have been shorter still for its lack of real plot.

Tough to score, since it's more an experience, or ordeal, than a film for pleasure. But overall I'd give it 52 out of 100. That's not a wholly accurate score, since it could have been more than twice as good as it is, but it places it in the right context in my list of films rated so far.

The Lives of Others (aka Das Leben der Anderen)

2008-01-10T15:13:00.000Z

I've been very shit lately at reviewing the movies I've seen. And I've seen a lot. The most recent one was this one, so I'll review while it's fresh.

The Stasi is not a subject I've seen many films about, it must be said, but it is an interesting notion. The Lives of Others focuses on Wiesler, a member of the East German secret police, following his investigations into a writer called Georg Dreyman.

He sits, hour after hour, listening in to the author's life -- his parties, his meeting with friends, his sexual encounters -- keeping notes for the Stasi chiefs. But the reason for his investigation turns out to be rather more personal than legitimate: the writer is involved in a relationship with a woman who is also having sex with the Stasi big boss, and the latter wants the writer crushed with whatever evidence can be found.

Wiesler feels this is a breach of the Stasi's power...

~~Considering how little action this film contains~~ No, scratch that. The term "action" implies something different from what I want to infer. There is a deliberate inertia to much of the film, yes, and that is wholly correct. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the movie is fully absorbing. From the initial set-up explaining what the Stasi is (which could have been plodding but isn't), right up to the big reveal at the end, the viewer is rooted to his seat.

This is in no small part due to the magnificent performance given by Ulrich Mühe in the role of Wiesler. Sadly we shall see no more of his work, since he died in July of 2007.

For those interested in such things, The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth to win Best Foreign Film at the 2006 Oscars (i.e., those held in 2007).

I can quite imagine myself watching this several times over the coming years, and I highly recommend you watch it too, if you haven't already. I score The Lives of Others 84 out of 100.

Half Nelson

2007-11-30T15:39:00.000Z

Whatever. Just... Man, why did Half Nelson have to be so slow and boring? There were about two decent moments, each lasting a minute or so. The rest of the time was just dull. I was expecting nothing, and I got less than that. 40 out of 100 is probably too generous. I can't even be bothered to put a picture.

Sunset Blvd.

2007-11-06T10:22:00.001Z

Sometimes there are films that are notably absent from one's viewing history. Sunset Blvd. has long been one of mine. And I've always known very little about it. The first time I heard the name was possibly with reference to the stage musical, so for many years I thought of it as a musical, and I'm not the world's biggest fan of musicals. But I soon learned that it's not a musical, and I soon learned, too, that the beginning of the film marks the end of the film, and I was intrigued...

I don't give spoilers here, as regular readers know, so I won't say any more about that particular film-making gimmick. I will say, however, that the films tells of a man, Joe Gillis, on the run from people to whom he owes money. He's a screenwriter. To avoid capture, he parks his vehicle in the garage of a big house in Hollywood -- a house that turns out to belong to a former starlet of the silent era, Norma Desmond. The two meet and begin a relationship of sorts: she employs him to write a script for her comeback in which she will play the lead, Salome; the film will be directed by her friend Cecil B DeMille. While he writes, he can stay at her house, in the room above the garage, and her butler will attend to his needs.

But he falls in love with another man's fiancée while working together on a different script, and Norma is not impressed. Betty is falling for Joe, and he for her. Norma is in a predicament...

Of course, most of the glory belongs to Gloria Swanson, magnificent in her portrayal of Norma Desmond, though male lead William Holden is more than up to the task. And beyond that, it is the masterful direction of Billy Wilder that holds it all together. How many times have you heard someone say, "They don't make 'em like this anymore"? It's true, they don't. I don't feel I'm the sort of guy who's hung up on the past, and yet this film that is more than half a century old kept me rooted to my seat even though I knew how the final reel plays out.

If you haven't seen this yet, waste no more time! Get thee to a video-rental outlet and pick it up now. Better still, buy the DVD, for you'll most certainly want to watch it again and again. It's great fun for fans of David Lynch, too, playing spot the plagiarism! Lynch is reported to have said that INLAND EMPIRE is his own Sunset Blvd., but the latter informs other Lynch works, too.

I give this movie 83 points out of 100, and I look forward to the next viewing.

Zodiac

2007-10-30T11:19:00.000Z

I'm a big fan of David Fincher; have been since Alien3. I never understood the slamming that film got. For me it was always better than Cameron's effort. I look forward to each new Fincher movie, and it was disappointing that I didn't manage to catch this one on the big screen.

Zodiac is a film about obsession -- one man's obsession over an unclosed serial-killer case. The man in question is not a cop; nor is he a journalist per se. Rather, he is a newspaper cartoonist, and the film follows his story over a 30-odd year period. The serial killer is Zodiac, the inspiration behind the Scorpio character in the first Dirty Harry film.

There are several great things about this film: the story; the performances (Gyllenhaal, Downey, Ruffalo, et al); the direction; the look; the feel; the scope; the ambition... But it's the latter that is the film's only problem.

The nature of the story is that little spurts of activity come in the case once in a blue moon, so what we end up with is an awful lot of "three years later"-type subtitles. This leads to a sense of bittiness, which is unfortunate. That said, I'm not sure how else such a story could have been tackled while remaining faithful to the source material.

I liked the film very much; it is a slow-burning thriller based upon character rather than action. I'm looking forward to a second viewing when a decent DVD version is released. I score Zodiac 78 out of 100.

Pan’s Labyrinth (aka El Laberinto del Fauno)

2007-09-18T10:11:00.000Z

It took me a long time to get around to Pan's Labyrinth. It was on my Lovefilm list forever, but I guess everyone else wanted to see it too. Not to worry...

Despite the good word of mouth and the awards and nominations Pan's had received, I had lowered my expectations by watching del Toro's debut Cronos a few weeks before. And you know what? I'm almost glad I did.

In case you don't know what this film is about, it tells the story of a young girl who goes with her mother to live with Mum's new husband, who happens to be a Fascist. Yep, it's World War II time. The little girl is a fantasist who believes she is seeing a fairy in the woods; furthermore, we the viewers are led to believe that she may or may not be a princess from another realm, a realm into which she is led by the fairy.

A series of tasks are set for the girl in order to allow her safe return to the king and queen of this other realm. She is sorely missed.

The counterpoints between the "fantasy" world and the horror of Franco's Spain could hardly be greater, and I spent the entire time hoping for her safe return to her regal family.

This is one of those films where everyone has their own take on exactly what is happening and how it ends. Your viewpoint will depend on your belief system, your movie literacy, your love or otherwise of fairy tales and fantasy. And, as is my way, I will not spoil it any more than I already have.

This was one of the highlights of my viewing this year. It was a beautiful film, one that in trailers almost looked designed for children, and yet it also has moments of sickening violence. These two extremes just add to the complexity of the piece. And the acting and direction were almost faultless. Highly recommended.

Acting: 17
Story: 16
Direction: 17
Enjoyment: 17
Involvement: 17
Total: 84

Cronos

2007-09-17T11:52:00.000Z

I bought Cronos without having seen it because it had some great reviews and because I'd enjoyed director Guillermo del Toro's film The Devil's Backbone, I thought Hellboy was okay, and I was in preparation for Pan's Labyrinth. It also had a pretty cool DVD cover.

In short, this film tells the story of an age-old device that is designed to give eternal life to whoever owns it. The device is shaped like an ornate scarab, which "bites" into its owner. When rediscovered some 400 years later, this mechanism -- moreover, its power -- is sought by a handful of people.

I expected big things for this debut feature from one of fantasy film-making's hottest directors, but I must say I was disappointed. Sure there were some good bits; and it was squirm-inducing once or twice along the way. It also had a good amount of "atmosphere". But overall the film left me cold: it just never really went anywhere very interesting. It wasn't terrible or a complete waste of time, but it just didn't move me in any way.

By the way, the cool cover, with a hot chick bleeding after being bitten by the scarab, is not a scene from the film! Guess they call that "artistic licence"!

Acting: 13
Story: 12
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 12
Involvement: 12
Total: 63

The Last King of Scotland

2007-08-31T07:30:00.000Z

You must have heard of The Last King of Scotland? It's the one where Forest Whitaker plays Idi Amin, and he won an Oscar for it. Course you have. It's based on a true story, y'know.*

White just-graduated doctor goes to Uganda to help people in bad conditions. He meets new president Idi Amin and fixes his sprained wrist. Amin signs him up as his own personal physician/adviser. The two develop an unusual friendship. Of course, something is sure to go wrong, especially when young white boy takes a fancy to the president's wife...

This kept me gripped and laughing quite a bit for the first hour. The second hour went a bit more slowly for me, as it became a bit more "by the numbers". Still good, but less interesting, I felt. (The wife disagreed, though.)

The acting and directing were first-rate. It was directed by the guy who did Touching The Void, Kevin Macdonald.

A good film that is well worth your time, but it was not quite the experience I was expecting/hoping. Still, let's give it a respectable 70 points.

* I felt cheated when I watched the DVD's supplementary material and discovered that this particular white-boy doctor never really existed. And much of the stuff didn't really happen. So it's based on a true story in the sense that Idi Amin was the president of Uganda, then? LIARS!

INLAND EMPIRE

2007-08-20T15:45:00.001Z

Finally. I got my DVD of David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE on Saturday. On Sunday night, at 10.15pm, I sat down to watch it. I was not sure this was wise, to start a film so late in the evening is unusual for me; to start a three-hour movie so late could almost be considered foolhardy. Double that when you know that the UK DVD has no chapter stops, so making it difficult (on my shitty "oh sorry, I don't remember where I was" DVD player) to resume at a later date. But start I did, and end I did -- or you wouldn't be reading this.

Shot on digital video, INLAND EMPIRE tells the tale of "a woman in trouble". Laura Dern is an actress who is about to star in a remake of an unfinished Polish film. She soon learns it was unfinished because the stars were killed. Her co-star (in both senses) is Justin Theroux. The actors begin having an affair, maybe. The mind of Dern's character and the mind of Dern's character's character being to merge. We are no longer sure which is which.

Meantime, there is some Polish stuff. Old Polish men. A Polish woman sitting watching a TV sitcom about some talking rabbits (seen above). A hypnotist. There's also a woman with a screwdriver stuck in her side, and some prostitutes.

There are also no easy answers.

In so many ways, this film is similar to Mulholland Dr., but it's also far darker; there's a greater sense of evil somehow. I had been led to believe it was "a Lynch too far" for most non-enthusiasts of Lynch work. It's tough for me to be objective there, but I was gripped from start to finish.

I loved the photography. Lynch has really made the best of his outdated Sony PD-150. He has opted, many times, to use extreme close-ups of people's faces, often with a wide-angle lens. This was a smart move, in my opinion, for digital video is at its best like this. Its shortcomings seem too evident in busy distant or establishing shots of the like seen so much in Open Water, also shot on a PD-150.

I'm going to be watching this again very soon in a bid to unravel the complex narrative, but it had me gripped from beginning to end. Dern was great, really good, in the leads (and it really is "leads": she plays at least three characters, I think!), and all the supporting cast are also strong. Cameos include William H Macy, Diane Ladd, and Pirate Master host Cameron Daddo -- I shit you not!

If you like Lynch, you've probably already seen this. If you don't like him, you probably never will watch it. For this one, though, I'm going to wheel out the old scoring system!

Acting: 17
Story: 15
Direction: 18
Enjoyment: 18
Involvement: 19
Total: 87

The Mark of Cain

2007-08-17T17:01:00.000Z

The British TV movie The Mark of Cain tells the tale of UK soldiers in Iraq: their experiences there, both with each other and with the natives; as well as how they deal with what they have seen once they return home.

The story hinges upon one particular evening when a group of soldiers torture a pair of Iraqis. But this is not an isolated incident, and nor is it frowned upon further up the chain of command. Indeed, involvement seems mandatory.

While the film makes for tough viewing at times, it is well acted throughout and manages to hold the attention. Ultimately it doesn't say a huge amount on this controversial subject, but it's better than saying nothing at all. 63 out of 100.

Thank You for Smoking

2007-08-15T09:15:00.000Z

I thought Thank You for Smoking was going to be some sort of scathing satire, but instead it was just an okay, blackly comic look at the life of a man whose job it is to, effectively, promote smoking and to downplay its harmful side effects.

The cast was good (Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, William H Macy, Robert Duvall), and the script was witty. I laughed. I seem to recall I laughed quite a bit. But ultimately the film has not stayed with me. Hardly at all. I feel a bit "so what?" about it all.

Fun while it lasted, but very forgettable. 58 out of 100

Trust the Man

2007-08-13T05:21:00.000Z

AVOID AT ALL COSTS. One of the worst films I have seen in a loooooong time. Good cast, terrible script, dull direction. Flat, "colourless", boring. Unlikable characters... I give Trust the Man 12 out of 100.

Shortbus

2007-08-10T17:13:00.000Z

I'm not quite sure now how Shortbus came to my attention, but it interested me because it combined narrative storytelling with hardcore sex scenes. This has become something of the vogue in certain circles of late, and in theory I applaud it. It is something that I foresaw coming (no pun intended) many years ago. Jeez, I hate how, in mainstream cinema, especially Hollywood, after fucking, people insist on wrapping a sheet around them to go to the bathroom. It's so lame. Anyway, I've seen a few of these "controversial" films and thought I'd give this one a go, too.

Since I like to go into films knowing as little about them as possible, I really didn't know what to expect. The name Shortbus makes you think of the transportation used by "special needs" kids to US schools, so I'm thinking Little Miss Sunshine meets Lars von Trier's The Idiots. (Now there's a pitch!) But it wasn't that. Instead it's something altogether different.

The thrust (oops, there we go again) of the story is a female couples counsellor who can't achieve orgasm. One of her couples, two gay men, recommend her to a club called Shortbus, where lots of sex is on the agenda. Experimental, gay, straight... you name it, you get to see it. (Well, not quite, but you catch my drift, I'm sure.)

There are other stories, too. The aforementioned gay couple; a miserable dominatrix; a voyeur. Throw in some home-video-making, too, and it's all happening.

Thing is, though, the stories are all extremely slight. And if one were to remove all the hardcore sex scenes (which, incidentally, are not at all titillating) , there really wouldn't be very much to the film at all.

It's not a complete waste of time, but you get the feeling it could have been oh so much better. I won't mention the acting, which in some cases was not great, simply because clearly this is a film made in a cooperative type of style, using friends, acquaintances, and people with an interest in making something different from the norm. For that alone they should be commended. It seems ungenerous, but I'll give this film 50 out of 100.

Red Road

2007-08-09T09:48:00.000Z

Red Road was one of those rare British films that did well in Sight & Sound magazine's 2006 end of year round-up, when many of the journal's critics put together their Top 5 for the year. So, of course, I was duty bound to watch it and see what all the fuss was about.

The focal point of the story is Jackie, a young woman who works in a CCTV monitoring office, overseeing the comings and goings of Glasgow at all hours of the day and night. One night she is shaken when she feels sure she has spotted the man who killed her husband in a car accident (through dangerous and/or drunk driving) -- a man she assumed was still in prison. Upon establishing that the man has indeed served his time, she then sets out to stalk him, both by CCTV and on foot, becoming ever more obsessed...

Directed by Andrea Arnold (the "Best Live-Action Short" Oscar winner in 2005), Red Road is a snail-paced but intense and riveting little thriller, sometimes leaving you almost breathless with the situations in which our heroine finds herself. Shot according to Dogme 95 rules (though you wouldn't necessarily notice it), this is a slow burner, for sure, and several scenes will undoubtedly stay with you for quite some time. I was quietly impressed, and I am perhaps more so now than I was at the time. 71 out of 100.

The Weather Man

2007-08-07T06:55:00.000Z

I like Nicolas Cage, and I'll watch most stuff that he's in, even though I know that he accepts a lot of bad work along with the good. The Weather Man was difficult to predict (ouch, pardon the pun) from the trailers which way it would go. So it got rented, just in case. It was directed by Gore Verbinski, though, so it had to be okay, I figured.

Well, it was okay. No more, no less. Cage plays a weather man who gets violently accosted in the street from time to time for getting his forecasts wrong. He has a dysfunctional family, yada yada yada. Michael Caine plays his dad.

I dunno, man, it just didn't do it for me. Sure, I laughed here and there. But it's left me with nothing, y'know. All I remember from it are the bits from the trailer. Wow, this really was a film that you could watch simply by watching the trailer...

I'm bored of my complex rating system, so I'm going back to my old way. I score this movie 43 out of 100.

Hollywoodland

2007-07-24T16:55:00.001Z

On paper, Hollywoodland was always going to be a big zero. And the mixed reviews I've heard seem to confirm that. Ben Affleck: check. Tale of long-forgotten actor: check. That big-nosed motherfucker from Summer of Sam and (yawn, probably) The Pianist: check. So far, so unappealing. But, for me at least, it worked.

When Affleck is on top of his game, I think he's pretty good as an actor. Come on, now: cast your minds back to before he became a joke, hanging out with that no-talent cunt J-Lo. Back when he didn't take himself too seriously, despite having an Oscar at such a young age (albeit for writing, not acting). He was good, man. He showed promise.

Well, Hollywoodland is a return to form for Ben, at least. And that Pianist dude was good too. And I'm gonna come right out and say it: I actually quite liked the film, too. I thought it was a nice little mystery, one of those "what if...?" type of tales, à la Agatha back in the day. I ain't rushing to watch it again or to add it to my collection, but I say it's not bad. (Put the wife to sleep, though, so I guess that's a negative point.)

Also, at the end, you kind of feel like the whole thing was a bit of a cheat, which ain't great...

Acting: 14
Story: 13
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 13
Total: 66

Volver

2007-07-23T10:13:00.000Z

Generally I like the films of Pedro Almodóvar, and Volver was no exception. It tells the story of a woman (Penélope Cruz in her native tongue), her husband, her daughter, and her mother, but it expands to include so much more. The husband is soon out of the picture, and it becomes a tale of women and womanhood.

But that is not to say this is a chick flick. Far from it. For although Almodóvar often deals with the female of the species, he is an articulate and compelling film-maker, writing roles for women that are real. Roles that not only are too good for any actress to turn down, but that are also so well written as to provide us men with a true insight into our opposite numbers.

This is a rich and rewarding film, more accessible than much of Almodóvar's work, but none the worse for that. Its weak points can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Despite initially receiving poor reviews among critics just 12 months ago, no doubt doing considerable harm to its box-office potential, Volver is already being reassessed, and the verdict seems to be a resounding thumbs-up, and rightly so. Highly recommended.

Acting: 17
Story: 17
Direction: 17
Enjoyment: 16
Involvement: 16
Total: 83

Germinal

2007-07-19T10:48:00.000Z

Another French film I remembered from way back when but had never seen, Germinal is a period tale of miners getting screwed over by their employers. When they take the only course of action left to them -- a strike -- things get pretty damn tricky. Believe me, it is actually much better, and more interesting, than it might sound!

All the cast (headed by Gérard Depardieu) do a great job, and the direction is spot on. One of those films that plays like an epic and so you brace yourself for a three-hour session only to find it runs shorter than that and that you could have sat through even more.

Acting: 14
Story: 15
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 15
Total: 72

Little Miss Sunshine

2007-07-18T10:24:00.000Z

I know it's a bit late and that Little Miss Sunshine was a talking point, like, months ago, but it's taken me ages to catch up with my backlog of reviews, so I'm only just getting to this now.

What can I say? It was funny. I laughed. Alan Arkin was great, beyond great. The girl was cute and amusing. The angst-ridden teen was relatable for almost anyone who has ever been a teenager.

The ending was funny.

But wasn't it just a bit something and nothing? Wasn't it a bit "so what"? Wasn't it a bit "jeez, really, all this fuss over this tiny film"?

A good film, yes. Diverting and entertaining, yes. Will it leave an impact on me -- or anyone, for that matter? I doubt it. Case in point: I can barely remember it now I come to write this review a few months later...

Acting: 13
Story: 11
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 13
Total: 63

Manon des Sources (aka Manon of the Spring)

2007-07-12T08:25:00.001Z

Manon des Sources picks up the story a few years after the end of Jean de Florette, when Jean's daughter Manon has grown into a beautiful young woman in the guise of Emmanuelle Béart. Manon, being the country type her father never was, is keen on taking naked swims in the hills. I don't think it's ever mentioned how old she is or how many years have passed, but knowing the French she's probably about 15, so it's a tad creepy... (in the pic here, she's considerably older).

It is during one of her swims that she is chanced upon by the dim-witted Ugolin, played by Daniel Auteuil, reprising his role from the first movie. He immediately decides to court her, and so begins his path towards inevitable disappointment.

This story line is but one of several flowing neatly through the movie. Another includes the discovery by the villagers of just who Jean and his family are, and that the information had been kept from them by Ugolin and Cesar (Yves Montand) for their own benefit. On the subject of the bad guys, once again we are drawn in by multifaceted characters, and as much as you dislike Ugolin in particular for his past actions, you can't help feeling sorry for the poor sap.

It's perhaps true that a lot of loose ends from both parts of the story are tied up a little too neatly, but I liked the circularity of the whole. I think it's imperative to watch both parts, and to watch them in the right order; I couldn't imagine seeing them any other way.

A great movie. Not quite as great as Part 1, but pretty close.

Acting: 16
Story: 16
Direction: 16
Enjoyment: 17
Involvement: 17
Total: 82

Jean de Florette

2007-07-02T08:24:00.000Z

Jean de Florette is one of those films that I'd long been aware of but had somehow never got around to watching. It tells the story of lawyer Jean who inherits a house and a plot of land in the French countryside. He decides to move there with his family to get away from the city life and start afresh, getting back to basics and living off the land and the fruits of his own labour. He has grand plans.

Unbeknown to him, though, a couple of locals have their own plans for the land, and they block up the spring that irrigates his property, rendering his plans all but useless, in the hopes that he will pack up and go home. But Jean is not easily dissuaded from pursuing his dream. The film tells the tale of Jean's continuing efforts and his interactions with the community at large.

The community is mistrusting of the stranger among them: his being a city lawyer is not the worst of it; he's a hunchback, too, and that means bad luck, plain and simple. Of course, there is another whole load of background stuff that some of the characters know about and others don't, but I don't want to reveal too much here.

The acting in this film is first-class. I know Gérard Depardieu has become something of a cliché over the years, but he puts in a tour de force performance as Jean. And the "bad guys", an uncle-and-nephew duo played to perfection by Yves Montand and Daniel Auteuil respectively, really make your skin crawl as they become more and more vindictive in their plotting.

I had never imagined how beautiful a film this would be -- one of the best I have seen in a long time. It is a rich and moving piece of work that immediately draws you under its spell. And when it ends, you know you have to rush out and grab a copy of the sequel, Manon des Sources, ASAP.

Acting: 16
Story: 17
Direction: 16
Enjoyment: 17
Involvement: 18
Total: 84

The Wind that Shakes the Barley

2007-06-17T09:48:00.000Z

Every once in a while a film comes out trying to tackle the delicate and complicated history of "the struggles" in Northern Ireland. The Wind that Shakes the Barley is one such film. I have seen some stuff on the subject, but despite the whole thing being on my doorstep, and despite having grown up during a period of bombings by the IRA, my knowledge of all of this is incredibly patchy.

I figured, though, that if anyone might be able to put together a credible, intelligent, and thought-provoking movie on the subject, then Ken Loach would be the man.

By casting the versatile young actor Cillian Murphy ("You might remember me from such films as 28 Days Later, Red Eye, and Batman Begins") in the lead, Loach could have guaranteed himself a decent-sized audience, but it's still a tricky subject. The IRA -- the early days of which this film tells the tale -- is hardly a much-loved organization here in Britain, despite it having won some misguided support in certain parts of the United States.

But to be honest with you, the performances and direction are so pitch-perfect that one actually begins to see how the IRA, in its original form, was a completely justified body. The trouble with "based on true events" type of pictures, of course, is you never know how much the truth has been stretched. I don't have the time to check the historical accuracy of the storytelling of this film, but I have faith in Ken Loach, and as such he has really opened my eyes here.

In these days of wars on terror, it's fascinating to look at the "terrorists" from the other side of the fence, from the side of, y'know, perhaps they're just protecting what is rightfully theirs. A highly recommended film from one of the masters of modern British cinema.

Acting: 16
Story: 15
Direction: 16
Enjoyment: 15
Involvement: 15
Total: 77

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

2007-06-11T09:46:00.000Z

I had high hopes for The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. The trailer looked interesting. A Hollywood movie with seemingly a lot of non-English dialogue in it. That alone must be worth the price of admission, right.

And the reviews had been good. Tommy Lee Jones was being hailed as a master of some sort. The best western since Unforgiven, we were told. I liked Unforgiven well enough back in the day, but I wouldn't bother to watch it again. I was hoping, therefore, that Three Burials would be the best western since before Unforgiven.

It's been a while since I watched it now, and I must say I was clearly not as impressed with it as Wife was. Honestly, I think it plodded. Tommy Lee Jones's Mexican friend (or would-be gay lover) is killed. By whom? We soon find out. And said inadvertent assassin accompanies Jones to bury Melquiades, for the third time, back in his home village in Mexico, hotly pursued by the po-po.

It was all right. It had some good bits. Some of the acting and photography was nice. But, I don't know, it just left me a bit "so what?", you know?

Acting: 14
Story: 12
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 12
Involvement: 13
Total: 65

The Edukators

2007-06-04T07:47:00.000Z

I was looking forward to German/Austrian film The Edukators after seeing a trailer for it. It seemed a pretty interesting premise. A small band of anti-capitalist types break into the houses of the wealthy and rearrange all their stuff, just to put the shits up them and make them feel less safe. Its original German title, Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei, translates, I believe, as "Your days of plenty are numbered", and this is what they write on a note they leave in their victims' homes.

So far, so straightforward. Until a job is planned on the basis of revenge, and the victim returns home unexpectedly, recognizing one of the perpetrators. What can they do but kidnap him? This is the plot twist that propels the rest of the story, as the three protagonists realize that perhaps this man was once not so very different from themselves.

If there is a fault with The Edukators, it is that it goes on about 20 minutes too long. I've complained previously in this blog about films being too long, but it's not that I'm unable to hold either my bladder or my concentration. Morover, it's that I see very little point in getting to the middle section and starting to meander around, filling time.

I know, filmatically, that this is exactly the place to do such a thing, but there comes a point when it has been taken too far, and this film suffers from that. You end up not really caring who "wins" or "loses" in this situation.

Otherwise, the picture is full of great performances. Lead actor Daniel Brühl had already piqued my interest in the wonderful Good Bye, Lenin!, and action fans should be able to see him in the forthcoming Bourne Ultimatum. The kidnap victim is played by Burghart Klaußner, who also appeared in Good Bye, Lenin! and was very good in the soon-to-be-reviewed-here Requiem, too. Meanwhile, Julia Jentsch also put in a credible showing, as one might expect from the actress who won not only the Bavarian Film Award for Best Young Actress for this role, but also the Best Actress gong at the Berlin International Film Festival (as well as four other wins at other festivals) for the lead role in the critically acclaimed Sophie Scholl.

All in all, I gladly endorse this movie. It has a strong story, even if it goes off track for 15 minutes; it's nicely played; and it's likely to stay with you a bit. Hey, it might even make you think. And that's surely not a bad thing...

The scores
Acting: 15
Story: 14
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 14
Involvement: 15
Total: 71

Casino Royale: contains spoilers

2007-05-30T08:36:00.000Z

First, to my ever-dwindling band of readers, sorry for the hiatus. No wonder my numbers have dropped, right? Anyway, I have a huge list of reviews to do, but I'll start with last night's movie: Casino Royale.

You may or may not know, but traditionally I hate James Bond films. From a childhood glimpse of Live and Let Die, I knew this was not a genre for me. It was like a bad episode of The Dukes of Hazzard... and that's bad. And I don't mean bad as in good, ya dig?

But big things were promised by the new Bond for the third millennium. A gritty, back-to-basics kind of anti-hero. I'm not one to hold a grudge, so I figured I'd give it a go.

Well, y'know, it wasn't worth it. An hour in and I still didn't know what the fuck was going on. Something to do with money and African freedom fighters. And espionage of some sort. Or something.

Then there was some poker. I love poker. Big fan of poker. Love playing a game of hold 'em. Didn't so much love Giancarlo Giannini's constant narration for the uninitiated in the audience. But I suppose it was necessary.

Then, all of a sudden James Bond is declaring his undying love for this colleague he met like two days ago. He wants to quit the biz and settle down. Um, did I miss something? Was there a missing reel? (I rather hope not, since by this point the film had been running for about nine days.) "He must be playing her," I say. "He can't be in love with her. He's stringing her along. No?" But he wasn't. He really did love Vesper. Oh, puh-lease. Who wrote this shit?!

Sure, you might say, "Well, Bond is about action, not dialogue." Yeah, well the action scenes were boring, man. Like five, six, seven minutes of a couple of guys tussling and chasing and shooting. Very dull viewing.

I don't know. I came to this with a very open mind. I had high hopes, in fact. But not too high: it was still Bond, after all. But I was disappointed. The acting was so-so across the board; the script was really quite bad; and the action was dull. It just didn't sizzle.

As the new Bond, Daniel Craig was reasonably appealing, though I think he's too much of a beefcake. But the Bond girls weren't sexy or interesting. The great Mads Mikkelsen made a good stab at villain Le Chiffre, but he wasn't given enough to do and ended up being killed off too early. And the ending was predictable: that Vesper had stitched up Bond.

Oh well. This was a boring, naff movie. A Royale with too much cheese, if you will.

Scores:
Acting: 9
Story: 5
Direction: 9
Enjoyment: 11
Involvement: 10
Total: 44

Coming soon: The Edukators, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources, Little Miss Sunshine, Volver, The Weather Man, Red Road, Hollywoodland, Thank You for Smoking, Mark of Cain, Cronos, Sunset Blvd., Requiem, Baise-Moi, A Self-Made Hero, Sheitan (aka Satan)

Tzameti (aka 13 Tzameti)

2007-04-24T05:58:00.000Z

Once in a while, you see a low-budget movie made with friends and family that really makes you think, "Yes, this is what film-making is all about." Tzameti (which is the Georgian word for 13, making the supposed alternative title somewhat tautological) is just such a film.

Shot in France, it is the story of a young Georgian man who, upon the death of his boss, stumbles upon an opportunity to make a good deal of money... something that is in short supply now that he is out of a job.

He follows mysterious instructions and finds himself involved in a deadly game. There's not much more that I can say about the plot without giving it all away. I may already have given away more than I should have.

The film is shot in grainy black-and-white, and the lead actor is the director's brother (undoubtedly why he is shot so lovingly). Of course, there are things that suffer with a low budget, and one of them is often the acting. But I think we can look past that to some extent... Overall, a fascinating little film. Catch it before the remake comes out (I shit you not, it's coming).

Scores
Acting: 12
Story: 13
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 14
Involvement: 15
Total: 69

Hard Candy

2007-04-15T08:53:00.000Z

I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from Hard Candy, although I vaguely knew it had something to do with paedophilia and chatroom pickups. (Readers may know that I prefer to go into films with as little knowledge of the plot as possible.)

Essentially, this film is a two-hander, and one could easily believe that it might originally have been written as a stage play (I don't know whether it was or not, but it has that vibe). We have the Internet prowler, trawling the Web for underage girls, and we have an underage girl.

They arrange to meet at a café. On the wall near the table they choose, we see a poster requesting information about a missing schoolgirl. The guy tells the girl he's a photographer; he seduces her on a mental level; she flirts with him on a sexual level. We feel she's playing a dangerous game -- that this guy will eat her and spit her out, and no one will ever know they met.

She goes back to his place...

Strangely enough, I felt this film was a little slow to get going. That said, it may have been solely that it was quite uncomfortable in those opening scenes, and that as a viewer you almost want not to be there, watching this seedy meeting unfold. But once the pair go back to the guy's house, the pace picks up.

I won't give away any spoilers (as is my way), and I would urge anyone considering watching this to learn no more about the film than what I have revealed above.

There are elements in the film that are really good (such as the general feeling of discomfort and unease that is evoked), and there are things that detract. One of the latter is the film's length: even at just 103 minutes, it's about quarter of an hour too long.

Overall, though, this was an interesting and diverting film, better than some others I have seen on a similar theme.

Scores
Acting: 13
Story: 13
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 14
Total: 67

The Family Stone

2007-04-12T16:50:00.000Z

Needless to say, The Family Stone was not my choice of movie, but the missus and I take it in turns to choose stuff. I'm nothing if not democratic, y'know. Red likes all that Sex & the City stuff, so a film with "Carrie" in it, not to mention her latest love Rachel McAdams, was always going to be a shoo-in. And I don't mind Dermot "Wolf" Mulroney and Diane Keaton, so what the hell, right?

SJP plays an uptight posh chick who goes with her boyfriend to his family for Thanksgiving. The family pretty much hate her; not so much because she is uptight and posh, but more because she is socially incompetent and says all the wrong things.

During the course of the vacation, it is boyfriend Mulroney's intention to ask SJP to marry him, but the path of true love, as they say, never runs smooth.

This is yet another in that current spate of Hollywood movies that starts out as a pretty funny comedy, then takes a maudlin, morbid, tragic turn. What the fuck is with that? Anyway, fortunately some restraint was employed by the writers and directors, who, along with a fine ensemble cast, pulled the whole thing together very nicely. Even Claire Danes goes some way towards compensating for her shit-awful performance in the pretty-darn-bad Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Scores
Acting: 14
Story: 13
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 13
Total: 66

Tribute to director Bob Clark, who died yesterday

2007-04-05T09:19:00.000Z

Every Christmas I try to find time to watch A Christmas Story, for no other reason than it is probably the overall best Christmas film in the known universe. Sure, we likely are all in agreement that It's A Wonderful Life is really the best Christmas film in terms of message and film-making and performances, and it rightly deserves its long-held crown, but for out-and-out fun A Christmas Story just takes the cake.

The story, if you've never seen it (and if you've never seen it, you're probably not an American, since it seems to be a national institution over there), is set in the 1940s and revolves around young schoolboy Ralphie and his desire for a particular brand of BB airgun as a Christmas gift. "You'll shoot your eye out," is the mantra repeated to him by sensible adults throughout the film, but still he wants it, and still we want him to get it.

Other key characters are Ralphie's younger brother Randy and their parents, all of whom are wholly believable in their roles. And there's a raft of wonderful scenes. Who can forget the "your tongue won't stick to a frozen telegraph pole" bet (pictured above)? Or the bunny suit? Or the fight between Ralphie and nemesis Scut Farkus? If you've never seen it, go rent it now, while you're still feeling almost festive.

Scores:
Acting: 13
Story: 15
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 17
Cerebral pleasure: 13
Total: 71

25th Hour

2007-04-03T16:08:00.000Z

As a longtime semi-fan of Spike Lee, I'd had 25th Hour on my "to watch" list ever since it first came out. I was interested in the setting in post-9/11 New York, keen to see Ed Norton, willing to pay money for another great Lee flick. So even though all the details added up right, for some reason it's taken until now for me to get around to watching this film.

The basic premise is simple enough: one evening in the presence of Ed Norton, who, the following day, is going to prison on a drugs rap. He hangs with his father, his girlfriend, a couple of old schoolfriends, his dog, his colleague... What we have here, ladies and gents, is a character study and a treatise on the value of relationships.

The performances are almost all strong, with really only one duff note. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper are good, as you'd expect, Brian Cox even better, and Rosario Dawson very appealing. The weak link is the drastically overrated (well she must be rated highly by someone since she gets so much damn work) Anna Paquin. Nothing of her character rings true -- from the oh-so-obviously-fake tattoo, to her role as a schoolgirl, to... well, it all sucks.

Paquin's appearance is a shame, because it really hurts what was otherwise a pretty good movie -- funnily enough, much as I felt Jodie Foster's did in Lee's Inside Man. Does Spike suffer the same problem as Tarantino, in that he can't write convincing roles for women? It's sure starting to look that way...

Scores
Acting: 12 (severely penalized for Paquin)
Story: 13
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 14
Involvement: 15
Total: 69

Tsotsi

2007-04-02T12:02:00.000Z

I'm not very au fait with South African cinema, so the Oscar-winning Tsotsi was a good place to start my education. It's been a while now since I've seen it, and to some extent I'm concerned any review I might write will not truly do it justice, so I'm going to keep it brief and let the numbers do the talking.

This is a good little drama with strong performances from unknown actors and nice direction and camera work.

In brief, title character Tsotsi (whose name means "thug") steals a car without realizing there is a baby in the back seat. What happens next drives the entire film, so I won't say any more.

By turns, scarily violent and emotionally involving, Tsotsi is certainly deserving of your time.

Scores
Acting: 13
Story: 13
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 15
Involvement: 15
Total: 70

Crimson Tide

2007-03-28T19:00:00.000Z

Since I am trying to watch and appreciate more Tony Scott films of late, I figured it was about time I tried Crimson Tide. Despite it having been script-doctored by Quentin Tarantino, I've simply never got around to seeing it before.

Well, long story short: I wish I hadn't bothered. The story was dumb; the acting (with one or two exceptions) mostly unconvincing; the tension non-existent; and the dialogue awful. And those bits that one might assume are Tarantino's contribution (i.e., those that dwell on comic books and movie stars) just stick out like a big ol' sore thumb.

This was a bad movie. I wish I hadn't bothered. I am fast going off Tony Scott...

Scores
Acting: 12
Story: 5
Direction: 12
Enjoyment: 8
Involvement: 5
Total: 42

The 6th Day

2007-03-27T12:59:00.000Z

I knew I was on to a loser when I opted to watch The 6th Day, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and, um, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I mean how much bad acting can one movie stand?! And the scenes where he "acts" with himself are so very bad that I almost couldn't look. It was like some sort of anti-masterclass in acting and screen presence

This. Movie. Was. Bad.

Sure, some of the basic, slightly Philip K Dick-type ideas were quite good, but overall it was a rambling, derivative mess. It's one of those "two hours I'll never get back" films.

I'd advise you to avoid this pile of stinking horse shit at all costs.

Scores
Acting: What acting?! 6
Story: 10
Direction: 8
Enjoyment: 8
Involvement: 8
Total: 40

Review #100: Mulholland Dr.

2007-03-24T13:36:00.000Z

It will come as no surprise to my regular readers to know that I liked Mulholland Dr. a lot. I am writing this review after having watched it for the third time, twice in as many months. People love David Lynch or hate him. There seems not to be much middle ground. I love him, and I've loved him for about 15 years, so I consider myself a relative newcomer.

And despite watching Lynch works for 15 years, half the time he can still leave me completely flummoxed. When I first saw this film five years or so ago at the cinema, I had no idea what was going on, but I knew I was fucking terrified. The other thing I knew was that I was surprised at how the critics were raving about the movie. Not because it was bad, but because they had crucified Lynch for Lost Highway just a few years earlier, and I felt much of the ground covered in the two movies was similar. How could professional critics hate LH and love MD, which, arguably, was in some ways derivative of that earlier work? (Indeed, such was the acclaim that Lynch was nominated for the Best Director Oscar for this film.)

No matter. Fuck the critics. I liked what I saw. But could it hold my interest a second time on DVD? Would I be able to watch it alone at night with the lights down?

Second time around, Mulholland Dr. is a little less twisty, but not much -- perhaps that was due to a gap of five years between viewings, though. And this time around I had taken the list of David Lynch's "clues to unlocking the film's secrets". While they didn't necessarily help as much as some people might have expected, they did at least help focus the mind at certain points in the film. They helped give a sense of exactly who was whom, and when, as well as starting to create a sense of chronology out of the mayhem.

For the third viewing, I had committed as much of this stuff to memory as possible before starting the film. And what's really fascinating is that the whole film seemed to take on a subtly different feel. The dark, Lynchian terror is still there, of course, but I felt more open to the humour than before. (Humour has always been present in much of Lynch's work, but the more tense you are as a viewer, the more hidden the humour is, if that makes sense.)

But not only that. I also felt that despite "knowing" the secrets of the film and "knowing" the movie's chronology, it still had many rich, as-yet-unrevealed layers to work through. The dream-like feel becomes even more so. The cuts to new scenes seem even more obviously cuts to different timelines, which sometimes they are and sometimes they're not, I guess. Just because you "know" the film, there is still so much you don't really know...

Naomi Watts plays her role to perfection. On first viewing I thought the acting was quite poor. That's not wholly unusual in Lynch work, but I'm beginning to see it as a stylistic choice, as strange as that sounds. This is more apparent here, in Watts's performance, than in any previous Lynch movie. The way she moves from quirky, ditzy, small-town wannabe actress to protective detective to actress extraordinaire (in her audition) is faultless. And what is fascinating here is the way in which Lynch seems to be saying: "Look how fake people look when they act "normal", and how "real" they look when they are clearly faking." Just excellent!

Laura Harring also makes a strong impression as the car-crash victim with amnesia -- the catalyst for the whole movie. Again, it's one of those "is thais bad acting or good acting" performances that just might not appeal to you. No such questions can be asked of Justin Theroux, however, who puts in a great showing as the director of the film-within-a-film. He's a real standout.

And the Spanish-language version of Roy Orbison's "Crying", performed by Rebekah Del Rio, is simply phenomenal.

When it comes to films that make you doubt everything you see, this must surely be the zenith. It's a twisty-turny thing of beauty that must be seen to be (dis)believed. While not currently my favourite David Lynch movie, Mulholland Dr. is making great strides in the right direction, currently sitting in fourth place, after Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me (91 points), Blue Velvet (88), and just one point behind Lost Highway (84) at the time of this review.

Scores
Acting: 14
Story: 16
Direction: 18
Enjoyment: 17
Involvement: 18
Total: 83

Note: Check out Candy Minx's post here for 10 clues to unlocking Mulholland Dr., and this page of IMDb for notes on the movie's timeline.

Brick

2007-03-21T08:43:00.000Z

I expected great things of Brick. I enjoyed the trailers, and it received pretty good reviews. So I bought the DVD without having seen it.

It's a story of drugs, murder, and a murder investigation. There's a drug lord, his hired muscle, a detective, his loyal sidekick, and a femme fatale. It's a film noir. And it's set in a modern-day American high school. Yes, they've taken those two staples of US cinema and mixed them together into one great concept.

So, does it work?

Well, on a certain level it does. It's surprising just how well, in fact. But there are some incongruities. The scene in the assistant vice-principal's office didn't play out for me. It just seemed too forced.

And the age of the actors also hindered my viewing pleasure. Fans of gritty cop show The Shield will recognize Brian White, who played Tavon in season 3. White was born in 1973. What the fuck is he doing playing a high-school student in 2005, age 32?! The lead role of Brendan is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, age 24; and Laura is played by Heroes star Laura Zehetner, also 24 years old. Come on, let's get real and cast some people who look like they could actually be schoolkids!

What could have been a great and original film turned into an interesting but flawed experiment in mixing genres. And the tale got so convoluted that it was even necessary to have Brendan tell the viewers exactly what the fuck happened! A shame...

Scored
Acting: 13
Story: 13
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 14
Involvement: 15
Total: 69

Welcome to the Jungle (aka The Rundown)

2007-03-20T11:28:00.000Z

Knowing how much Red loves The Rock, it was inevitable that we should watch Welcome to the Jungle when it came to TV. It's actually so long since I saw it now, that I don't remember much about it other than the following:
1. It wasn't really that good;
2. There was a good joke about how in Brazil they call Brazil nuts just "nuts";
3. There was an insane but cool fight scene;
4. Monkeys.

The Rock, though, was his usual sweet self, and it was he who made the film bearable for more than just a few minutes.

Edit: Of course, so did Chris Walken, even though I forgot to mention him when I originally wrote this review! He lights up everything he's in, though...

Scores
Acting: 11
Story: 8
Direction: 11
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 12
Total: 55

Domino

2007-03-10T10:05:00.000Z

I had mixed feeling in advance of watching Tony Scott's kind-of-based-on-a-
true-story film Domino. I have a love/hate relationship with Scott's work, although I'm coming to the conclusion there's actually very little love in it. In fact, most of what I see by Scott is average at best, and Domino is the same.

The tale told is that of the daughter of British '60s screen legend Laurence Harvey, who was in the original version of The Manchurian Candidate, among other things. She, as a young woman, becomes a bounty hunter... as you do. So far, so barely credible. But it's a "true" story, so you hang in there.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have a preconceived idea of what the average bounty hunter looks like, and Keira Knightley doesn't figure in it.* Not that I think Knightley is particularly attractive. Indeed, I think she's kind of weird looking, with that jaw-jut, bucket-lip thing she's got going on and that way-too-skinny-for-my-
tastes body (if you can call it that). But, y'know, whatever floats yer boat. It's more that she weighs about 6lb wet and is as scrawny as fuck. There's no meat on her; there's no logical reason for us as viewers to suspend our disbelief. She. Just. Don't. Fit.

I think bounty hunters, male or female, should look more like Mickey Rourke: butt-ugly, tough-looking motherfuckers who you know have had to work hard at staying alive in their chosen profession. I'm not a mad Mickey fan, but he does an okay job here. Not as rockin' as in Sin City, but a close second.

Anyway... yada yada yada, another Mexican stand-off, yada yada yada, this time with helicopters. I mean, this is the Mexican stand-off to end 'em all. But too ridiculous.

This film, by and large, bored me. And I thought the direction was among Scott's worst. The repetitious style he used throughout was appalling. For my money, there was very little to recommend. Of course, you're welcome to seek a second opinion, so why not read this or this from two of my blogmates.

* And it seems I was right about this. The real Domino makes a brief cameo at the very end (if you last that long). She looks cool enough, but she ain't movie-star pretty, y'know. C'mon, Tony: keep it real, motherfucker!

Scores
Acting: 11
Story: 13
Direction: 8
Enjoyment: 8
Involvement: 8
Total: 48

The Libertine

2007-03-06T10:41:00.001Z

I didn't know much about The Libertine when going into it, other than it being about the life of bawdy poet The Earl of Rochester and that it starred Johnny Depp, who is one of my favourite actors. The tale that unravels is a sorry affair, both in its tragic content and its tragic telling.

Let's start with the positive: the story is fascinating. The lighting choices are interesting. And Johnny Depp puts in a great performance, unrecognizable at times through his later disfigurement.

But there's very little else I can say that is good. The other actors are by and large bad. The scenes in which Depp plays with some of the minor British actors are cut together in such a way that one suspects he was never in the same room with them. And the direction is leaden and amateurish.

One last thing, and it's almost unheard of for me to say this: the most interesting thing about the tale was the love story between Rochester and his wife -- or rather, her love that is undying, despite the odds against it -- and this is woefully undertold.

I would say avoid at all costs, but the story and Depp are big draws. Just be warned...

Scores
Acting: 8
Story: 11
Direction: 4
Enjoyment: 10
Involvement: 8
Total: 41

A Cock and Bull Story

2007-03-05T09:32:00.000Z

I like Michael Winterbottom and the various types of pies in which he has his film-making fingers. You never know quite what he's going to do next, and that's great. A Cock and Bull Story is a fictional behind-the-scenes look at the making of a film version of the classic 18th-century Laurence Sterne novel The Life And Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, and it stars British comedians Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon.

It's a battle of wills, with each of the comic actors trying to upstage one another. It's an amusing look at the film-making process. It's the attempt to film an "unfilmable" book. It's all of these things and more.

I'm not a Steve Coogan fan. Nor am I a fan of Rob Brydon. Indeed, there are very few actors in this film that I particularly like usually. But the film is bigger than any one of its parts.

Would I buy this film on DVD? Probably not, unless I found it at a real bargain price, but it is definitely worth the cost of a rental fee and an hour an a half of your time. Sure, it's no Living In Oblivion, but what is?

Scores
Acting: 13
Story: 12
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 14
Involvement: 14
Total: 68

Quo Vadis, Baby?

2007-02-25T09:32:00.000Z

To be honest, it's a while now since I watched Quo Vadis, Baby?, and it hasn't really stayed with me at all. Much of the time, if I don't write a review straightaway, it's because I was uninspired. That's not always the case, but often.

Essentially, this is a film about a female private detective trying to track down who killed her sister some years earlier. What prompts her to do this after 16 years is the arrival of hours and hours of video-diary type material made by her sister that arrives on her desk one day.

The plot leads her to pay particular interest in her sister's last lover...

While watching this film, I was half enjoying it, but it was rather dull, and even though it didn't always go where you thought it would, it still had a sense of the obvious about it, the mundane, the retrodden.

It was all right, but not much more than that, with a couple of half-decent bits here and there.

The scores
Acting: 13
Story: 13
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 12
Involvement: 12
Total: 63

Good Night, And Good Luck.

2007-02-22T10:05:00.000Z

It was with a degree of trepidation that I approached the George Clooney-helmed Good Night, And Good Luck., so bitterly disappointed had I been with his directorial debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. And on the surface of it, a parallel could easily be drawn between the two films.

Both movies deal with that classic perceived Cold War threat to America, Communism; and both deal with behind-the-scenes life in the world of television -- a world, of course, that Clooney knows only too well, albeit in another era.

That, I am delighted to say, is where the similarities end. Good Night, And Good Luck. is almost flawless if not always thrilling, telling a small story of CBS TV anchorman Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joe McCarthy at the time of his "witch hunts", seeking out supposed communists across the USA.

The film is beautifully shot; it has a message that is probably more relevant today than it was in the 1950s, when this true story is set; and the acting is perfectly understated by the strong ensemble cast, which includes Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey Jr, Frank Langella, and Clooney himself, and is headed up by the wonderful David Strathairn, who surely would have picked up the Oscar had it not been for Philip Seymour Hoffman's knockout performance in Capote.

And this film also knows how not to overstay its welcome, clocking in at less than an hour and a half once you take out the end credits. Perfect!

Scores
Acting: 16
Story: 16
Direction: 14
Enjoyment: 15
Involvement: 16
Total: 77

Lost Highway

2007-02-17T23:35:00.000Z

As a longtime David Lynch fan, I have decided to rewatch both Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. in advance of seeing Inland Empire next month. I've previously seen the former twice (once at the cinema and once on DVD); this was my third viewing.

I find Lynch movies to be terrifying. Most of the most Lynchian ones among them -- i.e., not The Straight Story, The Elephant Man, and Dune -- are, to me, more horrific than most horror movies. Indeed, I think of Lynch as the creator and one true exponent of what I term the "urban horror movie", a genre that takes the most grotesque elements of our everyday lives and tosses them all into the pot, making us hope we never have to venture out into the world again.

Third time around, I found LH to be less scary than the previous times, but this is almost certainly because I was already aware of the gist of the movie, and also because I was watching with a view to seeing things I hadn't noticed before.

On the surface, LH is a murder mystery. There are touches of noir and Hitchcock in there, too: the doppelganger; the platinum blonde; the wrong man. But beyond that, don't ask me to say what's going on. And there's a lot of humour, as always in Lynchland: who among us can forget the "I hate tailgaters" scene with Mr Eddie (expertly played by the great Robert Loggia)? Less funny, of course, is the glass-table scene.

The acting -- going back to a comment-box conversation I recently had with Red and Candy -- was something I paid particular attention to this time. And I found it more convincing than I have before. It's so awful and so stilted, and the dialogue so ... banal ..., that it is absolutely the way people are in real life.

I loved Lost Highway. But then I never understood why the critics hated it anyway. And now I'm itching to see Mulholland Dr. again too.

Scores
Acting: 15
Story: 16
Direction: 18
Enjoyment: 17
Involvement: 18
Total: 84

Junebug

2007-02-17T08:29:00.000Z

I had high hopes for Junebug because I seemed to read quite a lot of favourable reviews here and there.

The story starts with a female gallery owner (or worker, I forget which) meeting a potential art collector and soon after marrying him. On a trip to check out some work by an artist, the pair realize they are going to be near to his family home. She has never met his family, so they decide to go visit. This is where the fun both begins and ends.

It turns out that this classy, intellectual art lover of a husband actually comes from a family not far removed from trailer trash. They are nice, but they don't fully understand the new daughter-in-law and are a little hostile towards her, fearing she is being judgmental.

That is, all except the other non-blood-family member (wonderfully played by Amy Adams), who is about ready to give birth to a baby. This sweet girl really takes to the newcomer and wants to be her BFF.

This is another of those bittersweet comedies that seem so popular in Hollywood these days. They start out all comedic, and then after the first 45 minutes, it all gets really depressing and it ends up that you feel like slashing your wrists. Or just switching off and going to sleep.

The best bits are those with Adams, closely followed by the subplot about the artist, who was also played brilliantly.

I didn't mind this film, but Hollywood needs to get out of this "you mustn't laugh; life is a sack of shit" funk in which it has found itself.

Scores
Acting: 14
Story: 12
Direction: 12
Enjoyment: 12
Involvement: 13
Total: 63

The Break-Up

2007-02-09T09:01:00.000Z

As you might have imagined, The Break-Up tells the story of the dissolution of a relationship. The couple in question are played by Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughan.

After dinner one evening with both families at their flat, Aniston and Vaughan have a bit of a falling-out. It ends with her saying it's over; he leaves the apartment. When he returns later that night, she's asleep in their room, and he takes the sofa-bed.

You know right there that this whole thing could likely have been resolved by him joining her in bed, or by her waiting up for him. We've all had arguments with our partners, so we recognize how little things can get blown out of proportion in the aftermath of a row.

There's a sad inevitability to the ensuing events, even though the film is peppered with humour. Both leads put in great efforts, and Aniston really shines. Not for the first time, she impressed me. Vaughan is Vaughan, only bigger than ever. And of course wherever Vaughan is, you also get Jon Favreau. Yeah, we loved you both in Swingers, guys, but isn't it enough already? (That said, the gag about not being Columbo was reasonably funny only because you were both in Made with Peter Falk.)

A good film. I enjoyed it while watching it. I laughed; I got that it was sad. But I don't think I'd watch it again. Perhaps it's just not that sort of film, though.

The scores
Acting: 14
Story: 12
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 13
Involvement: 14
Total: 66

Inside Man

2007-02-08T12:41:00.000Z

I had been looking forward to seeing Inside Man for quite some time. I like Spike Lee generally, and I have liked him from way before he became "accessible" to mainstream white America.

What I find now, though, is that his fiction movies are becoming less politicized. Not that that's a bad thing. And I wonder whether this stems from his greater involvement in documentary film-making in recent years. Perhaps now that he has an outlet for his political thoughts, he doesn't feel the need to bog down his fiction with it? It will be fascinating to see how he gets on with TV drama if his show about New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina comes to fruition.

Anyways, that's a whole other ball game. For now, let's talk about the movie at hand, which stars Brits Clive Owen and Chiwetel Ejiofor alongside heavywight Hollywood Oscar winners Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster. As much as I like Ejiofor, I was never a fan of Owen until Sin City and Closer. In both films he was a revelation, and I've come to quite like him now. He was good again in Inside Man.

This film combines several of my favourite things:
a heist plotline; a macguffin; a 1940s-type noir-inspired soundtrack, with shades of Herrmann and even Badalamenti.

Almost the whole of the plot is the heist, and I'd go on to say that this is a first-class heist picture. I wish Lee had left it at that. Because although I like macguffins, this one could have been dropped altogether, doing away with Jodie Foster entirely, and it would have been a far stronger picture. As it was, the last 15 minutes felt tacked on and a letdown after what was a blistering, exciting film up to that point.

That said, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long time, and it certainly deserves a place on my DVD shelf.

The scores
Acting: 16
Story: 16
Direction: 17
Enjoyment: 16
Involvement: 18
Total: 83

The Naked Kiss

2007-02-06T12:22:00.000Z

Longtime readers may well remember that I am quite a fan of the work of Sam Fuller, and The Naked Kiss is one of my favourite Fuller movies. I got the Criterion Collection DVD of this film for Christmas, so I put it in the player and forced Wife to sit beside me and watch it.

She's not big on Fuller. It goes back to one time when I was watching Shock Corridor while she was sleeping beside me on the couch. The thing with Shock Corridor is that it goes from very quiet, non-speaking parts, to sudden screams of anguish, being as it's set in an asylum and all. Her being woken up by screaming loons is, I think, what has put her off the Sam. But I digress.

Like many of Fuller's movies, The Naked Kiss is heavy on melodrama. Sheesh, it's the tried-and-tested tale of a whore with a heart. Former call girl moves to new town to make a change and starts working at an orphanage/children's hospital. She falls in love with the town's chief benefactor, much to the chagrin of his best mate, a cop who she slept with on her first night in town. Melodrama. That's why we love Fuller's films, though. While he perhaps wasn't the best director of actors, he sure knew how to tell a story, how to show it on the screen, how to make you not want to watch anymore and yet, somehow, feel you have to.

This is what happened to Wife watching this film with me. And oh! the audible gasp from her lips with that big reveal. It was a joy to behold, let me tell you.

Sure, there's a lengthy sequence of children singing that may well test your patience. But it's so long and so over the top that it can only be Fuller pushing the boundaries. It's sweetly sick rather than sickly sweet, though.

This is rightly a classic that should be enjoyed and savoured. Warts and all.

The scores
Acting: 10
Story: 13
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 16
Involvement: 16
Total: 68

Click here for my review of Fuller's Pickup on South Street, too.

United 93

2007-02-04T15:01:00.000Z

We all know the story told in United 93. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda hijackers took control of four aeroplanes in a terrorist attack on the United States. Two of them ploughed into the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center; one was flown into the Pentagon; and the fourth was United 93. On that plane, fearing the worst, and having learned from frantic calls to loved ones that their plane was going to be used as a flying missile somewhere in the United States, the passengers fought back, albeit ultimately in vain.

These are the facts such as we know them today, notwithstanding numerous conspiracy theories of varying credibility.

I have watched almost every film and documentary on 9/11 that has crossed my path, but this is far and away one of the most traumatic I have seen.

Some of the reasons for the power of this film include: several key roles of armed-service and air-traffic control personnel are played by the people themselves; the cast of actors is largely made up of "unknowns"; and incredibly taut direction by Brit helmer Paul Greengrass. He puts you right in that plane on the edge of your seat for a huge chunk of the running time.

How this movie is not in contention for Best Picture at the Oscars this year is beyond me. I don't think I will see a film as good as this in quite some time. Thankfully, Greengrass has not been overlooked, and he is up for Best Director.

You might say, "Well, it's easy to manipulate the viewer and provoke an emotional response when you use a true story with an inevitable ending." Sure, I accept that on a certain level. But how many true-life films have you seen that are shit? My guess is: almost every one you ever watched. This is a horse of a different colour entirely. All those disaster movies you've seen? All those plane-hijack scenes you've watched? They will be as nothing to you once you have watched United 93.

The one thing that caught me off guard slightly, and I don't understand why Greengrass did it, was the use of David Rasche in a small but potentially important role. Rasche used to play the lead role in an offbeat US comedy show called Sledge Hammer! way way way back, so his appearance slightly shattered my concentration on the film at hand. This unnecessary known actor broke the tension a little too much for this viewer.

The scores
Acting: 14
Story: 14
Direction: 17
Enjoyment: 16
Involvement: 18
Total: 79

Inside Deep Throat

2007-02-03T13:11:00.000Z

Never having seen Deep Throat, I nonetheless threw myself in to watch Inside Deep Throat, which is a documentary about the making, impact, and legacy of that seminal porn movie. The film is narrated by Dennis Hopper and was made for HBO, so how bad could it be?

Truth is, it's not a bad movie. Indeed, it's good enough that you want it to be a bit longer than its 90 minute running time; but at the same time, the reason you want it longer (ooh er, missus) is because it's a bit lacking in substance. So, something of a dilemma, then.

Of course, while the film is, on the surface, about a porn movie, it's really about breaking social taboos and fighting censorship in general. It's about the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. So there really was plenty of scope to make something of an epic documentary here. A lost opportunity perhaps.

Still, there's a bunch of talking heads of varying degrees of interest, including Norman Mailer, Bill Maher, Larry Flynt, and Hugh Hefner.

A couple of standout scenes for me were:

(1) porn actresses at a recent Adult Video Awards ceremony being asked if they'd seen Deep Throat. They all replied that they hadn't, with one asking, "Oh, isn't that with that woman who died? I forget her name." This is a bugbear for me, and so commonplace these days: that people have no idea of their history, not even within their chosen professions, whether porn, "respectable" film-making, or the music industry. Get aware, people.

(2) the idiot prosecutor who prosecuted Deep Throat way back when. He said something to the effect of how he was looking forward to getting the world rid of terrorists and heavily implied that then we would be able to get on with the real work of fighting immorality such as porn. Fucking dumb cunt.

So, the scores on the doors for this: 60 points -- not all it could have been, but not bad.

Hidden (aka Caché)

2007-02-01T18:37:00.001Z

This is an old review, but I'm re-running it up-front, so to speak, because I think it's a sin that this movie has been overlooked in this year's Oscar nominations.

Michael Haneke is fast becoming one of my favourite directors. I think of him as the David Lynch of "foreign" cinema. Indeed, so much so that Hidden starts with a couple receiving video tapes of their house under surveillance, à la Lynch's Lost Highway. A little further in, a dinner guest tells a story about a dog, the punchline of which is identical to Jack Nance's canine tale in Wild at Heart. A fair amount of the film plays out in near darkness, as does much of Lynch's oeuvre, especially the last third, apparently, of his upcoming Inland Empire.

So, is Haneke a dirty robbing bastard? Well, I rather think not. What he is is a great film-maker creating often challenging pieces of work that play with notions of time and personal interrelations. Hidden sees a return to the theme of rewinding time, in this case, videotape, much as he did so brilliantly in one key scene in Funny Games. It also adds fuel to my belief that he is obsessed with doorways.

I really liked this film, despite having to watch it in three sittings. Just think how much more I would have liked it in one. 80 out of 100.

The Proposition

2007-01-31T16:21:00.000Z

What most intrigued me about The Proposition from the outset was that it was scripted by songwriter/musician Nick Cave. I have a certain fascination with Renaissance men, possibly because I quite fancy myself as one. Or is that jack of all trades, master of none? Yeah, maybe that's what I am.

The film also had an interesting cast, including Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, and Emily Watson (whom Wife loathes, incidentally). So it was that it ended up on our viewing schedule over the Christmas period. Yes, yes, that's how far behind I have fallen with some of my reviews.

Set in the founding days of Australia, the film tells of the titular deal struck between policeman Winstone and criminal Pearce. Winstone, on arresting Pearce's younger (and retarded?) brother for his role in the rape and murder of a woman and her husband, tells Pearce that he will release the boy and not charge Pearce if Pearce will hand over the elder brother, who is the mastermind of the outlaw family. And so it is that Pearce sets off to locate and take in his big bro.

If I'm honest, The Proposition is something of a storm in a teacup. Very little happens, and the dialogue is so low in the mix that you have to keep whacking the volume up, lowering it again when the loud music and gunshots come into play. That always pisses me off. I guess it's a mood piece, and that comes across well. But it's a mood piece with very little by way of a story. What I told you above? That's about all I can tell you without ruining the ending. Well, not quite, but not far from it.

Scores
Acting: 12
Story: 8
Direction: 10
Enjoyment: 10
Cerebral pleasure: 11
Total: 51

Syriana

2007-01-30T11:44:00.000Z

It's quite a while now since I actually watched Syriana, and I had intended to see it again before reviewing it. But when it came down to a second viewing I realized I couldn't actually be bothered. And although that seems like a pretty damning statement, it's not intended to be as bad as it sounds.

Before seeing this movie, I'd heard and read that it was complex and intelligent. These are both words that I like to see used in conjunction with films, but oh so often they are overused. Furthermore, the truth is that what mainstream Hollywood considers an intelligent, complex piece of work is not necessarily the same as the consideration of someone accustomed to watching the work of some of the European masters.

For my money, Syriana sort of falls between two stools: it's neither Hollywood pap, nor quite the intelligent movie-making it wants to be. That's not to say huge efforts have not been made. Nor is it to say that they "tried too hard" and have fallen flat. It's a film with a good story, perhaps made more convoluted than entirely necessary at times. It's a film with good performances. It's a film that has been well directed (if rather in a style stolen from the likes of David O Russell's Three Kings and Steven Soderbergh's Traffic). Overall, it's a good film. But it's not great. It's not awesome.

Sure, it'll make you think for a while afterwards. It'll make you ponder on how fucked up the oil industry is, and how much you'd like to opt out and get solar panels on your roof, and not be part of the problem. You'll do all of that. For about two hours. And then you'll get on with your life and forget about it almost entirely. And occasionally you'll think to yourself, "Y'know, maybe I'll watch that again sometime. It was pretty good." And that, dear reader, is about the most you'll likely get from Syriana.

Scores
Acting: 14
Story: 15
Direction: 13
Enjoyment: 13
Cerebral pleasure: 15
Total: 70

A Christmas Story

2007-01-20T12:08:00.000Z

Lucky Number Slevin

2007-01-08T09:48:00.000Z

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I'm a sucker for a Bruce Willis movie. Sure, even before his legendary "serious" acting in films such as Pulp Fiction and 12 Monkeys, I was already something of a fan. Of course, those two films made me feel all the more justified. I think he's a good actor, and sometimes he happens to be in a good film.

Lucky Number Slevin is one such film. It's also one of those films with a pretty stellar cast, so you never really know how it's going to fare. All-star movies have a habit of letting me down. And here we have Willis ably assisted by the likes of Josh Hartnett, Lucy Liu, Ben Kingsley, Morgan Freeman... Need I go on? Well, I won't, cos I think that's about the lot.

The plot plays like a case of mistaken identity, in the mould of so many classic films, and the characters really draw you in. Sure, at times it perhaps tries a teeny bit too hard and gets a tad too contrived, but such instance are few and should not detract from the overall experience. As things move along -- at a pretty swift pace, I must say -- you will start asking yourself what the fuck is going on. And then you'll start coming up with possible scenarios.

I guess that's the film's weakness, because once the audience susses that everything may not be quite what it seem, they will start guessing outcomes, and then there's the possibility that they'll correctly guess the outcome, lessening the enjoyment at the end. It is the same problem that sort of befell The Usual Suspects.

Enough already. I had a blast watching this film. It made me laugh quite a lot. All the actors are very appealing. There are twists and turns aplenty. I defy you not to enjoy it!

Scores:
Acting: 15
Story: 15
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 16
Cerebral pleasure: 13
Total: 73

The Choir (aka Les Choristes)

2007-01-08T09:45:00.000Z

I have never watched Mr Holland's Opus, nor do I intend to, but I have seen other teacher-changes-pupils'-lives flicks, such as Stand and Deliver, Dangerous Minds, etc. Wasn't 187 one of those films, too?

Anyways, it's not my most favouritest genre in the world of cinema, so it was with more than a little reluctance that I was persuaded to watch The Choir. I figured a bunch of teenage French boys squeaking out classical music was just not going to be my bag.

How wrong can a guy be? I should, by now, trust Wife's judgment, since she so often has a good nose for a good film.

The plot is simple: new music teacher-cum-supervisor arrives at a school for unruly, unteachable, antisocial boys (kind of like a borstal). He discovers they have a few good voices among them and that they like to sing (albeit dirty ditties and songs insulting the teachers), and this sows the seed to turn around their lives with music.

Of course, the path to the kids' enlightenment is blocked along the way by a cunt of a principal, who is intent on keeping the boys scared and stupid.

This movie is a great journey, and nothing like the films named above. It feels genuine, and it may even bring a tear to your eye. And you know when a movie is genuine? When you know that someone in the cast -- in this case the guy who plays the new teacher -- thought the idea strong enough to invest his own money to get it made. The result of his gamble? He became the highest-paid French actor of the year. Good for him.

Scores:
Acting: 13
Story: 12
Direction: 15
Enjoyment: 16
Cerebral pleasure: 13
Total: 69