Paul Giamatti first came to prominence with his role as Bob Zmuda opposite Jim Carrey's Andy Kauffman in Man on the Moon; but I first noticed him in two very small roles. As Howard Stern's lamentable boss, Kenny, in Private Parts where he is all mouth but no bite and as a smoking bellboy in My Best Friend's Wedding who give Julia Robert's character some advice in a corridor. Both small roles and typically throwaway but there is something endearing and charming about Giamatti - the actor who gets that role as the schlub, the schmuck, the fat guy with his unique shape.
Barney's Version is directed by Richard J. Lewis, and based upon the novel by Mordecai Richler with a screenplay by Michael Konyves. The film stars Paul Giamatti as the synonymous Barney Panofsky, the unrepentant callous individual who despite being a somewhat drunk and acerbic in his intellect, is nevertheless irresistible to women. During the flashbacks that Barney has during the film's duration we see him with three desirable women, all whom marry him. The third and final wife, is in particular a saint, and he ultimately ruins his happiness with her and their life together. Ultimately, Barney's brain begins to slow down and he becomes a mere ghost in the world as his family and friends begin to shun him.
Giamatti pleasingly gets his teeth into the role, as we follow Barney from his bohemian musings in Rome in the late 70s and his first misguided marriage to Clara who he believes he made pregnant; to his second marriage to the Jewish princess played by Minnie Driver, like the novel (which saved its most acerbic comment for) is not granted a name. The sequences with Barney and this princess and her family are the most cynical of the literature and the hierarchy of Jewish stereotypes; the father in law looks down upon Barney's father, Izzy (played with aplomb by Dustin Hoffman) with disdain when he bemoans his lack of career progression saying stating maybe his lack of integrity when assaulting criminals might have served him better than focus on predjudices.
And yet, this film does have a unique heart. Barney meets his third and final wife, Miriam Grant (stunning Rosamund Pike) at the wedding of his second wife. He leaves his wedding and tracks her down saying run away with me, when cooler heads should prevail. Barney later calls Miriam as he is signing his divorce papers for a date a few years later, and on their first date he retches up all the whiskey he hoped would give him courage. Barney is an old romantic, and that is where the heart comes from, and once he and Miriam are married these are shown to be the best years of his life - two kids, success with his television production company (Unnecessary Productions - which gets a good pun) and respect from his peers.
The only cloud that hangs over him is the unsolved disappearance of his friend Boogie (Scott Speedman), who fell into the lake by his country house after an argument involving a gun. We are led to believe that Barney shot Boogie, and the unrelenting pursuit of a Detective O'Hearne (Mark Addy - yes that guy from the Tesco's adverts and The Full Monty) to prove Barney's guilt makes us believe that maybe Barney did do it.
These questions are lightly glossed over by the film's conclusion, which is a reflection on the at times whimsical screenplay and light direction, both of which are helped by a stunning central performance by Giamatti who is at times beguiling yet never less than charming. He is helped by Pike, who in a role that could easily be wafer thin on paper is elevated by her elegance and radiance she brings to the role; two tropes lacking in a lot of North American cinema lately.
It is important to note, that this is a Canadian production, and the film never over states that fact in the production unlike other films that may blare out the nationality of the piece, but the attention to period detail and set design puts some American productions to shame.
Barney's Version is for you if you like films similar to Mr.Holland's Opus that tells the story of someone through the decades and is helped by a powerhouse central performance by an under-rated performer, this is for you although it does include a little bit more swearing and sex than the Richard Dreyfuss film. And as to why Giamatti did not get a Leading Actor nomination from the Academy, well that is as tragic as Barney Parnofsky's life wants to be.
Paul Giamatti, is one of my favourite actors to come out of Hollywood in the last ten years. My favourite performance of his remains Miles in Sideways, a performance that wrongly was ignored by the Academy awards that year whilst his co-star Thomas Haden Church did get a nomination. This year Giamatti won a Golden Globe for Best Actor in Comedy, and rightly so, alas he was again ignored by the Academy for this performance, admittedly a good field of actors but should not it be time to give a guy his due.
Barney's Version (15) is released on DVD and Blu-Ray on 23rd May from Universal Pictures International Entertainment with a £19.99RRP (DVD) and £24.99(Blu-Ray). The bonus features include a special featurette.
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Friday, 20 May 2011
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Abel (Diego Luna, Mexico, 2009)
Mexican actor, Diego Luna, most famous for Y Tu Mama Tambien, makes his directorial debut with Abel a script by Augusto Mendoza, with executive production from Gael Garcia Bernal and John Malkovich.
Abel is played by Christopher Ruiz-Esparaza, is a young boy who after the abandonment of his father from the family home has fallen silent and been confined to a mental institute for two years. His mother, Cecilia, feels that a reunion with his siblings Paul and Seline will lead to an improvement in his behaviour and speech.
Granted a week's sabatical by the doctor, Abel's speech returns but only in the form of an adult - and the belief he is his own father, the same father who left home. Cecilia feels it is best to encourage such behaviour, so Abel talks to his siblings as if they are his children, and Cecilia dotes on him like any loving wife would.
This leads to funny proceedings and exchanges between the much older Seline and the younger Abel, whilst there is a touching connection between Abel and Paul (played by real life brothers). The doctor comes and states it is okay to carry on, as long as he takes the requisite medication; that is until his father unexpectedly returns to the home. Abel does not recognise the father, believing himself to fit that role; tensions mount as a solution is looked for Abel's condition.
This Oedipal story is told with great deftness and a lightness that marks Luna out as a genuine talent, and the use of the camera at a child's level throughout in the family home and emphasising an adult's presence with the use of low angle to show their height and threat.
Not surprisingly, considering he is a talented actor in his own right, Luna elicits commendable performances from all the cast especially Ruiz-Esparza in the titular role; who is both commanding and affecting.
A film that is both intelligent and entertaining, continuing Latin America's recent renaissance in the cinematic field.
Abel is released by Network Releasing and is Out Now for £19.99RRP, and the DVD is packed with extras: a booklet by London Film festival programmer Maria Delgado; footage of the film's premiere at the LFF in 2010 and a Q&A from the VIVA! Spanish and Latin American Film Festival at Manchester in January 2011 with Luna and producer Pablo Cruz; Chile premiere video diary; stills gallery; trailer. More extras than is usual for such a small title, and an unusual pleasure.
Abel is played by Christopher Ruiz-Esparaza, is a young boy who after the abandonment of his father from the family home has fallen silent and been confined to a mental institute for two years. His mother, Cecilia, feels that a reunion with his siblings Paul and Seline will lead to an improvement in his behaviour and speech.
Granted a week's sabatical by the doctor, Abel's speech returns but only in the form of an adult - and the belief he is his own father, the same father who left home. Cecilia feels it is best to encourage such behaviour, so Abel talks to his siblings as if they are his children, and Cecilia dotes on him like any loving wife would.
This leads to funny proceedings and exchanges between the much older Seline and the younger Abel, whilst there is a touching connection between Abel and Paul (played by real life brothers). The doctor comes and states it is okay to carry on, as long as he takes the requisite medication; that is until his father unexpectedly returns to the home. Abel does not recognise the father, believing himself to fit that role; tensions mount as a solution is looked for Abel's condition.
This Oedipal story is told with great deftness and a lightness that marks Luna out as a genuine talent, and the use of the camera at a child's level throughout in the family home and emphasising an adult's presence with the use of low angle to show their height and threat.
Not surprisingly, considering he is a talented actor in his own right, Luna elicits commendable performances from all the cast especially Ruiz-Esparza in the titular role; who is both commanding and affecting.
A film that is both intelligent and entertaining, continuing Latin America's recent renaissance in the cinematic field.
Abel is released by Network Releasing and is Out Now for £19.99RRP, and the DVD is packed with extras: a booklet by London Film festival programmer Maria Delgado; footage of the film's premiere at the LFF in 2010 and a Q&A from the VIVA! Spanish and Latin American Film Festival at Manchester in January 2011 with Luna and producer Pablo Cruz; Chile premiere video diary; stills gallery; trailer. More extras than is usual for such a small title, and an unusual pleasure.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
A Screaming Man
The acclaimed director of Daratt, Mahamat-Saleh returns with a telling meditation of an ageing African male that has a deftness and humanity within it, which won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010.
Said screaming man is Adam (Youssouf Djaoro) who is a happy pool attendant at a fancy hotel in civil war Chad. Adam shares the duties of his job with his 20 year old son, Abdel (Diouc Koma), yet there are fears over the future of job security owing to the investment of Chinese money into the infrastructure of the hotel. Many workers fear for their job, one is David (Marius Yelolo), a chef who in the few scenes he shares with Adam gives wisdom and advice - upon hearing the unwanted news, David says to Adam, 'the problem is we put our fate in the hands of God'.
After this news, Adam is told he has been demoted to the role of gatekeeper of the hotel - the man who must raise and lower the barrier for cars and other motor vehicles - whilst Abdel has been given sole responsibility of the pool. Hence, Adam feels embarrassed and devalued as a man as well as a trusted worker. His role as moneywinner is further but into question by the demands of a local district chief who keeps pestering him for money to help with the war effort. (It should be noted that there is never any mention or reason given as to why Adam keeps saying he is broke and cannot pay.) Yet the conversations with the chief lead to Adam making a decision that will lead to a terrible act of betrayal.
Haroun has a real assuredness behind the camera - he cleverly shows a difference between the workplace environment and the home environment; one is vibrant, the other is still - but he does this without going to lengths of changing the tone or colour of the palette, instead relying upon the performances of his actors who are front and centre. A good scene at the start shows Adam with his wife, Mariam, as they eat food together you feel the warmth of their love, but in the background is a television with news of the civil war ongoing. The scene tells you two things; the personality of Adam is enhanced as a loving husband and provider, nevertheless the civil war intrudes upon their sanctuary, as it will do later on with more tragic consequences.
The script, also written by Haroun, asks questions about duty (to work, to family, to your country), the idea of loyalty to the same factors and the father and son dynamic (an ongoing trope of Haroun's previous work). Adam is jealous of Abdel as much for his youth as for being selected for the job of pool attendant; but once Abdel's pregnant girlfriend, Djeneba (Djeneba Kone) appears this affection for his son is reassessed leading to the final act of the film.
This conclusion of the film - whilst an eventual part of the narrative - is handled deftly offering the chance of reconciliation with a distinctness and deftness you rarely see, giving ample opportunity to his DoP, Laurent Brunet to shoot some wonderful landscapes of the Chadian landscape.
Djaoro as Adam gives a strong central performance as he morphs from the the life and soul of the hotel to an aged man broken by promises and his own selfish acts. At the end a screaming man (because if the title of the film was 'The Screaming Man' it would lose that universal feel), wonders the plains and wading in the river. But he wonders around in the best African film since Moolaade.
A Screaming Man is released on Friday 13th May by Soda Pictures.
Click on the title of the film to watch a trailer.
Said screaming man is Adam (Youssouf Djaoro) who is a happy pool attendant at a fancy hotel in civil war Chad. Adam shares the duties of his job with his 20 year old son, Abdel (Diouc Koma), yet there are fears over the future of job security owing to the investment of Chinese money into the infrastructure of the hotel. Many workers fear for their job, one is David (Marius Yelolo), a chef who in the few scenes he shares with Adam gives wisdom and advice - upon hearing the unwanted news, David says to Adam, 'the problem is we put our fate in the hands of God'.
After this news, Adam is told he has been demoted to the role of gatekeeper of the hotel - the man who must raise and lower the barrier for cars and other motor vehicles - whilst Abdel has been given sole responsibility of the pool. Hence, Adam feels embarrassed and devalued as a man as well as a trusted worker. His role as moneywinner is further but into question by the demands of a local district chief who keeps pestering him for money to help with the war effort. (It should be noted that there is never any mention or reason given as to why Adam keeps saying he is broke and cannot pay.) Yet the conversations with the chief lead to Adam making a decision that will lead to a terrible act of betrayal.
Haroun has a real assuredness behind the camera - he cleverly shows a difference between the workplace environment and the home environment; one is vibrant, the other is still - but he does this without going to lengths of changing the tone or colour of the palette, instead relying upon the performances of his actors who are front and centre. A good scene at the start shows Adam with his wife, Mariam, as they eat food together you feel the warmth of their love, but in the background is a television with news of the civil war ongoing. The scene tells you two things; the personality of Adam is enhanced as a loving husband and provider, nevertheless the civil war intrudes upon their sanctuary, as it will do later on with more tragic consequences.
The script, also written by Haroun, asks questions about duty (to work, to family, to your country), the idea of loyalty to the same factors and the father and son dynamic (an ongoing trope of Haroun's previous work). Adam is jealous of Abdel as much for his youth as for being selected for the job of pool attendant; but once Abdel's pregnant girlfriend, Djeneba (Djeneba Kone) appears this affection for his son is reassessed leading to the final act of the film.
This conclusion of the film - whilst an eventual part of the narrative - is handled deftly offering the chance of reconciliation with a distinctness and deftness you rarely see, giving ample opportunity to his DoP, Laurent Brunet to shoot some wonderful landscapes of the Chadian landscape.
Djaoro as Adam gives a strong central performance as he morphs from the the life and soul of the hotel to an aged man broken by promises and his own selfish acts. At the end a screaming man (because if the title of the film was 'The Screaming Man' it would lose that universal feel), wonders the plains and wading in the river. But he wonders around in the best African film since Moolaade.
A Screaming Man is released on Friday 13th May by Soda Pictures.
Click on the title of the film to watch a trailer.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Submarine - Review
Richard Ayoade, who came to prominence by performing with relish in the Channel 4 sitcom, The IT Crowd, also did a side bit of directing music videos, primarily for the English indie band, The Arctic Monkeys, even directing their only live DVD, as well as Alex Turner's (lead singer of the Arctic Monkeys) side project, The Last Shadow Puppets. Submarine, is his feature debut as both writer and director, adapting the novel by Joe Dunthorne.
The novel follows the erstwhile Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts), as he comes across first love for the first time with the equally tenacious Jordana Baker (Yasemin Paige), whilst trying to keep his parents marriage together. This juxtaposition of young love with the dwindling of the adult relationship is a clever trick of Ayoade's adaptation.
The script includes numerous callbacks throughout - Oliver mentions how he reads the dictionary looking for obscure word of the day's and then when his father, Lloyd (Noah Taylor) uses an obscure word (in this case, atavistic) it prompts him to look it up. Oliver is the type of young male who uses words like schism to explain the current obstacle affecting his parents relationship; and the constant referring to the depth of the ocean (six miles) which is brought up initially and then recalled on two more occassions later in the film.
The work that Ayoade most resembles is that of Wes Anderson - this film and Anderson's are quirky, literate (the film is presented with three parts as well as a prologue and epilogue) and perhaps a bit too clever for itself, yet is not ashamed to use big displays of public emotion, which ultimately leaves the characters flummoxed. Another trait they share is that all the characters know a character better than themselves; after their first intercourse, Jordana tells Oliver, 'Don't get cocky', the formal warning of the phrase serves as an intuitive part of Jordana in forewarning how this may affect Oliver when he gets to 38 years of age, as he fears for a moment.
The period detail of the mid to late 1980s is immaculately rendered and yet the film could have been located in any post World War 2 period due to the universal themes - first love, bullying, infidelity, the fear of a broken home and cynicism of other belief systems. Yet Ayoade is able to inject nice typically British quirks on the school theme and the usual close conversation between concerned teacher and timid student. As Oliver is talking to the teacher about his fears, a middle shot is set up with them at the forefront backing onto a window onto the playground, and behind them students jump up and down mocking the serious situation whilst gesticulating for all to see, whilst the two people indoors are oblivious to it all.
All the actors on display are brilliant; Taylor and Sally Hawkins as Oliver's unhappy parents are both given key scenes to show off (especially Hawkins when she talks to Oliver in bed, and it ends up her worrying he might be gay), Paddy Considine hams it up as next door neighbour-mystic Graham, with an awful Pat Sharp mullet. However, the deepest admiration should be reserved for the two newcomers, both are brilliant yet when they are together is when there is a real spark - never more apparent than in the wordless finale at the water's edge; they merely look at each other to say it all.
The songs by Alex Turner, a key feature of the poster campaign, are a bit wistful at times and not inspiring as they should be for a film, which may rely on them more in another context. In spite of that flaw, Ayoade is helped by his DoP, Erik Wilson (who also worked on the forthcoming Tyranosaur directed by Paddy Considine) who lends a vibrancy to proceedings.
This film was part funded by the UK Film Council and the National Lottery, a travesty that that body has folded when something as rich and fulfiling as this shows that there is genuine talent in the British Isles when it comes to film-making.
The novel follows the erstwhile Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts), as he comes across first love for the first time with the equally tenacious Jordana Baker (Yasemin Paige), whilst trying to keep his parents marriage together. This juxtaposition of young love with the dwindling of the adult relationship is a clever trick of Ayoade's adaptation.
The script includes numerous callbacks throughout - Oliver mentions how he reads the dictionary looking for obscure word of the day's and then when his father, Lloyd (Noah Taylor) uses an obscure word (in this case, atavistic) it prompts him to look it up. Oliver is the type of young male who uses words like schism to explain the current obstacle affecting his parents relationship; and the constant referring to the depth of the ocean (six miles) which is brought up initially and then recalled on two more occassions later in the film.
The work that Ayoade most resembles is that of Wes Anderson - this film and Anderson's are quirky, literate (the film is presented with three parts as well as a prologue and epilogue) and perhaps a bit too clever for itself, yet is not ashamed to use big displays of public emotion, which ultimately leaves the characters flummoxed. Another trait they share is that all the characters know a character better than themselves; after their first intercourse, Jordana tells Oliver, 'Don't get cocky', the formal warning of the phrase serves as an intuitive part of Jordana in forewarning how this may affect Oliver when he gets to 38 years of age, as he fears for a moment.
The period detail of the mid to late 1980s is immaculately rendered and yet the film could have been located in any post World War 2 period due to the universal themes - first love, bullying, infidelity, the fear of a broken home and cynicism of other belief systems. Yet Ayoade is able to inject nice typically British quirks on the school theme and the usual close conversation between concerned teacher and timid student. As Oliver is talking to the teacher about his fears, a middle shot is set up with them at the forefront backing onto a window onto the playground, and behind them students jump up and down mocking the serious situation whilst gesticulating for all to see, whilst the two people indoors are oblivious to it all.
All the actors on display are brilliant; Taylor and Sally Hawkins as Oliver's unhappy parents are both given key scenes to show off (especially Hawkins when she talks to Oliver in bed, and it ends up her worrying he might be gay), Paddy Considine hams it up as next door neighbour-mystic Graham, with an awful Pat Sharp mullet. However, the deepest admiration should be reserved for the two newcomers, both are brilliant yet when they are together is when there is a real spark - never more apparent than in the wordless finale at the water's edge; they merely look at each other to say it all.
The songs by Alex Turner, a key feature of the poster campaign, are a bit wistful at times and not inspiring as they should be for a film, which may rely on them more in another context. In spite of that flaw, Ayoade is helped by his DoP, Erik Wilson (who also worked on the forthcoming Tyranosaur directed by Paddy Considine) who lends a vibrancy to proceedings.
This film was part funded by the UK Film Council and the National Lottery, a travesty that that body has folded when something as rich and fulfiling as this shows that there is genuine talent in the British Isles when it comes to film-making.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Fire In Babylon - review
The West Indies are made up of different islands, but they come under one banner yet from island to island the accent is different, the food is different but cricket becomes this universal sporting gesture in which their character is expressed onto a world stage. The different islands bring different temperaments, 10 young caribbean men put together is not a team, but a gang. The selection of Guyanan Clive Lloyd elevated the team with purpose and mentored the team to dominance, they won the first World Cup in 1973 when it was held in England.
A voiceover is used like in 'Citizen Kane' looking back fondly but with a critical objective eye on matters. Not surprisingly, a contemporary soundtrack of classic 70s reggae and funk music is utilised to create an atmosphere of nostalgia and class.
Cleverly, using archive material, the Australians (Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee, Geoff Thomson) during the tour of 1975 are built up like evil purveyors of their craft; aiming to hurt batsmen with their fast, hostile bowling as batsmen do not play the ball but aim for self-preservation. Those test matches were built up like a World Championship, it turned into a fight with broken hands, broken bones, and humiliation for the proud West Indies. Australia won with intimidation factors, in a hostile environment where many players were subjected to verbal abuse from opponents and the fans. Australia remained on top, winning the series 5-1, but things were going to change.
Fittingly, the tour of England in 1976, (the talk of immigrants in 1976 is still prescient in today's age) taking on the colonial masters on their homeland when Tony Greig famously said he would make them 'grovel' the idea of making the 'slaves' bend to his demand brought up terrible imagery in the mind, coupled with the ongoing apartheid in South Africa and only stoked the fire in the belly of the West Indian team. Greig soon ran off to Australia with his tail between his legs.
That summer, cricket was played with such flair that West Indies gained new fans and it is indicative as to why the West Indies are held in such esteem and fondness on these shores, is due to that summer, when the passion exhibited was unlike anything ever seen. England were demolished and legends were born; the summer of Andy Roberts and Michael Holding bowling peerlessly and the arrival of the 'master blaster' Viv Richards.
Richards like other seminal players - Adam Gilchrist, Don Bradman - changed the very nature of the game, making bowlers scared of him. The West Indies became so dominant because they had bowlers who could terrify batting orders into submission, and then Richards would come and do the same thing and amass huge totals where teams would seek ways to avoid defeat by the end of the first innings.
A gripping visual essay more than documentary reflecting on why the West Indies hold such a special place in the history of cricket; the World Series cricket debacle of 1976/77 when test players could not play for the test side due to the involvement with Kerry Packer's revolutionary one day series - when they were paid handsomely for once and not a pittance; then the rebel tour of the early 1980s to apartheid era South Africa when many players were then banned from playing test cricket again.
Pleasingly the film ends on the 'blackwash' tour of England in 1984, when a competitive England led by Ian Botham, set the West Indies a formidable 300+ target to chase on the last day. That target was met with disdain by Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes, who chased down the target for the loss of no wicket and took the wind out of a resilient England team. Also on that tour the emergence of Malcolm Marshall, meant that as the bodies of Roberts and Holding got older, the younger tyros of Marshall and Garner had the fast bowling attack in good stead, and led the groundwork for Courtney Walsh and Curtley Ambrose to come to prominence.
There might have been a fire in babylon, but through the talent of their fast bowlers and one special player, as you rarely get with Richards, they fought that fire with a fire of their own. Bringing cricketing nations to their knees, and giving a voice to people who were undervalued giving joy to collective nations and spirit to those who had none.
Riley should be proud of the end result of the film, a pleasing nostalgic look back at halycon days of glory that may never fade, and also an example to the current team who have talent but no leadership nor desire to fulfil their potential. Sometimes, you get teams that never reach their potential, this West Indian team reached their zenith and went beyond it, always with a smile on their face, as will anyone who watches this brilliant film.
Fire In Babylon is a Cowboy Films/Passion Pictures production with funding from the National Lottery/UK Film Council, distributed by Revolver Entertainment. In cinemas from May 20th.
A voiceover is used like in 'Citizen Kane' looking back fondly but with a critical objective eye on matters. Not surprisingly, a contemporary soundtrack of classic 70s reggae and funk music is utilised to create an atmosphere of nostalgia and class.
Cleverly, using archive material, the Australians (Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee, Geoff Thomson) during the tour of 1975 are built up like evil purveyors of their craft; aiming to hurt batsmen with their fast, hostile bowling as batsmen do not play the ball but aim for self-preservation. Those test matches were built up like a World Championship, it turned into a fight with broken hands, broken bones, and humiliation for the proud West Indies. Australia won with intimidation factors, in a hostile environment where many players were subjected to verbal abuse from opponents and the fans. Australia remained on top, winning the series 5-1, but things were going to change.
Fittingly, the tour of England in 1976, (the talk of immigrants in 1976 is still prescient in today's age) taking on the colonial masters on their homeland when Tony Greig famously said he would make them 'grovel' the idea of making the 'slaves' bend to his demand brought up terrible imagery in the mind, coupled with the ongoing apartheid in South Africa and only stoked the fire in the belly of the West Indian team. Greig soon ran off to Australia with his tail between his legs.
That summer, cricket was played with such flair that West Indies gained new fans and it is indicative as to why the West Indies are held in such esteem and fondness on these shores, is due to that summer, when the passion exhibited was unlike anything ever seen. England were demolished and legends were born; the summer of Andy Roberts and Michael Holding bowling peerlessly and the arrival of the 'master blaster' Viv Richards.
Richards like other seminal players - Adam Gilchrist, Don Bradman - changed the very nature of the game, making bowlers scared of him. The West Indies became so dominant because they had bowlers who could terrify batting orders into submission, and then Richards would come and do the same thing and amass huge totals where teams would seek ways to avoid defeat by the end of the first innings.
A gripping visual essay more than documentary reflecting on why the West Indies hold such a special place in the history of cricket; the World Series cricket debacle of 1976/77 when test players could not play for the test side due to the involvement with Kerry Packer's revolutionary one day series - when they were paid handsomely for once and not a pittance; then the rebel tour of the early 1980s to apartheid era South Africa when many players were then banned from playing test cricket again.
Pleasingly the film ends on the 'blackwash' tour of England in 1984, when a competitive England led by Ian Botham, set the West Indies a formidable 300+ target to chase on the last day. That target was met with disdain by Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes, who chased down the target for the loss of no wicket and took the wind out of a resilient England team. Also on that tour the emergence of Malcolm Marshall, meant that as the bodies of Roberts and Holding got older, the younger tyros of Marshall and Garner had the fast bowling attack in good stead, and led the groundwork for Courtney Walsh and Curtley Ambrose to come to prominence.
There might have been a fire in babylon, but through the talent of their fast bowlers and one special player, as you rarely get with Richards, they fought that fire with a fire of their own. Bringing cricketing nations to their knees, and giving a voice to people who were undervalued giving joy to collective nations and spirit to those who had none.
Riley should be proud of the end result of the film, a pleasing nostalgic look back at halycon days of glory that may never fade, and also an example to the current team who have talent but no leadership nor desire to fulfil their potential. Sometimes, you get teams that never reach their potential, this West Indian team reached their zenith and went beyond it, always with a smile on their face, as will anyone who watches this brilliant film.
Fire In Babylon is a Cowboy Films/Passion Pictures production with funding from the National Lottery/UK Film Council, distributed by Revolver Entertainment. In cinemas from May 20th.
Stake Land - see it before anyone else!!
STAKE LAND is an energetic, brutal and thoughtful take on the vampire film set against the stark backdrop of a post-apocalyptic American countryside.
The film won the Midnight Madness Award at the Toronto International Film Festival after garnering rave reviews for its poetic take on a genre.
The film stars Nick Damici, Connor Paolo (Gossip Girl) and Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) and is directed by Jim Mickle (Mulberry Street) and is released in cinemas on June 17th.
Metrodome Distribution and Prince Charles Cinema are teaming up to unleash STAKE LAND on the British public. Film fans have the chance to see the film for free at a special screening taking place on Sunday June 5th at 10:45am.
Cinema-goers tough enough to arrive at the screening with proof of having donated blood in the last year will also be entered into a competition to win an exclusive STAKE LAND related prize…
To be in with a chance of grabbing a ticket, visit the STAKE LAND Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/StakeLandMovie or email stakelandpcc@metrodomegroup.com
Winner’s names will be picked at random one week before the screening and notified shortly after.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Blitz - New trailer/video clips
New clips from the new Jason Statham film BLITZ is online now, follow the links below to see. The film also stars Paddy Considine and Aiden Gillen; tells the tale of a cop killer with Statham the man with the answers.
Released on May 20th
Click on Blitz to see the newest trailer
http://www.blitzmovie.co.uk/
www.facebook.com/blitzmovie
Courtesy of Lionsgate Entertainment and Thinkjam
Released on May 20th
Click on Blitz to see the newest trailer
http://www.blitzmovie.co.uk/
www.facebook.com/blitzmovie
Courtesy of Lionsgate Entertainment and Thinkjam
Monday, 25 April 2011
Source Code review
Jake Gyllenhaal, is fast becoming one of those stars who is building up an impressive resume of films, which give him another five years he will have a CV of films which you will read down and say, 'I didn't know he was in that', you already forget that he was in Brokeback Mountain, more remembered for the passing of Heath Ledger and Jarhead, as good a war film produced by Hollywood in recent years. And those are just two films.
Last summer he appeared in Prince of Persia, a would be summer blockbuster which asked him to put on an English accent and a Jason Bourne body to build up a franchise for himself. Unfortunately, that film did not capture the audience's attention even though it did have some plus points as harmless family fun.
Source Code offers Gyllenhaal a second chance, and ironically, the film's entire structure revolves around second chances. Gyllenhaal plays a marine Colter Stevens, who is part of a government program called 'source code' where he is supplanted into an individual who matches his physical specifications (a la Quantum Leap) and he experiences - through simulation and a mastering of physics - the last eight minutes before a tragic incident; he has to find out vital information that may prevent the loss of further lives as the clock ticks and chances slip by.
Stevens awakes on a train in the body of Sean Prenger opposite a lady he has never seen before, but who Sean clearly has a relationship with. The lady is Christina (Michelle Monaghan) and she is an alluring beauty to wake up opposite. Stevens has eight minutes before the train blows up to find out who the bomber is and where the bomb is, as well as fall in love. Okay you cannot do all that in just eight minutes, but the film borrows from Groundhog Day in that Stevens travels back to wake up opposite Christina and so his ordeal or assignment starts again.
Stevens is monitored by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), a fellow soldier who is her guide and helps with his investigations on the train and she is shadowed by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) the creator of the mechanism and a brooding intense presence who holds vital information to Stevens' personal records in Afghanistan and what happened to his unit. Stevens wishes to call his father, and Goodwin and Rutledge insist on finishing the job first.
The reason this role is so good for Gyllenhaal is that he has a lot of different genres to tick off; action star, detective, love interest and dramatic moment such as when he phones his father during one eight minute cycle. When he finally does figure out most things and arrives at the last cycle, he exerts this supreme confidence in his own ability, not just a projection of the character but the actor also.
The script written by Ben Ripley (previous credits include sequels to Species) is a taut piece of science fiction, not too sci-fi for novices to be scared by and with enough action, romance and thrills for all to enjoy. However, the most credit must go to director Duncan Jones (Moon) who has graduated from his freshman piece to this excellent sophmore effort, you can see Jones gaining confidence in his direction as he uses the set of the same carriage train to good effect letting the camera explore the location and using alternative angles for each eight minute cycle instead of the expected same lazy set ups. Jones obviously wanted to keep the attention of the audience, and key to it was that there mind was probably grasped early enough anyway, the next step was to make sure that they were awaken by what they saw as well as what they heard.
Jones, who elicited a career effort from Sam Rockwell, does the same with Gyllenhaal here as he graduates to play a man, too often he has played prolonged adolescents or boys who have not grown up, in Colter Stevens we see a responsible adult on screen. He is helped admirably by the two females, Monaghan has never looked lovelier and for someone who started so late in her career she aswell is garnering quite a CV from Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang to this via the underrated Eagle Eye, she is a calm presence, as is Farmiga here who plays a soldier and woman, and is reassuring to Stevens as he battles in his 'pod' and quest for the answers - taking a severely underwritten role and extending it to something more as she becomes a shared spirit with Stevens. Jeffrey Wright also plays Rutledge as malevolent self brooding and self-important mad scientist but ultimately a gloryhound in search of fame and fortune.
If I have one flaw it would be the ending, non-ending debate; the choice of actual ending combined with ending that they could have had will be one of endless discussion on noticeboards and forums. My belief is there was a chance to leave the hero in limbo would have been a noble deed to a man who did quite a lot, and all the talk of living for the moment and if you had one second left to live, what would you do - they swerve us and go in another direction. I felt this was a shame of the initial intentions and contradictory to the intentions of the character, Colter Stevens himself.
Be that as it may, the film still takes you on a brilliant journey full of thrills and spills with something for everyone including romance, adventure and a good old fashioned time travel yarn. Recommended to everyone, it may be marketed as science fiction but it is a good film so do not let genre labels put you off. And as for Gyllenhaal, he has found his niche and his entry into the A-list is assured now.
Last summer he appeared in Prince of Persia, a would be summer blockbuster which asked him to put on an English accent and a Jason Bourne body to build up a franchise for himself. Unfortunately, that film did not capture the audience's attention even though it did have some plus points as harmless family fun.
Source Code offers Gyllenhaal a second chance, and ironically, the film's entire structure revolves around second chances. Gyllenhaal plays a marine Colter Stevens, who is part of a government program called 'source code' where he is supplanted into an individual who matches his physical specifications (a la Quantum Leap) and he experiences - through simulation and a mastering of physics - the last eight minutes before a tragic incident; he has to find out vital information that may prevent the loss of further lives as the clock ticks and chances slip by.
Stevens awakes on a train in the body of Sean Prenger opposite a lady he has never seen before, but who Sean clearly has a relationship with. The lady is Christina (Michelle Monaghan) and she is an alluring beauty to wake up opposite. Stevens has eight minutes before the train blows up to find out who the bomber is and where the bomb is, as well as fall in love. Okay you cannot do all that in just eight minutes, but the film borrows from Groundhog Day in that Stevens travels back to wake up opposite Christina and so his ordeal or assignment starts again.
Stevens is monitored by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), a fellow soldier who is her guide and helps with his investigations on the train and she is shadowed by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) the creator of the mechanism and a brooding intense presence who holds vital information to Stevens' personal records in Afghanistan and what happened to his unit. Stevens wishes to call his father, and Goodwin and Rutledge insist on finishing the job first.
The reason this role is so good for Gyllenhaal is that he has a lot of different genres to tick off; action star, detective, love interest and dramatic moment such as when he phones his father during one eight minute cycle. When he finally does figure out most things and arrives at the last cycle, he exerts this supreme confidence in his own ability, not just a projection of the character but the actor also.
The script written by Ben Ripley (previous credits include sequels to Species) is a taut piece of science fiction, not too sci-fi for novices to be scared by and with enough action, romance and thrills for all to enjoy. However, the most credit must go to director Duncan Jones (Moon) who has graduated from his freshman piece to this excellent sophmore effort, you can see Jones gaining confidence in his direction as he uses the set of the same carriage train to good effect letting the camera explore the location and using alternative angles for each eight minute cycle instead of the expected same lazy set ups. Jones obviously wanted to keep the attention of the audience, and key to it was that there mind was probably grasped early enough anyway, the next step was to make sure that they were awaken by what they saw as well as what they heard.
Jones, who elicited a career effort from Sam Rockwell, does the same with Gyllenhaal here as he graduates to play a man, too often he has played prolonged adolescents or boys who have not grown up, in Colter Stevens we see a responsible adult on screen. He is helped admirably by the two females, Monaghan has never looked lovelier and for someone who started so late in her career she aswell is garnering quite a CV from Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang to this via the underrated Eagle Eye, she is a calm presence, as is Farmiga here who plays a soldier and woman, and is reassuring to Stevens as he battles in his 'pod' and quest for the answers - taking a severely underwritten role and extending it to something more as she becomes a shared spirit with Stevens. Jeffrey Wright also plays Rutledge as malevolent self brooding and self-important mad scientist but ultimately a gloryhound in search of fame and fortune.
If I have one flaw it would be the ending, non-ending debate; the choice of actual ending combined with ending that they could have had will be one of endless discussion on noticeboards and forums. My belief is there was a chance to leave the hero in limbo would have been a noble deed to a man who did quite a lot, and all the talk of living for the moment and if you had one second left to live, what would you do - they swerve us and go in another direction. I felt this was a shame of the initial intentions and contradictory to the intentions of the character, Colter Stevens himself.
Be that as it may, the film still takes you on a brilliant journey full of thrills and spills with something for everyone including romance, adventure and a good old fashioned time travel yarn. Recommended to everyone, it may be marketed as science fiction but it is a good film so do not let genre labels put you off. And as for Gyllenhaal, he has found his niche and his entry into the A-list is assured now.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Blue Valentine DVD review
Blue Valentine is released by Optimum Entertainment on Monday 9th May for £12.99RRP and is also available on Blu-Ray
Director, Derek Cianfrance, has taken a long while to get his screenplay to the screen - supposedly nine years from treatment to production; what has to be asked is why did theoretically a two-hander between the man, Dean (Ryan Gosling) and wife, Cindy (Michelle Williams) take so long to get to the screen. The dual narrative tells the story of a breakdown of a marriage, whilst also showing how they came together in the first place.
This narrative of a breakdown of a marriage due to an overblown ego of a male and a derailment of romance has been seen previously in American independence cinema and is a familiar trope to be executed, most notably by John Cassavettes' Faces and most recently in Francois Ozon's memorable 5x2, which showed the breakdown of a marriage in chronological order but in reverse - starting in the divorce lawyer's office and ending with the meet cute.
On this occasion we start with the couple with their child and then sending child to grandfather to indulge in a romantic getaway at a fleabag themed hotel, ironically they choose the 'Future Room' which is exactly what they do not have by journey's end. This narrative is interrupted by flashbacks to the time when they first encountered each other, the meet cute and personal dilemmas involved once Cindy becomes pregnant with someone else's baby.
After she refuses an abortion, Dean offers to be a father to a child that is not his and husband in a new family. The film shows them 6-8 years after this life-changing decison and the effect it has had on Dean is startling; a shadow of his younger, viral self with a receding hairline and alcohol addiction, which is alluded throughout the film and admonished by the film's chronological end.
This is a bold and brave piece of filmmaking, especially by the two leads who helped with the film's flow in terms of improvising dialogue but at times some scenes come across a little too self-indulgent, such as when Dean serenades Cindy with a solo ukelele performance with a high voice as she dances in a doorway; whilst this is romantic, could the flashback just be too indicative of how perfect it all was back then and perhaps too sentimental to punch the message home.
Cindy wants to be a doctor but ends up as a nurse who is hit upon by her new boss, another example of a man in this film who is a douchebag. Most of the men in this film are douchebags, especially Dean who at times is both irritating and selfish, as is Bobby (the man who impregnated Cindy), a boy all full of testosterone. And Dean could be a renaissance man, but puts his idea of virtue above providing financial stability for his family by becoming a house painter.
Interestingly, the scene where Cindy bumps into her child's father, Bobby (Mike Vogel) in a liquor store is a weird scene but played perfectly by Williams - her eyes lighting up at meeting an old flame with excitement burning in her heart for the first time in quite a while.
However, even good production values such as switching of camera style - from handheld video for the contemporary scenes giving it a harsher, grittier quality and then harking back to 16mm for the flashback scenes giving them a warmer, happier tone - cannot save the film from the requirement of a tighter script that on occasions in the modern day scenes pleads for the less is more approach, as Dean repeats another vital line to death. Sometimes the audience, especially the independent cinema one should be respected enough to get the message straight away.
Not to do a disservice to Williams and Gosling in their performances, whilst Gosling is all brooding and showy with his sunglasses hiding inner turmoil, Williams is brilliant as a young woman whose ambition and drive to be a better person and wife than her own browbeaten mother is shot to pieces by the sheer over-inflated ego of her husband. But it is these two performances from two esteemed actors of their generation that raises this film above from passable to watchable.
Released on May 9th by Optimum Entertainment on Blu-Ray and DVD
Director, Derek Cianfrance, has taken a long while to get his screenplay to the screen - supposedly nine years from treatment to production; what has to be asked is why did theoretically a two-hander between the man, Dean (Ryan Gosling) and wife, Cindy (Michelle Williams) take so long to get to the screen. The dual narrative tells the story of a breakdown of a marriage, whilst also showing how they came together in the first place.
This narrative of a breakdown of a marriage due to an overblown ego of a male and a derailment of romance has been seen previously in American independence cinema and is a familiar trope to be executed, most notably by John Cassavettes' Faces and most recently in Francois Ozon's memorable 5x2, which showed the breakdown of a marriage in chronological order but in reverse - starting in the divorce lawyer's office and ending with the meet cute.
On this occasion we start with the couple with their child and then sending child to grandfather to indulge in a romantic getaway at a fleabag themed hotel, ironically they choose the 'Future Room' which is exactly what they do not have by journey's end. This narrative is interrupted by flashbacks to the time when they first encountered each other, the meet cute and personal dilemmas involved once Cindy becomes pregnant with someone else's baby.
After she refuses an abortion, Dean offers to be a father to a child that is not his and husband in a new family. The film shows them 6-8 years after this life-changing decison and the effect it has had on Dean is startling; a shadow of his younger, viral self with a receding hairline and alcohol addiction, which is alluded throughout the film and admonished by the film's chronological end.
This is a bold and brave piece of filmmaking, especially by the two leads who helped with the film's flow in terms of improvising dialogue but at times some scenes come across a little too self-indulgent, such as when Dean serenades Cindy with a solo ukelele performance with a high voice as she dances in a doorway; whilst this is romantic, could the flashback just be too indicative of how perfect it all was back then and perhaps too sentimental to punch the message home.
Cindy wants to be a doctor but ends up as a nurse who is hit upon by her new boss, another example of a man in this film who is a douchebag. Most of the men in this film are douchebags, especially Dean who at times is both irritating and selfish, as is Bobby (the man who impregnated Cindy), a boy all full of testosterone. And Dean could be a renaissance man, but puts his idea of virtue above providing financial stability for his family by becoming a house painter.
Interestingly, the scene where Cindy bumps into her child's father, Bobby (Mike Vogel) in a liquor store is a weird scene but played perfectly by Williams - her eyes lighting up at meeting an old flame with excitement burning in her heart for the first time in quite a while.
However, even good production values such as switching of camera style - from handheld video for the contemporary scenes giving it a harsher, grittier quality and then harking back to 16mm for the flashback scenes giving them a warmer, happier tone - cannot save the film from the requirement of a tighter script that on occasions in the modern day scenes pleads for the less is more approach, as Dean repeats another vital line to death. Sometimes the audience, especially the independent cinema one should be respected enough to get the message straight away.
Not to do a disservice to Williams and Gosling in their performances, whilst Gosling is all brooding and showy with his sunglasses hiding inner turmoil, Williams is brilliant as a young woman whose ambition and drive to be a better person and wife than her own browbeaten mother is shot to pieces by the sheer over-inflated ego of her husband. But it is these two performances from two esteemed actors of their generation that raises this film above from passable to watchable.
Released on May 9th by Optimum Entertainment on Blu-Ray and DVD
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Louise-Michel DVD review
The directors of the cult French classi Aaltra, return with a tale in tribute to a French anarchist that gives the film its name. Louise-Michel tells the tale of a laid off factory worker who takes her redundancy pay to hire an assassin to kill the boss who fired her; in doing so she hires an inept security guard with fantasist dreams of guns, this happen stance leads to many misunderstandings but a black humour mixed with memorable sight gags.
Louise (Yolande Moreau) is an ex-con who is laid off by the toy factory, and who after her colleagues pool the 20.000euros together convinces them to knock off the boss. After losing contact with her initial choice, she happens across Michel (Bouli Lanners), who proudly carries his gun and seems perfect but his ineptitude leads him to sub-contract the job to inexperienced gunmen, leading to hilarious results.
In this current global recession, where money is of the essence you sympathise with the female workers at the factory, but you cannot feel morally conflicted about their subversive decision to seek justice. (Oddly, this film was released one week after the crisis at Lehman Brothers in its homeland; but has had to wait two years for a UK release.)
The cult classic Aaltra had the premise of two wheelchair users trailing across Belgium to seek vengeance on the manufacturers whose machinery led to their disability, this sight gag of two wheelchairs on the road led to many a sight gag. And the directing pair repeat this trick on numerous occasions; such as when they the two leads first meet and he tries to find his home in the caravan park, a simple task leads to a maze of wondering where he is going; and when he attempts target practice but mistakenly shoots a cow to uproarious effect.
Much like their previous work, the film soon descends into a cross-European odyessey as the answer to Louise's question of who sacked her becomes ever longer. This movement of characters from town to next town is a bit of a shame, as any film reliant on gunplay and assassins should be geographically restricted to the town where the action initialises, it is a generic convention a la In Bruges, unless it has the geopolitical spectrum of The Bourne Trilogy or the leisure of expense that James Bond has.
What does not get mentioned in the reviews upon its theatrical release is the question of gender in the two leading roles, and how they have both transgressed from the gender they were born as - whilst alluded to earlier in the film, it does not get spoken about until near the film's conclusion and then washed over somewhat, as the directors seek laughs.
The directors perhaps did not realise they had a convincing drama about sexuality, disability and moral fortitude in their hands. The pursuit of laughs sometimes goes down a dead end, such as the poor in taste sight gag of an ill chosen hitman, who shows of a scale demonstration of the Twin Towers. Just as in poor taste, was Michel utilising his terminally ill cancer-stricken cousin, in attempting to bump off said boss. After this, the film's laughs are harder to come by as they tried too hard to get a laugh.
Whilst the film fails to deliver on the moral quandries it poses, it does deliver on sheer inventiveness and absurd behaviour by less than perfect characters. The surreal nature of the film may lend Benoit and Kervern another cult following.
The DVD features a nice set of deleted scenes, theatrical trailer and stills gallery; somewhat good set of extras for a foreign title.
The film is released by Axiom Films on DVD on Monday 25th April for £15.99RRP
Louise (Yolande Moreau) is an ex-con who is laid off by the toy factory, and who after her colleagues pool the 20.000euros together convinces them to knock off the boss. After losing contact with her initial choice, she happens across Michel (Bouli Lanners), who proudly carries his gun and seems perfect but his ineptitude leads him to sub-contract the job to inexperienced gunmen, leading to hilarious results.
In this current global recession, where money is of the essence you sympathise with the female workers at the factory, but you cannot feel morally conflicted about their subversive decision to seek justice. (Oddly, this film was released one week after the crisis at Lehman Brothers in its homeland; but has had to wait two years for a UK release.)
The cult classic Aaltra had the premise of two wheelchair users trailing across Belgium to seek vengeance on the manufacturers whose machinery led to their disability, this sight gag of two wheelchairs on the road led to many a sight gag. And the directing pair repeat this trick on numerous occasions; such as when they the two leads first meet and he tries to find his home in the caravan park, a simple task leads to a maze of wondering where he is going; and when he attempts target practice but mistakenly shoots a cow to uproarious effect.
Much like their previous work, the film soon descends into a cross-European odyessey as the answer to Louise's question of who sacked her becomes ever longer. This movement of characters from town to next town is a bit of a shame, as any film reliant on gunplay and assassins should be geographically restricted to the town where the action initialises, it is a generic convention a la In Bruges, unless it has the geopolitical spectrum of The Bourne Trilogy or the leisure of expense that James Bond has.
What does not get mentioned in the reviews upon its theatrical release is the question of gender in the two leading roles, and how they have both transgressed from the gender they were born as - whilst alluded to earlier in the film, it does not get spoken about until near the film's conclusion and then washed over somewhat, as the directors seek laughs.
The directors perhaps did not realise they had a convincing drama about sexuality, disability and moral fortitude in their hands. The pursuit of laughs sometimes goes down a dead end, such as the poor in taste sight gag of an ill chosen hitman, who shows of a scale demonstration of the Twin Towers. Just as in poor taste, was Michel utilising his terminally ill cancer-stricken cousin, in attempting to bump off said boss. After this, the film's laughs are harder to come by as they tried too hard to get a laugh.
Whilst the film fails to deliver on the moral quandries it poses, it does deliver on sheer inventiveness and absurd behaviour by less than perfect characters. The surreal nature of the film may lend Benoit and Kervern another cult following.
The DVD features a nice set of deleted scenes, theatrical trailer and stills gallery; somewhat good set of extras for a foreign title.
The film is released by Axiom Films on DVD on Monday 25th April for £15.99RRP
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Black Swan
Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, US, 2010)
Following on from the surprise of The Wrestler where he reinvigorated the career of Mickey Rourke (and somewhat saved his own after the disappointment of The Fountain), Darren Aronofsky returns with another film that goes behind the velvet curtain and features a powerhouse leading performance. This film is led by Natalie Portman, who deservedly won the Oscar for Best Leading Actress at this year's ceremony, as Nina a perfectionist ballerina, whom is unexpectedly promoted to the position of lead dancer following the suicide attempt of the previous holder, played with evil malevolence by Winona Ryder.
Talented but worried by the onset of age as her chance may have passed, Nina is greeted by alpha male director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) as the person to play the dual role of Odette/Odile, the White Swan and the alter-ego, Black Swan in Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. Upon granting her the role of a lifetime, Leroy is himself perplexed by Nina's apparent angel quality for the white swan, but fears she does not have the underlying sexual energy for the black swan. This is both Nina's and the film's dilemma.
The introduction of new chorus girl, Lily (Mila Kunis) who has a fluidity and sexuality all too readily available in contrast to Nina's timidity means Nina is in constant battle with Lily; initial friendship leads to intimacy leads to regrettable bitterness. Nina also has a strict parent in the form of mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) who still treats Nina as a pre-teen girl scared of her growing up and not being able to enjoy her success with her.
Aronofsky from the outset employs his hand-held camera as his eye on this world, immediately positioning itself upon Portman's shoulder as she enters a stage to dance. It is as if we are prying upon a private world. However, this has always been a m.o. of Aronofsky, showing us worlds we rarely see and perhaps reluctant to see; from the wrestlers taping up before a show and licking their wounds afterwards to the down and out routine of the junkies in Requiem for a Dream. The director chooses to be in the face of the character, using scenes we would not see normally in a ballet/dance film - did you know ballerinas get massaged just as much as wrestlers.
Black Swan combines part of thriller elements with body horror and a psychological study of a paranoid young woman experiencing hallucinations, not hiding the fact that this should be considered a 'woman's picture'. The use of doubles and mirrors are used predominantly - such as when Nina walks along a subway and her face is transposed onto the face of the oncoming person, she looks at herself and freezes. The mirror and constant looking at herself, when scratching a rash leads to many, only enhances her hallucinations. Ironically, her major act of violence is committed using a shard of glass.
Aronofsky does not pander to the audience forcing us to make quick judgments, even providing a double cross after the final act of violence allowing the end result to become more poignant. The tale of Nina's constant struggle for perfection is driven by her character alone, she has people around her who wish to push her off course, but it is her intrinsic being to be perfect that heightens these delusions and ultimately to her eventual downfall.
The end is similar to the ending of The Wrestler when Mickey Rourke dove off the top turnbuckle but we did not see the landing, on this occasion we see Nina land but the landing was just as uncomfortable.
At times a difficult watch due to the body horror coupled with genuine scares and moments of terror, the film is steadied by a stellar performance by Portman who is ably assisted by Kunis, who shows a different side to her talent playing misunderstood and sexual, instead of the girl next door she is frequently cast in. Aronofsky again shepherds his actors to career performances whilst indelibly leaving his fingerprint upon proceedings.
Following on from the surprise of The Wrestler where he reinvigorated the career of Mickey Rourke (and somewhat saved his own after the disappointment of The Fountain), Darren Aronofsky returns with another film that goes behind the velvet curtain and features a powerhouse leading performance. This film is led by Natalie Portman, who deservedly won the Oscar for Best Leading Actress at this year's ceremony, as Nina a perfectionist ballerina, whom is unexpectedly promoted to the position of lead dancer following the suicide attempt of the previous holder, played with evil malevolence by Winona Ryder.
Talented but worried by the onset of age as her chance may have passed, Nina is greeted by alpha male director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) as the person to play the dual role of Odette/Odile, the White Swan and the alter-ego, Black Swan in Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. Upon granting her the role of a lifetime, Leroy is himself perplexed by Nina's apparent angel quality for the white swan, but fears she does not have the underlying sexual energy for the black swan. This is both Nina's and the film's dilemma.
The introduction of new chorus girl, Lily (Mila Kunis) who has a fluidity and sexuality all too readily available in contrast to Nina's timidity means Nina is in constant battle with Lily; initial friendship leads to intimacy leads to regrettable bitterness. Nina also has a strict parent in the form of mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) who still treats Nina as a pre-teen girl scared of her growing up and not being able to enjoy her success with her.
Aronofsky from the outset employs his hand-held camera as his eye on this world, immediately positioning itself upon Portman's shoulder as she enters a stage to dance. It is as if we are prying upon a private world. However, this has always been a m.o. of Aronofsky, showing us worlds we rarely see and perhaps reluctant to see; from the wrestlers taping up before a show and licking their wounds afterwards to the down and out routine of the junkies in Requiem for a Dream. The director chooses to be in the face of the character, using scenes we would not see normally in a ballet/dance film - did you know ballerinas get massaged just as much as wrestlers.
Black Swan combines part of thriller elements with body horror and a psychological study of a paranoid young woman experiencing hallucinations, not hiding the fact that this should be considered a 'woman's picture'. The use of doubles and mirrors are used predominantly - such as when Nina walks along a subway and her face is transposed onto the face of the oncoming person, she looks at herself and freezes. The mirror and constant looking at herself, when scratching a rash leads to many, only enhances her hallucinations. Ironically, her major act of violence is committed using a shard of glass.
Aronofsky does not pander to the audience forcing us to make quick judgments, even providing a double cross after the final act of violence allowing the end result to become more poignant. The tale of Nina's constant struggle for perfection is driven by her character alone, she has people around her who wish to push her off course, but it is her intrinsic being to be perfect that heightens these delusions and ultimately to her eventual downfall.
The end is similar to the ending of The Wrestler when Mickey Rourke dove off the top turnbuckle but we did not see the landing, on this occasion we see Nina land but the landing was just as uncomfortable.
At times a difficult watch due to the body horror coupled with genuine scares and moments of terror, the film is steadied by a stellar performance by Portman who is ably assisted by Kunis, who shows a different side to her talent playing misunderstood and sexual, instead of the girl next door she is frequently cast in. Aronofsky again shepherds his actors to career performances whilst indelibly leaving his fingerprint upon proceedings.
Friday, 4 February 2011
Winter's Bone
Critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated for acting, writing and music - the winner of the 2010 Grand Jury prize at Sundance, arrives on DVD from Artificial Eye. Starring Jennifer Lawrence in a breakout star making performance, the film is gritty and tense in the American tradition of Hollywood crime thrillers, but in the mould of independent cinema predecessors, the film shines a light on a part of America you have not seen before, and but for the commitment of the film-makers would remain out of the spotlight.
Ree Dolly (Lawrence), is 17 years old and lives at home with her ill mother and two younger siblings, after a visit from a local police officier she has to find her missing father, who has skipped bail and has put up their family home up as collateral; if he does not attend before his court hearing, the house will be repossessed.
Set in the Ozark woods of Missouri, Ree embarks upon an odyessey to find him and find answers amongst a close knit but tight lipped community, the code of silence is paramount when draped across the majestic landscapes that paint a picture of a weary world amongst all these questions and allegations. Ignoring threats and advice from friends and family, Ree gradually pieces together the reason for her father's disappearance.
The film is directed by Debra Granik ('Down to the Bone'), who adapted Daniel Woodrell's novel with Anne Rosellini for the screen, they bring the thriller elements to the film and nature plays a part on film; at times you can feel the cold enveloping you as Ree plods on to her next port of call.
At times brutal in its starkness, and with flashes of genuine violence; the film does not foresake a sense of humour for its grittiness. At one time in the story, Ree along with a friend has to cut hands off of a dead character to help identify the body - Ree holds the arm out of the water whilst her accomplice chainsaws off the hand. Once done, Ree lets out a wail at the gruesomeness (the director, cleverly does not show bone or blood, only heightening the sound of the tool being used and facial expressions of Lawrence to convey the fear occuring), she drops the body into the water. Only for the accomplice to ask why did she let go, as they need both hands for proof. A moment of Lynch-esque humour in a tale of bleak midwinter.
Orginal in its depiction of this wild frontier, and helped by the beautiful soundtrack of mountain music that indicates a place and a release for the community of robust individuals. The film belongs to the 20 year old Lawrence, who acts beyond her and her character's years; being mother to her siblings whilst her mother is ill, strong and determined in her attempts to track down the truth and not backing down from anybody. Deservedly, Lawrence has been nominated for Best Actress at the Oscars in a couple of weeks, as has the Adapted Screenplay, but she was joined on the nomination list by John Hawkes who plays her Uncle Teardrop, a mixture of menace and terror (somewhat akin to Robert Mitchum in 'Night of the Hunter'), who may provide the answers to his brothers whereabouts. As is the music nominated, as original and as fresh as the film it helps score.
A film that hopefully will not fall off of the radar anytime soon, the DVD release comes a long time after its theatrical release in late September, a testament to the staying power of a film that from humble beginnings can proudly sit at the top table in Hollywood, as the film itself received one of the ten Best Picture nominations, affirming it as the independent film of 2010.
Released by Artificial Eye on 31 January, certified 15; the DVD is £15.99 RRP, Blu-Ray £19.99RRP
http://www.artificial-eye.com/home.php
Ree Dolly (Lawrence), is 17 years old and lives at home with her ill mother and two younger siblings, after a visit from a local police officier she has to find her missing father, who has skipped bail and has put up their family home up as collateral; if he does not attend before his court hearing, the house will be repossessed.
Set in the Ozark woods of Missouri, Ree embarks upon an odyessey to find him and find answers amongst a close knit but tight lipped community, the code of silence is paramount when draped across the majestic landscapes that paint a picture of a weary world amongst all these questions and allegations. Ignoring threats and advice from friends and family, Ree gradually pieces together the reason for her father's disappearance.
The film is directed by Debra Granik ('Down to the Bone'), who adapted Daniel Woodrell's novel with Anne Rosellini for the screen, they bring the thriller elements to the film and nature plays a part on film; at times you can feel the cold enveloping you as Ree plods on to her next port of call.
At times brutal in its starkness, and with flashes of genuine violence; the film does not foresake a sense of humour for its grittiness. At one time in the story, Ree along with a friend has to cut hands off of a dead character to help identify the body - Ree holds the arm out of the water whilst her accomplice chainsaws off the hand. Once done, Ree lets out a wail at the gruesomeness (the director, cleverly does not show bone or blood, only heightening the sound of the tool being used and facial expressions of Lawrence to convey the fear occuring), she drops the body into the water. Only for the accomplice to ask why did she let go, as they need both hands for proof. A moment of Lynch-esque humour in a tale of bleak midwinter.
Orginal in its depiction of this wild frontier, and helped by the beautiful soundtrack of mountain music that indicates a place and a release for the community of robust individuals. The film belongs to the 20 year old Lawrence, who acts beyond her and her character's years; being mother to her siblings whilst her mother is ill, strong and determined in her attempts to track down the truth and not backing down from anybody. Deservedly, Lawrence has been nominated for Best Actress at the Oscars in a couple of weeks, as has the Adapted Screenplay, but she was joined on the nomination list by John Hawkes who plays her Uncle Teardrop, a mixture of menace and terror (somewhat akin to Robert Mitchum in 'Night of the Hunter'), who may provide the answers to his brothers whereabouts. As is the music nominated, as original and as fresh as the film it helps score.
A film that hopefully will not fall off of the radar anytime soon, the DVD release comes a long time after its theatrical release in late September, a testament to the staying power of a film that from humble beginnings can proudly sit at the top table in Hollywood, as the film itself received one of the ten Best Picture nominations, affirming it as the independent film of 2010.
Released by Artificial Eye on 31 January, certified 15; the DVD is £15.99 RRP, Blu-Ray £19.99RRP
http://www.artificial-eye.com/home.php
Monday, 17 January 2011
CERTIFIED COPY
Palme D'Or winning director Abbas Kiarostami, returns to film with 'Certified Copy' a film that is set over one day in Tuscany and follows the chance meeting of a respected English author, James Miller (played by opera singer, William Shimell) and a gallery owner (Juliette Binoche), who remains unnamed. After being mistaken for a married couple, the woman insists they keep up the pretence. However, soon enough it appears there is more to the relationship than we first thought.
Kiarostami has always had this theme of truth and fiction running through his work, look at his script for 'Close Up' and 'Ten', where the question regarding reality and its display are questioned by him as well as the audience. And here he plays on that scheme and winks at his own work, Miller's book he is promoting is about art and the lecture he gives to accompany the promotion, is judging the value of original works versus copies. In his speech Miller mentions the title of his book, which some critics have deemed controversial, he apologies blaming the editors who require controversial titles to sell more books. Is Kiarostami having a dig at people who do not get his slowburn works in comparison to other auteurs who have found favour? The auteur should be commended for never deviating from his career's work, his work can be thought of more as art than cinema, is there a difference between the two, or is that another discussion he wants us to engage in.
Himself lifting a premise not too dissimilar from Richard Linklater's 'Before Sunset' but on this occasion you do not know if this is a married couple playing a game to stimulate a failing marriage, or a couple who have just met - the audience have to stick with the film and make a judgment for themselves, and at the end still not sure if it is true or false.
Binoche illuminates the screen as always and Shimell has a real presence on the screen in his first major feature film role, his work in another form of the media giving credence to his role. Kiarostami loves to mix in different medias to his work; an English opera singer plays an English author, a French actress plays a gallery owner in Italy. In one sentence I have mentioned opera, literature, film and art. Kiarostami makes no excuses for his love of all culture, and this attempt to tick all the boxes may smack of reaching too far by others, on this occasion he gets the balance just right.
The film is well acted and tightly scripted, expertly directed. The opening monologue by Shimell is a great opening, you have him giving a lecture but more often than not the camera is on his audience and a young boy trying to get Binoche's attention. So in fact you get a speech of no relevance, with some tidbits but there is a lot going on; you get the results if you pay attention. Patience is a profitable virtue with Kiarostami's films.
Recommended viewing for all people who eat up European auteur cinema (yes I know the director is from Iran) but this work owes a huge debt to the legacy of Antonioni and Bergman. Kiarostami carries the torch those two have left behind.
Available from Artificial Eye on Blu-Ray (£19.99) and DVD (£15.99) from January 17th 2011
Kiarostami has always had this theme of truth and fiction running through his work, look at his script for 'Close Up' and 'Ten', where the question regarding reality and its display are questioned by him as well as the audience. And here he plays on that scheme and winks at his own work, Miller's book he is promoting is about art and the lecture he gives to accompany the promotion, is judging the value of original works versus copies. In his speech Miller mentions the title of his book, which some critics have deemed controversial, he apologies blaming the editors who require controversial titles to sell more books. Is Kiarostami having a dig at people who do not get his slowburn works in comparison to other auteurs who have found favour? The auteur should be commended for never deviating from his career's work, his work can be thought of more as art than cinema, is there a difference between the two, or is that another discussion he wants us to engage in.
Himself lifting a premise not too dissimilar from Richard Linklater's 'Before Sunset' but on this occasion you do not know if this is a married couple playing a game to stimulate a failing marriage, or a couple who have just met - the audience have to stick with the film and make a judgment for themselves, and at the end still not sure if it is true or false.
Binoche illuminates the screen as always and Shimell has a real presence on the screen in his first major feature film role, his work in another form of the media giving credence to his role. Kiarostami loves to mix in different medias to his work; an English opera singer plays an English author, a French actress plays a gallery owner in Italy. In one sentence I have mentioned opera, literature, film and art. Kiarostami makes no excuses for his love of all culture, and this attempt to tick all the boxes may smack of reaching too far by others, on this occasion he gets the balance just right.
The film is well acted and tightly scripted, expertly directed. The opening monologue by Shimell is a great opening, you have him giving a lecture but more often than not the camera is on his audience and a young boy trying to get Binoche's attention. So in fact you get a speech of no relevance, with some tidbits but there is a lot going on; you get the results if you pay attention. Patience is a profitable virtue with Kiarostami's films.
Recommended viewing for all people who eat up European auteur cinema (yes I know the director is from Iran) but this work owes a huge debt to the legacy of Antonioni and Bergman. Kiarostami carries the torch those two have left behind.
Available from Artificial Eye on Blu-Ray (£19.99) and DVD (£15.99) from January 17th 2011
Thursday, 13 January 2011
The Interpreter
Can someone please explain 'The Interpreter' to me?
I caught this film on ITV2 the other evening, and remember when this film was first released how intrigued I was by the premise with its Hitchock and 'The Conversation' influences along with the combined force of Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman being directed by the very reliable Sydney Pollack.
Unfortunately, my hopes for the film were dashed, by the sad mish-mash of what I did see. A would be thriller that was not thrilling, devoid of sexual chemistry between its two leads (when it dearly needed it) and what descends into a love letter for more peaceful times of diplomacy and pre-Apartheid South Africa.
You could call it a mess, but that would be doing a disservice to the word or films that truly were - 'Showgirls' and 'Dude, Where's My Car?' - Nicole Kidman saunters around pouting forever, doing her best Meryl Streep impression (remember Pollack directed Streep in 'Out of Africa') with another voice to her ever burdgeoning collection, it is unfortunate for an actress who can be so good only really appears in one good film for every bad four. That is not a terrific ratio for a Hollywood star, all stars appear in some crap but not like her; 'The Stepford Wives', 'Australia', that piece of crap with Daniel Craig - she is an Oscar winning actress that makes some bad choices. This film came hot on the heels from her winning performance in 'The Hours', likewise Penn in 'Mystic River', so you are allowed some rope to hang yourself with. But a film that ceremonially rips off a Coppola classic and does not deem itself worthy to acknowledge such a thing is bemusing.
Penn, is another actor who gets on my nerves. All method, but no posturing, here he plays a widower who comes back to work just two weeks after his wife's untimely death in a car crash - what really, your bosses at the Secret Service, thought you had grieved enough to work at the United Nations after such a long process. He broods, he is angry, he raises his voice; he is the man to Kidman's woman, we are very clear about that - but the love interest that would appear in any other film involving an agent and the person he is protecting, never materialises - even the suggestion of a kiss in the epilogue never comes.
To be a director of thrillers, you have to keep things away from the audience. Here Pollack decides to let us know everything that is going on, this is okay if there is a final twist. Not on this occasion, what we see is what we get - there are two scares; the mask at the window and the gunman, both done sufficiently. But the bus explosion is done badly, once Penn tells his boys to get off the bus - you know the bad thing will happen. You also have to be a bit of a bastard to your audience, and not respect them so much - he likes to give them answers before necessary. A thriller can be fun, and well surprising.
If someone could interpret this film as anything other than a PR coup for the UN (this was the first film to allow scenes to be shot inside of it), you would have thought a better script would have been delivered.
What remains is a film that flatters to deceive,and leaves you feeling aggreived for wasting your time in watching it. Too long to make its point, after there is no point to be delivered. And a waste of Catherine Keener's talents also, who is nothing more than a lumbering sidekick to Penn the brooder.
I caught this film on ITV2 the other evening, and remember when this film was first released how intrigued I was by the premise with its Hitchock and 'The Conversation' influences along with the combined force of Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman being directed by the very reliable Sydney Pollack.
Unfortunately, my hopes for the film were dashed, by the sad mish-mash of what I did see. A would be thriller that was not thrilling, devoid of sexual chemistry between its two leads (when it dearly needed it) and what descends into a love letter for more peaceful times of diplomacy and pre-Apartheid South Africa.
You could call it a mess, but that would be doing a disservice to the word or films that truly were - 'Showgirls' and 'Dude, Where's My Car?' - Nicole Kidman saunters around pouting forever, doing her best Meryl Streep impression (remember Pollack directed Streep in 'Out of Africa') with another voice to her ever burdgeoning collection, it is unfortunate for an actress who can be so good only really appears in one good film for every bad four. That is not a terrific ratio for a Hollywood star, all stars appear in some crap but not like her; 'The Stepford Wives', 'Australia', that piece of crap with Daniel Craig - she is an Oscar winning actress that makes some bad choices. This film came hot on the heels from her winning performance in 'The Hours', likewise Penn in 'Mystic River', so you are allowed some rope to hang yourself with. But a film that ceremonially rips off a Coppola classic and does not deem itself worthy to acknowledge such a thing is bemusing.
Penn, is another actor who gets on my nerves. All method, but no posturing, here he plays a widower who comes back to work just two weeks after his wife's untimely death in a car crash - what really, your bosses at the Secret Service, thought you had grieved enough to work at the United Nations after such a long process. He broods, he is angry, he raises his voice; he is the man to Kidman's woman, we are very clear about that - but the love interest that would appear in any other film involving an agent and the person he is protecting, never materialises - even the suggestion of a kiss in the epilogue never comes.
To be a director of thrillers, you have to keep things away from the audience. Here Pollack decides to let us know everything that is going on, this is okay if there is a final twist. Not on this occasion, what we see is what we get - there are two scares; the mask at the window and the gunman, both done sufficiently. But the bus explosion is done badly, once Penn tells his boys to get off the bus - you know the bad thing will happen. You also have to be a bit of a bastard to your audience, and not respect them so much - he likes to give them answers before necessary. A thriller can be fun, and well surprising.
If someone could interpret this film as anything other than a PR coup for the UN (this was the first film to allow scenes to be shot inside of it), you would have thought a better script would have been delivered.
What remains is a film that flatters to deceive,and leaves you feeling aggreived for wasting your time in watching it. Too long to make its point, after there is no point to be delivered. And a waste of Catherine Keener's talents also, who is nothing more than a lumbering sidekick to Penn the brooder.
Monday, 6 December 2010
TRON:Legacy
Tron (1982) is the typical cult film, in the fact that even though you may not have seen it in its entireity, you feel as if you have because it has been parodied and spoofed in many shows and cartoons as in 'Family Guy', coupled with the famous one-sheet poster, with its pop icon imagery of frisbees as weapons, motorbikes in a computer grid and the now brilliant casting of Jeff Bridges as a zen-like maverick of computer technology.
Bridges returns in the film as Kevin Flynn, the patriarchal creator of the world where all the action takes place as it enters the thousandth cycle of its being. We enter the film at 1989, Flynn is sitting with his six year old son, Sean in his bedroom having to go to work late again. Flynn never returns, presumed missing as if vanished from the face of the world; Sean (Garrett Hedlund - smouldering) grows up to become the major shareholder of the company, EnCom, which is about to enter the Japanese stock market but Sean attempts to rebel and cause a meltdown of the company using his technical ability to hack and hijack the programs.
His surrogate father and Flynn's long-time friend, Alan (Bruce Boxleitner) approaches Sean after his latest hijinks saying he received a page from Flynn from a number that has been disconnected for 20 years. Sean goes down to his fathers office at the old arcade (full of nostalgic games including the spin-off 'Tron'), after finding a hidden wall to his office and intialising the last run program, Sean is beamed into the world of Tron.
Confronted by people who capture him, the world learn he is a user/human, and so after a series of survival contests - set pieces reminiscent of gladiatorial warfare involving said frisbees and then the trademark motorcycle variant of 'Rollerball'. After these set pieces whet your appetite in glorious 3D we are then thrust into a father-son relationship film as after being hoodwinked by Clu (a computer version of Bridges), whom has taken over control of the world from Flynn, Sean finally comes face-to-face with his father in a room not too dissimilar from the end room of '2001'. This is Flynn's sanctuary in the outer regions away from the mess of Tron that he is established with the help of Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who may have answers to the future of our real world in terms of religion, science, philosophy.
They attempt to get back to the portal that Sean came through, before it close and the chance has gone. And so the film becomes a chase film and reminiscent of those films from the original film's era 'Battle Beyond the Stars' and even the original Star Wars trilogy; a motley crew going against an ordered system to gain victory without a hint of irony in the sense of sacrifice that may be committed.
With the help of a great scene involving Michael Sheen as Zeus, a deal maker in this world, that could make the journey easier, Clu tracks him down and the pursuit is ongoing. Sheen pouts around the stage in his 70s Bowie persona, using his identifiable cane as a character in his own right to make him more memorable; and even the music producer Daft Punk are afforded a cameo as his personal DJ's in the 'End of the Line' club; one of those bars that will go in movie folklore such as the Mos Eisley cantina and the Milk Bar from 'A Clockwork Orange'.
Directed by debut helmer, Joseph Kosinski (an architecture major, but geek at heart) with great clarity and purpose, in the fact that he takes a lot of the action and exposition with a pinch of salt; a sense of general disbelief would be appreciated in this film. But the film, whilst it will not win a barrow load of awards, is nevertheless good action/sci-fi cinema. A script that is brisk and bouncy, characters that are believable helped in part by the commendable actors; Bridges brings his Dude-like persona to the party ('You're really messing with my Zen, man.'); Hedlund injects just enough vulnerability into his would-be rebel in need of a father and Wilde gives doe-eyed innocence to a role (similar to Daryl Hannah did in 'Splash' ) by the film's conclusion, as she takes a look around the world she is now a stranger to.
The promise of a sequel to this film itself the longest gestated sequel is foreboding, but necessary when you consider the possibilites of an uncredited cameo of Cillian Murphy (wearing his evil glasses) going up against all-American Hedlund on this Earth.
With so many people invested in a film that happened so long ago, the prospect of them falling flat in their collective faces could so easily have happened. However, it must be said that the film is a triumph and a good box-office banker; thrills, spills, laughs, action, adventure and a kick-ass soundtrack from the people born to do it.
It is formatted for 2D, 3D and IMAX, but whichever form you see it in you will not be disappointed by this roller coaster action yarn; science-fiction action film is back with a bang; from a film we thought that had disappeared without a whimper.
Released nationally on December 16th.
Bridges returns in the film as Kevin Flynn, the patriarchal creator of the world where all the action takes place as it enters the thousandth cycle of its being. We enter the film at 1989, Flynn is sitting with his six year old son, Sean in his bedroom having to go to work late again. Flynn never returns, presumed missing as if vanished from the face of the world; Sean (Garrett Hedlund - smouldering) grows up to become the major shareholder of the company, EnCom, which is about to enter the Japanese stock market but Sean attempts to rebel and cause a meltdown of the company using his technical ability to hack and hijack the programs.
His surrogate father and Flynn's long-time friend, Alan (Bruce Boxleitner) approaches Sean after his latest hijinks saying he received a page from Flynn from a number that has been disconnected for 20 years. Sean goes down to his fathers office at the old arcade (full of nostalgic games including the spin-off 'Tron'), after finding a hidden wall to his office and intialising the last run program, Sean is beamed into the world of Tron.
Confronted by people who capture him, the world learn he is a user/human, and so after a series of survival contests - set pieces reminiscent of gladiatorial warfare involving said frisbees and then the trademark motorcycle variant of 'Rollerball'. After these set pieces whet your appetite in glorious 3D we are then thrust into a father-son relationship film as after being hoodwinked by Clu (a computer version of Bridges), whom has taken over control of the world from Flynn, Sean finally comes face-to-face with his father in a room not too dissimilar from the end room of '2001'. This is Flynn's sanctuary in the outer regions away from the mess of Tron that he is established with the help of Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who may have answers to the future of our real world in terms of religion, science, philosophy.
They attempt to get back to the portal that Sean came through, before it close and the chance has gone. And so the film becomes a chase film and reminiscent of those films from the original film's era 'Battle Beyond the Stars' and even the original Star Wars trilogy; a motley crew going against an ordered system to gain victory without a hint of irony in the sense of sacrifice that may be committed.
With the help of a great scene involving Michael Sheen as Zeus, a deal maker in this world, that could make the journey easier, Clu tracks him down and the pursuit is ongoing. Sheen pouts around the stage in his 70s Bowie persona, using his identifiable cane as a character in his own right to make him more memorable; and even the music producer Daft Punk are afforded a cameo as his personal DJ's in the 'End of the Line' club; one of those bars that will go in movie folklore such as the Mos Eisley cantina and the Milk Bar from 'A Clockwork Orange'.
Directed by debut helmer, Joseph Kosinski (an architecture major, but geek at heart) with great clarity and purpose, in the fact that he takes a lot of the action and exposition with a pinch of salt; a sense of general disbelief would be appreciated in this film. But the film, whilst it will not win a barrow load of awards, is nevertheless good action/sci-fi cinema. A script that is brisk and bouncy, characters that are believable helped in part by the commendable actors; Bridges brings his Dude-like persona to the party ('You're really messing with my Zen, man.'); Hedlund injects just enough vulnerability into his would-be rebel in need of a father and Wilde gives doe-eyed innocence to a role (similar to Daryl Hannah did in 'Splash' ) by the film's conclusion, as she takes a look around the world she is now a stranger to.
The promise of a sequel to this film itself the longest gestated sequel is foreboding, but necessary when you consider the possibilites of an uncredited cameo of Cillian Murphy (wearing his evil glasses) going up against all-American Hedlund on this Earth.
With so many people invested in a film that happened so long ago, the prospect of them falling flat in their collective faces could so easily have happened. However, it must be said that the film is a triumph and a good box-office banker; thrills, spills, laughs, action, adventure and a kick-ass soundtrack from the people born to do it.
It is formatted for 2D, 3D and IMAX, but whichever form you see it in you will not be disappointed by this roller coaster action yarn; science-fiction action film is back with a bang; from a film we thought that had disappeared without a whimper.
Released nationally on December 16th.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
500 Days of Summer - A Story of Love
America, the country that brought us the romantic comedy has seemingly tried to dismantle its reputation in recent efforts with such banal efforts as 'The Sweetest Thing', any Jennifer Lopez film; it remains hard to believe that the most romantic of comedies was 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' where the focus was on the blossoming relationship between a man wanting to lose his virginity with great humility, rather than 'Good Luck Chuck' where it was all about sex, lust and nothing emotional.
In a way this is down to the narrative structure: we meet boy - boy meets girl in the 'meet cute' - they fall in love - they fall out - reconciliation - marriage (sometimes). Whilst the marriage was a more apparent resolution in the golden era of the 1930s and 40s (the comedy of remarriage) when it was in partnership (appropriately) with the screwball comedy.
With '500 Days of Summer' you get a film that is both typically an American film, yet at the same time atypical - there are French influences and disruption wiht the chronological order. The films starts with day 200 odd, then we jump to 488, then back to day 1 to the meet cute. But we already know that this couple are not destined to be together yet we are told the resolution before hand - this meddling with the status quo of the narrative structure may serve to alienate viewers especially female ones so used to the romantic storyline of 'love conquers all'; female acquaintances have told me that they did not get the story, why do we watch a story where they dont fall in love. This is not a love story, but a story of love: how love can make you, become you, make you joyful, make you suffer, make you love other things - so this reciprocates into other cultural formats such as music (hence the killer soundtrack), fashion and architecture.
Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is 27 years old and stuck in a job he did not want to be in, writing greeting cards instead of the career in architecture he envisaged. Summer (Zooey Deschanel) is a playful soul who does not want a serious relationship - people may argue this as misogynistic characterisation - nice enough to desire, impossible for asking for independence, then succumbing to the very things she mocked earlier in the film - love, fate and destiny. Summer is a free spirit, but ultimately grounded once 'the one' arrives, this arrival of her soulmate is too abrupt to believe, hence why some female viewers did not connect with the film as planned.
Wearing its influences proud on its sleeve, parodying European influences from Nouvelle Vague to Antonioni; the soundtrack of bittersweet artists (The Smiths, Temper Trap). An individual bemoans his role in society, yet belives in such a sentimental trope like love so effortlessly as we see in the 'meet cute' and the film's conclusion when he looks at the camera a la Alfie, you await a wink that does not arrive but the breaking of the fourth wall works as the revolution of the romantic comedy has begun.
If only we could get Kate Hudson, Jennifer(s) Aniston and Lopez to take a risk and lets stop Amy Adams before she makes another 'Leap Year'. Comedy reflects the society it lives in, it needs to be socially conscious and more prevelant of the time - than a weak comedy with sex and fart jokes with real talent rather than Dane Cook.
'500' is reminiscent of a film from France you have never seen before drawing influence from Francois Ozon's '5x2', which used the narrative device of showing a relationship at the end up to its beginning concluding the film.
Witty but not self-congratulatory in its dissection of modern day relationships, funny without bordering on tasteless; acted with poise and skill, it is a film to cherish as well as recommend.
In a way this is down to the narrative structure: we meet boy - boy meets girl in the 'meet cute' - they fall in love - they fall out - reconciliation - marriage (sometimes). Whilst the marriage was a more apparent resolution in the golden era of the 1930s and 40s (the comedy of remarriage) when it was in partnership (appropriately) with the screwball comedy.
With '500 Days of Summer' you get a film that is both typically an American film, yet at the same time atypical - there are French influences and disruption wiht the chronological order. The films starts with day 200 odd, then we jump to 488, then back to day 1 to the meet cute. But we already know that this couple are not destined to be together yet we are told the resolution before hand - this meddling with the status quo of the narrative structure may serve to alienate viewers especially female ones so used to the romantic storyline of 'love conquers all'; female acquaintances have told me that they did not get the story, why do we watch a story where they dont fall in love. This is not a love story, but a story of love: how love can make you, become you, make you joyful, make you suffer, make you love other things - so this reciprocates into other cultural formats such as music (hence the killer soundtrack), fashion and architecture.
Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is 27 years old and stuck in a job he did not want to be in, writing greeting cards instead of the career in architecture he envisaged. Summer (Zooey Deschanel) is a playful soul who does not want a serious relationship - people may argue this as misogynistic characterisation - nice enough to desire, impossible for asking for independence, then succumbing to the very things she mocked earlier in the film - love, fate and destiny. Summer is a free spirit, but ultimately grounded once 'the one' arrives, this arrival of her soulmate is too abrupt to believe, hence why some female viewers did not connect with the film as planned.
Wearing its influences proud on its sleeve, parodying European influences from Nouvelle Vague to Antonioni; the soundtrack of bittersweet artists (The Smiths, Temper Trap). An individual bemoans his role in society, yet belives in such a sentimental trope like love so effortlessly as we see in the 'meet cute' and the film's conclusion when he looks at the camera a la Alfie, you await a wink that does not arrive but the breaking of the fourth wall works as the revolution of the romantic comedy has begun.
If only we could get Kate Hudson, Jennifer(s) Aniston and Lopez to take a risk and lets stop Amy Adams before she makes another 'Leap Year'. Comedy reflects the society it lives in, it needs to be socially conscious and more prevelant of the time - than a weak comedy with sex and fart jokes with real talent rather than Dane Cook.
'500' is reminiscent of a film from France you have never seen before drawing influence from Francois Ozon's '5x2', which used the narrative device of showing a relationship at the end up to its beginning concluding the film.
Witty but not self-congratulatory in its dissection of modern day relationships, funny without bordering on tasteless; acted with poise and skill, it is a film to cherish as well as recommend.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Salt review
SALT (Philip Noyce, US, 2010)
This espionge, new cold war thriller written by Kurt Wimmer (Law Abiding Citizen) has had a long gestation period originally intended as a vehicle for Tom Cruise as Ethan Salt; but following his long attachment to the Mission: Impossible and the similarities this film shares with that franchise, coupled with his falling star status meant that the tagline, 'Who is Salt?' carried not a query of her enigmatic being, but more in asking who will play it. Angelina Jolie, the most physical of Hollywood actresses in that she does her own stunts following on from 'Tomb Raider' and 'Wanted', is the most bankable of Hollywood female stars and like most stars is in need of a franchise to call her own.
Evelyn Salt, is introduced to us in a pre-credit sequence as a hostage in North Korea, eventually freed in a bargain for a Korean spy is met by her superior Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) who tells her to not say anything. This positions her as sometimes subservient to her male superiors, the fact that she is tortured in her bra and panties is something not to go into but is open to arguments. Cut to modern day, two years later and she is married to a German specialist in arachnids (August Diehl), near the end of a working day a Russian spy seeks asylum in Washington, during the interrogation it transpires that a Russian spy will kill the Russian President on his visit to New York the next day. He informs them that the spy's name is Evelyn Salt. Salt says that is her name. So she is a Russian spy says he. This leads to the extended game of cat and mouse, where the CIA seek to keep her locked up and away from the Russian head of state, whilst she seeks to escape and get there herself.
The film could so easily have regressed and fallen into the traps of sub-par Hollywood action films but it refuses to do this in part due to the efforts of Jolie in the role of never to be outdone spy, who is a match for any male the invention of a grenade launcher using a fire extinguisher shows her inventiveness and calmness under pressure. In this instance, the film was reminiscent most of 'The Fugitive' - the pantheon of action films of a person done wrong and on the run to clear their name.
It is because of this that the person who should gain the most credit (but will remain unsung) will be the director Noyce, who helps elevate the set pieces to important moments that lend the film credence and credibility. Noyce has previous experience in 'Patriot Games' and 'Clear and Present Danger', action in thrillers but it is the thriller element he raises to higher levels, face offs become moments of brewing intensities such as when Salt tries to shoot an enemy through a bulletproof window, the enemy does not blink. It reminded me of his work on 'The Quiet American' where the underlying psychological effect on the character tried to weed itself out against an atypical political story. The use of reigniting the Cold War plotline is not unheralded as the real reason is to ignite the war of religion through proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The ending leads to the inevitability of a sequel but unlike most franchises there is enough of a character and action to maintain your interest - and is now up to speed with the Bourne franchise. Whereas Bourne started his trilogy not knowing who he was in a world that he very much knew; Salt is a person who knows who she is in a very uncertain world with an unknown direction.
This espionge, new cold war thriller written by Kurt Wimmer (Law Abiding Citizen) has had a long gestation period originally intended as a vehicle for Tom Cruise as Ethan Salt; but following his long attachment to the Mission: Impossible and the similarities this film shares with that franchise, coupled with his falling star status meant that the tagline, 'Who is Salt?' carried not a query of her enigmatic being, but more in asking who will play it. Angelina Jolie, the most physical of Hollywood actresses in that she does her own stunts following on from 'Tomb Raider' and 'Wanted', is the most bankable of Hollywood female stars and like most stars is in need of a franchise to call her own.
Evelyn Salt, is introduced to us in a pre-credit sequence as a hostage in North Korea, eventually freed in a bargain for a Korean spy is met by her superior Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) who tells her to not say anything. This positions her as sometimes subservient to her male superiors, the fact that she is tortured in her bra and panties is something not to go into but is open to arguments. Cut to modern day, two years later and she is married to a German specialist in arachnids (August Diehl), near the end of a working day a Russian spy seeks asylum in Washington, during the interrogation it transpires that a Russian spy will kill the Russian President on his visit to New York the next day. He informs them that the spy's name is Evelyn Salt. Salt says that is her name. So she is a Russian spy says he. This leads to the extended game of cat and mouse, where the CIA seek to keep her locked up and away from the Russian head of state, whilst she seeks to escape and get there herself.
The film could so easily have regressed and fallen into the traps of sub-par Hollywood action films but it refuses to do this in part due to the efforts of Jolie in the role of never to be outdone spy, who is a match for any male the invention of a grenade launcher using a fire extinguisher shows her inventiveness and calmness under pressure. In this instance, the film was reminiscent most of 'The Fugitive' - the pantheon of action films of a person done wrong and on the run to clear their name.
It is because of this that the person who should gain the most credit (but will remain unsung) will be the director Noyce, who helps elevate the set pieces to important moments that lend the film credence and credibility. Noyce has previous experience in 'Patriot Games' and 'Clear and Present Danger', action in thrillers but it is the thriller element he raises to higher levels, face offs become moments of brewing intensities such as when Salt tries to shoot an enemy through a bulletproof window, the enemy does not blink. It reminded me of his work on 'The Quiet American' where the underlying psychological effect on the character tried to weed itself out against an atypical political story. The use of reigniting the Cold War plotline is not unheralded as the real reason is to ignite the war of religion through proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The ending leads to the inevitability of a sequel but unlike most franchises there is enough of a character and action to maintain your interest - and is now up to speed with the Bourne franchise. Whereas Bourne started his trilogy not knowing who he was in a world that he very much knew; Salt is a person who knows who she is in a very uncertain world with an unknown direction.
Sons of Cuba review
SONS OF CUBA (Andrew Lang, US, 2009)
Andrew Lang's award winning and festival favourite documentary gains a DVD release from Mr.Bongo films this September. Renowned by critics it provides a stunning insight into Castro's Cuba following young boys who are amateur boxers training to become champions and idols of a nation.
A bit of background here, Cuba is the hot bed of world amateur boxing - in the past 40 years of Olympic games, it has won a remarkable 63 Olympic medals, 32 of them gold (Amir Khan lost out to Mario Kindelan, a legend in amateur boxing). Lang and his production crew were given access to the Havana Boxing School; where a handful of 10 year old boys wake up at 4am (six days a week), to begin the routine of boxing training.
The film is dealt a powerful emotional blow by the falling ill of Fidel Castro causing many boys to flee for politcial asylum in America, like so many Cuban nationals attempt to do every year in boats heading for Miami. The emotional context coupled with the physical toil leads to young boys having to make big decisions at such a young age.
Like all good documentaries - mixing both personal and political, but also having that unifying entity known as sport into the fold you have a great recipe for a good documentary - previous films that did this were 'When We Were Kings' and 'Hoop Dreams', but the film is reminiscent of 'Spellbound' where children are attempting to over-achieve at such an early age, with strong individual desire and not parental influence as you mightg anticipate in such situations. In one instance, a young boxer is asked by his mother what does he want to do. 'I want to win a gold medal'. 'Don't you think that is a bit over ambitious,' she asks. 'That is my goal', he retorts matter of factly in a way that leaves no doubt about his intentions for the future.
This coupled with the evidence that boxing remains the most cinematic of sports because of the allure of fame and glamour combined with the ability to manipulate fights into something of a spectacle (you need only look at 'Raging Bull', 'Rocky' and 'Champion' for evidence) - it maintains its position as a noble sport where victory is as close as defeat. And these young men are learning these life rules in this very powerful and emotive document.
Andrew Lang's award winning and festival favourite documentary gains a DVD release from Mr.Bongo films this September. Renowned by critics it provides a stunning insight into Castro's Cuba following young boys who are amateur boxers training to become champions and idols of a nation.
A bit of background here, Cuba is the hot bed of world amateur boxing - in the past 40 years of Olympic games, it has won a remarkable 63 Olympic medals, 32 of them gold (Amir Khan lost out to Mario Kindelan, a legend in amateur boxing). Lang and his production crew were given access to the Havana Boxing School; where a handful of 10 year old boys wake up at 4am (six days a week), to begin the routine of boxing training.
The film is dealt a powerful emotional blow by the falling ill of Fidel Castro causing many boys to flee for politcial asylum in America, like so many Cuban nationals attempt to do every year in boats heading for Miami. The emotional context coupled with the physical toil leads to young boys having to make big decisions at such a young age.
Like all good documentaries - mixing both personal and political, but also having that unifying entity known as sport into the fold you have a great recipe for a good documentary - previous films that did this were 'When We Were Kings' and 'Hoop Dreams', but the film is reminiscent of 'Spellbound' where children are attempting to over-achieve at such an early age, with strong individual desire and not parental influence as you mightg anticipate in such situations. In one instance, a young boxer is asked by his mother what does he want to do. 'I want to win a gold medal'. 'Don't you think that is a bit over ambitious,' she asks. 'That is my goal', he retorts matter of factly in a way that leaves no doubt about his intentions for the future.
This coupled with the evidence that boxing remains the most cinematic of sports because of the allure of fame and glamour combined with the ability to manipulate fights into something of a spectacle (you need only look at 'Raging Bull', 'Rocky' and 'Champion' for evidence) - it maintains its position as a noble sport where victory is as close as defeat. And these young men are learning these life rules in this very powerful and emotive document.
Dogtooth
DOGTOOTH (Yorgos Lanthimos, Greece, 2009)
Directed and co-written by Lanthimos with his colleague Efthimis Filippou, the winner of Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2009 tells the story of a family cut off from the outside world behind a high wall in a home with a swimming pool, a television that plays only family home movies where the wife is a prisoner much like the three children (one boy, two girls) who are home schooled and refused interaction with the outside world - father (who only leaves for the factory he owns) is a taskmaster who has told the children that the planet is roaming with 'man-eating cats'. (The things you believe your parents to say.)
This is not home schooling, more like home torturing. Father brings home a security guard to have intercourse with the son who can fulfil his sexual needs; and the sisters who have already set in sibling rivalry and competitiveness (they race to see who can fall asleep first using chloroform - not realising that neither will know the result)
But whilst it can be declared as 'car-crash' cinema -in the fact that you cannot take your eyes off of the screen - due in part to the short scenes that are more like vignettes of intent by the director, who is substituted by the father as a figure in the film. The lack of name for the family make you less sympathetic to them - you have no attachment to their wants and needs, your desire of watching a family self-implode by their own hand is fitting for this reality TV society.
In spite of the questionable material and content, Lanthimos has an unusual confidence in his mise-en-scene construction and cinematograpy - sometimes cutting people off at their heads so we are not privy to absolutely everything. Natural lighting combined with naturalistic performances by the excellent cast make the film beguiling, shocking and all in all memorable, albeit for reasons you may not consider entertainment, lets just call it cinema - and it is rare to see a brave piece of film-making get the acclaim it deserves
Directed and co-written by Lanthimos with his colleague Efthimis Filippou, the winner of Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2009 tells the story of a family cut off from the outside world behind a high wall in a home with a swimming pool, a television that plays only family home movies where the wife is a prisoner much like the three children (one boy, two girls) who are home schooled and refused interaction with the outside world - father (who only leaves for the factory he owns) is a taskmaster who has told the children that the planet is roaming with 'man-eating cats'. (The things you believe your parents to say.)
This is not home schooling, more like home torturing. Father brings home a security guard to have intercourse with the son who can fulfil his sexual needs; and the sisters who have already set in sibling rivalry and competitiveness (they race to see who can fall asleep first using chloroform - not realising that neither will know the result)
But whilst it can be declared as 'car-crash' cinema -in the fact that you cannot take your eyes off of the screen - due in part to the short scenes that are more like vignettes of intent by the director, who is substituted by the father as a figure in the film. The lack of name for the family make you less sympathetic to them - you have no attachment to their wants and needs, your desire of watching a family self-implode by their own hand is fitting for this reality TV society.
In spite of the questionable material and content, Lanthimos has an unusual confidence in his mise-en-scene construction and cinematograpy - sometimes cutting people off at their heads so we are not privy to absolutely everything. Natural lighting combined with naturalistic performances by the excellent cast make the film beguiling, shocking and all in all memorable, albeit for reasons you may not consider entertainment, lets just call it cinema - and it is rare to see a brave piece of film-making get the acclaim it deserves
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)