The last Orson Welles film, an innovative and exciting documentary. It is not the complete curveball it looks like it may be right at the start, but it soon turns into an entertaining, cleverly edited and tightly made little piece.
This is all a good thing; self-indulgent mumbo-jumbo could get a little tiresome. It's deliberately all-over-the-place, simalacrum+ treatments of its fascinating subjects is the perfect thematic treatment of the subject of fakes. By questioning itself, it really does make one think more about the central subject.
The editing is done really terrifically well. The creator of the 'MTV' style edit is done here with a sense of subtedly and fun absent from many of its imitators. It keeps things whizzing along, gives a few laughs.
And of course there is the inimitable Orson Welles, his wonderful, booming, clear presence at the centre of the film holding things at once at a length and also in hand. He tells some fine stories, the final fifteen minutes in particular he really shows his ability to set one's mind ablaze with a yarn.
Some interesting stories, told in a meandering and curious way that still pretty much avoids being indulgent. The old man, even in the twilight of his days and lacking the ambition or resources to make the behemoths he could have, was still the master of the cinema.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Wednesday 28 April 2010
Aguirre, Wrath Of God
Perhaps the most famous picture of the great Werner Herzog, the first of his legendary collaborations with Klaus Kinski, this is a film that we have felt more affection, joy, and sheer love towards then practically any this year (we are huge Herzog fans). Why is this? Because it is mad, it is brilliant, it is beautiful, it is placid, and it is massively entertaining.
Herzog is able to, with deliberation, examine images. And what ones he has here; the incredible fogs and long expanses away of the rainforest, the dirty helmets and scoured remains of a wonderfully recreated middle-ages (well, 1560, rendered amazingly modern, and at once otherly alien). He knows how long to dwell, and how long to move. His camera movement changes from handheld excitment (never self-consicous) to slow, far away, cutting neutrality.
The story is wonderfully told. At once it is incredibly simple, always the best kind of epic. We know precisely where it is going, but it is damn fun going there, and the crushing inevitability and ridiculousness of the quest give it an extra level of Sisyphean absurdity. It is often rather funny; not only in Aguirre's madness, but also the ridicoulousness of the pan-pipes, and the pig-headedness of our characters. The missionary scene, one of the harshest satires of colonialism we can remember, had us in stitches.
The priest, The slave, all the characters play their roles in a fine manner. With sharp bones and a madness on their eyes that is really just a weaker version of your real master, Aguirre. Kinski is silently brutal, in hindsight he actually does incredibly little of real violence, but his huge eyes, nasty cheeks, and scary curl of mouth make him at once terrifying in his contempt for normal standards.
This is a theatrical, not a hyper-naturalistic piece. Kinski is deliberately theatrical, the landscapes are violenetly and hyper-coloured, the excercise is almost like a crazy dream that will remain even when you wake up.
Hugely entertaining, beautifully shot, fantastic performances (Kinski's Richard III hunch), and an elegiac, epic story that applies to all of human nature.
Hell, it's pretty much perfect.
Herzog is able to, with deliberation, examine images. And what ones he has here; the incredible fogs and long expanses away of the rainforest, the dirty helmets and scoured remains of a wonderfully recreated middle-ages (well, 1560, rendered amazingly modern, and at once otherly alien). He knows how long to dwell, and how long to move. His camera movement changes from handheld excitment (never self-consicous) to slow, far away, cutting neutrality.
The story is wonderfully told. At once it is incredibly simple, always the best kind of epic. We know precisely where it is going, but it is damn fun going there, and the crushing inevitability and ridiculousness of the quest give it an extra level of Sisyphean absurdity. It is often rather funny; not only in Aguirre's madness, but also the ridicoulousness of the pan-pipes, and the pig-headedness of our characters. The missionary scene, one of the harshest satires of colonialism we can remember, had us in stitches.
The priest, The slave, all the characters play their roles in a fine manner. With sharp bones and a madness on their eyes that is really just a weaker version of your real master, Aguirre. Kinski is silently brutal, in hindsight he actually does incredibly little of real violence, but his huge eyes, nasty cheeks, and scary curl of mouth make him at once terrifying in his contempt for normal standards.
This is a theatrical, not a hyper-naturalistic piece. Kinski is deliberately theatrical, the landscapes are violenetly and hyper-coloured, the excercise is almost like a crazy dream that will remain even when you wake up.
Hugely entertaining, beautifully shot, fantastic performances (Kinski's Richard III hunch), and an elegiac, epic story that applies to all of human nature.
Hell, it's pretty much perfect.
Monday 26 April 2010
Raging Bull
This is real all-time great territory. The Scorcese/ De Niro biopic is perfectly executed in every respect, and we have been stumbling to come up with reasons why this isn't, along with a few others, the greatest film ever. It isn't quite, but it is as near as damn.
Scorcese is a absurdly good storyteller, tight, able to have scenes of characterisation and quiet dialogue which keep one riveted. Indeed, dialogue is often mumbled, quiet, or in content (but never tone) unimportant in this film, the relentless physicality of all concerned (not just Scorcese) delineating proceedings. The film is paced wonderfully, the two hours fly by. The story is in many ways a classic one, by our growing knowledge of the sociopathic Jake adds tension to it, especially when he is around women.
Scorces films beautifully at times, grasped moments of a hanging microphone framed againt a black background, or the wide open spaces then close breathlessnesses of the rung. The black and white high contrast accentuates such matters. He rarely dwells, perhaps he does more in this film than others, so it never, not that it would in its subtedly, gets in the way of the story.
The acting, as is famous, is spectacular. De Niro manages to give a tour-de-force and at once not been too actorly, overwrought, or depressingly severe. Pesci, and Moriaty are equally starightforward excellent. Indeed, they all have something this film does; a certain sparse calmness, a lack of hysteria or unnecessary frills around the edges. In a sense, this is a very quiet film, with straight storytelling, quick moves between scenes and eras, not too much on show. It has a sincerity and a sharpness in its lack of messing about; it gets to the point, beautifully.
So why isn't this the greatest film ever, and Scorcese the best director? Perhaps it does not have the quality of 'love' (maybe only 'The King Of Comedy' gets near this), a kind of affection. Not that we don't identify, sympathise, and feel human emotions (with Jake, Joey, Vicky...), but rather that we don't....'love' is all we can say. This criticism is inept. This is a monster of a film, a classic among classics, unparralled in its field.
Scorcese is a absurdly good storyteller, tight, able to have scenes of characterisation and quiet dialogue which keep one riveted. Indeed, dialogue is often mumbled, quiet, or in content (but never tone) unimportant in this film, the relentless physicality of all concerned (not just Scorcese) delineating proceedings. The film is paced wonderfully, the two hours fly by. The story is in many ways a classic one, by our growing knowledge of the sociopathic Jake adds tension to it, especially when he is around women.
Scorces films beautifully at times, grasped moments of a hanging microphone framed againt a black background, or the wide open spaces then close breathlessnesses of the rung. The black and white high contrast accentuates such matters. He rarely dwells, perhaps he does more in this film than others, so it never, not that it would in its subtedly, gets in the way of the story.
The acting, as is famous, is spectacular. De Niro manages to give a tour-de-force and at once not been too actorly, overwrought, or depressingly severe. Pesci, and Moriaty are equally starightforward excellent. Indeed, they all have something this film does; a certain sparse calmness, a lack of hysteria or unnecessary frills around the edges. In a sense, this is a very quiet film, with straight storytelling, quick moves between scenes and eras, not too much on show. It has a sincerity and a sharpness in its lack of messing about; it gets to the point, beautifully.
So why isn't this the greatest film ever, and Scorcese the best director? Perhaps it does not have the quality of 'love' (maybe only 'The King Of Comedy' gets near this), a kind of affection. Not that we don't identify, sympathise, and feel human emotions (with Jake, Joey, Vicky...), but rather that we don't....'love' is all we can say. This criticism is inept. This is a monster of a film, a classic among classics, unparralled in its field.
Sunday 25 April 2010
Strike
The great Eisenstein's first full length feature film, a silent piece ordered by the Bolsheveiks. It is obviously an important film, and we have full respect for what it did and the genius behind it. This does not necessarilly translate into a riveting experience, however.
The deliberate lack of characterisation, with the focus on collectivisation, is neither good nor bad filmically, but is one of the symptoms of this film's apparent directionless to the modern viewer. It can seem like a rather confusing collection of tricks and scenes, with no plot clearly explained at any point, rather it seems, even with the overarching themes, just a bunch of things happening. Thus the film becomes quickly repetitive, and not much of a watch.
What is powerful in this film are the quick cuts montages, and the stirring music. Both can give brief, sometimes seemingly contextless, moments of stirring grandeur and excitment. The use of these does, howvever, again become repitive over ninety-five minutes.
To conclude, this is a curio and important, but not a great watch. We shall have to see 'October, 1917', 'Ivan The Terrible' and 'The Battleship Potempkin' to find if these issues for the modern viewer are overcome by the great innovator Eisenstein.
The deliberate lack of characterisation, with the focus on collectivisation, is neither good nor bad filmically, but is one of the symptoms of this film's apparent directionless to the modern viewer. It can seem like a rather confusing collection of tricks and scenes, with no plot clearly explained at any point, rather it seems, even with the overarching themes, just a bunch of things happening. Thus the film becomes quickly repetitive, and not much of a watch.
What is powerful in this film are the quick cuts montages, and the stirring music. Both can give brief, sometimes seemingly contextless, moments of stirring grandeur and excitment. The use of these does, howvever, again become repitive over ninety-five minutes.
To conclude, this is a curio and important, but not a great watch. We shall have to see 'October, 1917', 'Ivan The Terrible' and 'The Battleship Potempkin' to find if these issues for the modern viewer are overcome by the great innovator Eisenstein.
Saturday 24 April 2010
Les Diaboliques (The Devils)
Stunningly good, all time great, horror/ suspense from H.G Clouzot. Hitchcock wanted the script, but had to settle for 'Vertigo'.
The film is a real shocker. The horror is gripping, suffocating, tantalising. Intellectually, it leaves one constantly asking what is happening, constantly on the edge for the next scene, confused and gripped. It is acted beautifully, shot in a fine and largely unobtrusive manner. Some of the scenes towards the end are so threatening/suspenseful as to make one almost explode, and the final scenes....well, well, well.
How does it compare to 'Vertigo'. It is more directly exciting/ pulse-racing. The story is sharper, and probably better told. 'Vertigo' perhaps has more of a sense of sadness about it, and can be interpreted as more than just a horror. Les Diaboliques can also be read psychologically, but in the directionality of the script is more straightforward. As far as shooting, they aren't that dissimilar except for the wonderful colourations of 'Vertigo'.
In Les Diaboliques the acting is tremendous, completely on the money. Frankly, we could hardly keep ourselves concentrating on the beauty of the shots, but the mis-en-scene is masterfully put together.
A shockingly good, and a shocking film. One of the finest horrors, one of the finest suspense films, one of the queerest, oddest, most disturbing run-times we have seen in many a while. More than recommended, it achieves a rare standard of excellence.
The film is a real shocker. The horror is gripping, suffocating, tantalising. Intellectually, it leaves one constantly asking what is happening, constantly on the edge for the next scene, confused and gripped. It is acted beautifully, shot in a fine and largely unobtrusive manner. Some of the scenes towards the end are so threatening/suspenseful as to make one almost explode, and the final scenes....well, well, well.
How does it compare to 'Vertigo'. It is more directly exciting/ pulse-racing. The story is sharper, and probably better told. 'Vertigo' perhaps has more of a sense of sadness about it, and can be interpreted as more than just a horror. Les Diaboliques can also be read psychologically, but in the directionality of the script is more straightforward. As far as shooting, they aren't that dissimilar except for the wonderful colourations of 'Vertigo'.
In Les Diaboliques the acting is tremendous, completely on the money. Frankly, we could hardly keep ourselves concentrating on the beauty of the shots, but the mis-en-scene is masterfully put together.
A shockingly good, and a shocking film. One of the finest horrors, one of the finest suspense films, one of the queerest, oddest, most disturbing run-times we have seen in many a while. More than recommended, it achieves a rare standard of excellence.
Friday 23 April 2010
High Noon
One of the classic Hollywood westerns, a taut, quick film, frequently referenced by later movies, and starring Gary Cooper.
This film is pretty darn good, without ever being quite transcendent. We have a nice sharp story told with little messing about. We have some tension built up pretty well. Early on we have some beautifully shot scenes, and throughout there are some iconic images of Gary Cooper as the lawman who must go on his own.
One of the especially interesting things about this film is the ambiguity over the character of Will Kane/ Gary Cooper. Why is he even doing this? Is he just an idiot, puffing up his own chest? This isn't an out and out hero, Cooper plays a man beaten, scared, uncertain, who is not liked by many. Overall, of course, he's a bit of a superstar, but the suggestions are there.
On the subject of Cooper, his acting has to be the worst thing in this film. He comes across as wooden, and delivers his lines without the ease of the fabulous supporting cast. Grace Kelly radiates yellow sunshine even through the black and white. They script they have is perhaps a little condensed, thanks to the short run time, but decent enough.
To conclude, here we have a reasonably exciting film, with an incredibly abrupt ending. One for everyone to say, and definetely worth doing so.
This film is pretty darn good, without ever being quite transcendent. We have a nice sharp story told with little messing about. We have some tension built up pretty well. Early on we have some beautifully shot scenes, and throughout there are some iconic images of Gary Cooper as the lawman who must go on his own.
One of the especially interesting things about this film is the ambiguity over the character of Will Kane/ Gary Cooper. Why is he even doing this? Is he just an idiot, puffing up his own chest? This isn't an out and out hero, Cooper plays a man beaten, scared, uncertain, who is not liked by many. Overall, of course, he's a bit of a superstar, but the suggestions are there.
On the subject of Cooper, his acting has to be the worst thing in this film. He comes across as wooden, and delivers his lines without the ease of the fabulous supporting cast. Grace Kelly radiates yellow sunshine even through the black and white. They script they have is perhaps a little condensed, thanks to the short run time, but decent enough.
To conclude, here we have a reasonably exciting film, with an incredibly abrupt ending. One for everyone to say, and definetely worth doing so.
Thursday 22 April 2010
La Regle Du Jeu (The Rules Of The Game)
Frequently cited as one of the greatest films ever, this Renoir comedy/tragedy/farce/social analysis is one of the rare films that made us want to immediately watch it again.
It is obviously expertly made. The directing is flawlessly unobtrusive, alightly arresting scenes (rather than images) are put in place. The script at once does not give too much away, and is explicit about its themes. There is some nice, if not laugh out loud humour, reminiscent of some light Marx Brothers. It plays the wonderful game of letting us know there is more going on, without explicitly saying so. It is truly 'masterfully' done.
Yet this makes it a slightly tame experience on first viewing, one is rather given to say 'so what, I enjoyed that, what more?'. But deeper consideration tells us that this is an intelligent film, down to the way it is captured and the way it is acted. A comedy of the upper classes without an upper class view, it does have something biting in it, but not obviously so. The script is sharp and never gives a killer blow, at no point in the action do we say 'what bastards' but on final consideration, 'what bastards'. This film needs more thought.
For its place in the critical hierachy, serious cinema fans need to see it, and it is nothing but a good, slick watch. Re-watching may though be required to tease out its brilliance which, on first showing, we see is undoubtedly there but hidden beneath a veneer of a good, if not show-stopping, drama.
It is obviously expertly made. The directing is flawlessly unobtrusive, alightly arresting scenes (rather than images) are put in place. The script at once does not give too much away, and is explicit about its themes. There is some nice, if not laugh out loud humour, reminiscent of some light Marx Brothers. It plays the wonderful game of letting us know there is more going on, without explicitly saying so. It is truly 'masterfully' done.
Yet this makes it a slightly tame experience on first viewing, one is rather given to say 'so what, I enjoyed that, what more?'. But deeper consideration tells us that this is an intelligent film, down to the way it is captured and the way it is acted. A comedy of the upper classes without an upper class view, it does have something biting in it, but not obviously so. The script is sharp and never gives a killer blow, at no point in the action do we say 'what bastards' but on final consideration, 'what bastards'. This film needs more thought.
For its place in the critical hierachy, serious cinema fans need to see it, and it is nothing but a good, slick watch. Re-watching may though be required to tease out its brilliance which, on first showing, we see is undoubtedly there but hidden beneath a veneer of a good, if not show-stopping, drama.
M
The first sound film directed by the great Fritz Lang, it is an affecting, beautifully cinemagraphed, and intelligent work, that is obviously of its time but still worthwhile to see for pure enjoyment today.
The black and white images are beautifully rendered, the shadows and Conrad-esque aesthetic giving us a series of still images that remain in the memory. The use of sillouhettes, shadows, and of the droopy face of the tremendously acted killer give a sense of mounting dread and genuine fear, heightened by clever and innovative tricks of not letting the audience see precisely what is going on.
The story is a good one, told with a decent pace and a nicely ambiguos message, humanist message. The characters are well drawn. The script also works well enough, it is not overflorid or any such, and the voices of the actors come across well in a soundscape that is often silent, making the whistles and cries that do suddenly intrude shrill and contain a genuine sense of the sinister.
This is an expertly made film, which for its time would have been sensational. Now we may see a slightly lightweight plot, and rather odd uses of sound, but generally we can still admire the films power. Highly reccommended.
The black and white images are beautifully rendered, the shadows and Conrad-esque aesthetic giving us a series of still images that remain in the memory. The use of sillouhettes, shadows, and of the droopy face of the tremendously acted killer give a sense of mounting dread and genuine fear, heightened by clever and innovative tricks of not letting the audience see precisely what is going on.
The story is a good one, told with a decent pace and a nicely ambiguos message, humanist message. The characters are well drawn. The script also works well enough, it is not overflorid or any such, and the voices of the actors come across well in a soundscape that is often silent, making the whistles and cries that do suddenly intrude shrill and contain a genuine sense of the sinister.
This is an expertly made film, which for its time would have been sensational. Now we may see a slightly lightweight plot, and rather odd uses of sound, but generally we can still admire the films power. Highly reccommended.
Tuesday 20 April 2010
Nightwatching
The new film from the artist/filmaker Peter Greenaway. His very distinctive visual, and general, style make it difficult to rate this film on the same scale as others. Saying this, we can just about reasonably say that the film is neither very good nor very bad.
The manner of the story is lots of opaque, heavy, confusing scenes. The fact we can never quite understand who is who and who did what to who is partly a feature of the undoubtedly weighty techniques Greenaway uses; and it is partly straightforwardly bad storytelling. It is difficult to get too engaged when the plot is never really clear.
Neverthless, we do have some emotional weight with strong performances from Martin Freeman, and from the extensive characterisation giving us access to the interior life of espeically Rembrandt himself. The use of language is a little forced at times, but largely succeeds in mixing high formality with venacular.
All this is difficult to quantify, as it is all shot in a way like no other. Is it like a painting? In many ways yes, which gives it a harmonious grandure. Is it like a play? Again, yes, there isn't much use of depth. These techniques can be startling, creating impressed images. They can also be rather retrogressive; one yearns for the cuts to really have us AMONG the characters. We shall withhold judgement, saying only 'distinctive'.
All told, we are happy we saw this, even if we didn't particularly enjoy parts of it. The slowness and confusion did add weight, but also a large amount of aimlessness. A qualified good.
The manner of the story is lots of opaque, heavy, confusing scenes. The fact we can never quite understand who is who and who did what to who is partly a feature of the undoubtedly weighty techniques Greenaway uses; and it is partly straightforwardly bad storytelling. It is difficult to get too engaged when the plot is never really clear.
Neverthless, we do have some emotional weight with strong performances from Martin Freeman, and from the extensive characterisation giving us access to the interior life of espeically Rembrandt himself. The use of language is a little forced at times, but largely succeeds in mixing high formality with venacular.
All this is difficult to quantify, as it is all shot in a way like no other. Is it like a painting? In many ways yes, which gives it a harmonious grandure. Is it like a play? Again, yes, there isn't much use of depth. These techniques can be startling, creating impressed images. They can also be rather retrogressive; one yearns for the cuts to really have us AMONG the characters. We shall withhold judgement, saying only 'distinctive'.
All told, we are happy we saw this, even if we didn't particularly enjoy parts of it. The slowness and confusion did add weight, but also a large amount of aimlessness. A qualified good.
Monday 19 April 2010
Vertigo
The Hitchcock classic, frequently cited as one of the greatest films ever. We had watched it a number of times, but not for many a year now, and we had largely forgotten the plot. What a great treat it was, to be able to watch it 'blind'.
It is deliriously beautiful, deliriously clever and complex, while at once being a straight down the line suspenseful masterpiece.
The washed out, ultra vivid and white colours, are another example of the 'white-noise' noir, the Mody Dick referencing horror of whiteness and blinding sunshine. The reds and the fleshy tones give at once a vividly, horribly alive and unwordly tone to proceedings. Combined with the supernatural elements and the altered states/ mental illness elements, we have quite an impact.
Jimmy Stewart gives his finest performance, moving less amongst the everyman personas and more into a tale of a haunting, looking in the latter scenes a grey, lifeless figure. Kim Novak is both convincing as a femme fatale, and as a genuine interest.
It is the themes of this film that really mark it out as a classic among classics. Is it about mental illness? How real is anything we are seeing? Should we believe the characters or not? What does the phobia mean? The knots tied would need five thousand words to even begine to pick apart.
One question to ask is; what do the red herrings mean? Are they deliberate? This film isn't perfect, a few moments seem a little pointless. Or does the pointlessness just add to the tension and confusion? What? It looks beautiful, and stays in the mind, whatever happens. Even the kaleidoscopic cameras and visuals, which should have dated, still retain power. The music is in some ways the most important method used to keep the suspense; its sometimes inapproriatness, the churning then the shrieking strings, haunts the mind at even the quieter moments.
The final scenes are a lesson in how to end a film, quick, to the point, and with a wonderful rythm as the most heart stopping line in the film (That's When...) comes off the beat. The final images are a plunge down the throat that offers no relief. The audience IS Jimmy Stewart in that moment.
A contendor for the greatest film ever, according to the critics. Sounds about right to us.
It is deliriously beautiful, deliriously clever and complex, while at once being a straight down the line suspenseful masterpiece.
The washed out, ultra vivid and white colours, are another example of the 'white-noise' noir, the Mody Dick referencing horror of whiteness and blinding sunshine. The reds and the fleshy tones give at once a vividly, horribly alive and unwordly tone to proceedings. Combined with the supernatural elements and the altered states/ mental illness elements, we have quite an impact.
Jimmy Stewart gives his finest performance, moving less amongst the everyman personas and more into a tale of a haunting, looking in the latter scenes a grey, lifeless figure. Kim Novak is both convincing as a femme fatale, and as a genuine interest.
It is the themes of this film that really mark it out as a classic among classics. Is it about mental illness? How real is anything we are seeing? Should we believe the characters or not? What does the phobia mean? The knots tied would need five thousand words to even begine to pick apart.
One question to ask is; what do the red herrings mean? Are they deliberate? This film isn't perfect, a few moments seem a little pointless. Or does the pointlessness just add to the tension and confusion? What? It looks beautiful, and stays in the mind, whatever happens. Even the kaleidoscopic cameras and visuals, which should have dated, still retain power. The music is in some ways the most important method used to keep the suspense; its sometimes inapproriatness, the churning then the shrieking strings, haunts the mind at even the quieter moments.
The final scenes are a lesson in how to end a film, quick, to the point, and with a wonderful rythm as the most heart stopping line in the film (That's When...) comes off the beat. The final images are a plunge down the throat that offers no relief. The audience IS Jimmy Stewart in that moment.
A contendor for the greatest film ever, according to the critics. Sounds about right to us.
Crying With Laughter
Low budget thriller set in Edinburgh, this is an example of how to make an excellent film with few resources. Hearts sank when the cheap camerawork and rather grimy settings were revealed, but what came out was in fact a gripping, at times funny, and nicely thoughtful film about violence and, comedy, abuse.
It may seem like provincialism, but underneath the surface of even the initial shots lie undertides of violencce and barely concealed horror at something or other, something that can't be revealed. Yes, the script isn't perfect, and some of the acting is a little ridiculous, but a real mood is created of tension, anger, and grimness. The film is well paced enough to give a real hammer blow impact to the final scenes.
Direcotrial beauty is difficult on such a low budget, so the well told it is shown acdequately rather than brilliantly. The lead actor, after a shaky start, is good. He could do with some toning (both bodily and in acting style, leanness is recommended) but is at once sympathetic and capable of inciting disgust.
All told, a reasonably ambitious, but, most importantly, straight forward well-made low budget British film. More than a thumbs up, this film deserves all the support it gets.
It may seem like provincialism, but underneath the surface of even the initial shots lie undertides of violencce and barely concealed horror at something or other, something that can't be revealed. Yes, the script isn't perfect, and some of the acting is a little ridiculous, but a real mood is created of tension, anger, and grimness. The film is well paced enough to give a real hammer blow impact to the final scenes.
Direcotrial beauty is difficult on such a low budget, so the well told it is shown acdequately rather than brilliantly. The lead actor, after a shaky start, is good. He could do with some toning (both bodily and in acting style, leanness is recommended) but is at once sympathetic and capable of inciting disgust.
All told, a reasonably ambitious, but, most importantly, straight forward well-made low budget British film. More than a thumbs up, this film deserves all the support it gets.
Sunday 18 April 2010
Fight Club
Seen a few years back, where it knocked us off our feet, the re-watch showed an interesting, beautifully rendered, more than quite-good piece of cinema that really caught the mood of the audiences.
Fincher's wonderfully grimy, dark, through a keyhole camera style (notable also in the excellent 'Seven') is fully in force, and the landscapes of the house, the netherworlds of insomnia, and the character of Helena Bonham-Carter (the best thing in the film, a little under-utilized) are terrific and engaging.
The dailogue is smart, if not particularly beautiful or meaningful, and in fact the excercise is rather more simplistic than remembered. This lends the film a fast, enagaging plot without a lot of emotional heft or beauty- the final scene is rather less powerful than remembered.
A fine plot it is though, even when one knows the twist, an interesting, sexy, fun ride through violence and cod-philosophy. The performances are perhaps the second-best thing about this film (after the look). Norton is the films centre, and in quietude could be overlooked, but really succeeds in at once humanizing his complex character. Pitt, a fine actor, does the spiels and schticks with great intensity. Bonham-Carter adds intelligence to what could have been a rather comicy role.
Fincher is a fine director, this isn't the greatest film ever but it is very exciting, very entertaining, and as mentioned very much a capture of a sometimes over-simplistic zeitgeist. An important film to see the world in 1999, and in truth a very good film.
Fincher's wonderfully grimy, dark, through a keyhole camera style (notable also in the excellent 'Seven') is fully in force, and the landscapes of the house, the netherworlds of insomnia, and the character of Helena Bonham-Carter (the best thing in the film, a little under-utilized) are terrific and engaging.
The dailogue is smart, if not particularly beautiful or meaningful, and in fact the excercise is rather more simplistic than remembered. This lends the film a fast, enagaging plot without a lot of emotional heft or beauty- the final scene is rather less powerful than remembered.
A fine plot it is though, even when one knows the twist, an interesting, sexy, fun ride through violence and cod-philosophy. The performances are perhaps the second-best thing about this film (after the look). Norton is the films centre, and in quietude could be overlooked, but really succeeds in at once humanizing his complex character. Pitt, a fine actor, does the spiels and schticks with great intensity. Bonham-Carter adds intelligence to what could have been a rather comicy role.
Fincher is a fine director, this isn't the greatest film ever but it is very exciting, very entertaining, and as mentioned very much a capture of a sometimes over-simplistic zeitgeist. An important film to see the world in 1999, and in truth a very good film.
Marnie
Later Hitchcock, reasonably regarded, in plot and themes it is certainly innovative, if it is not necessarilly the master's best directed piece.
It takes too long to get going, but the post-genre heart of the film, when it comes, is a fascinating premise well, if rather hastily, done. The characters are decently complex, though we may have liked more characterisation as we struggle to really understand the undoubted depths of Hitchcock's creations.
There are a few arresting images, of lightening, red, the harbour, even if no scenes quite do this. Hitchcock has a few nice plays of suspense, but largely we are watching the movement of a psychology, a tough gig to pull off.
This is an interesting, an intriguing, rather than a massively heart-stopping piece of Hitchcock's work. Of course it is peerlessly well put together, if not memorably so.
So, we have a fascinatin premise at times explored well, even if the emphasis is a bit off. Nearly excellent, in truth a must-watch good.
It takes too long to get going, but the post-genre heart of the film, when it comes, is a fascinating premise well, if rather hastily, done. The characters are decently complex, though we may have liked more characterisation as we struggle to really understand the undoubted depths of Hitchcock's creations.
There are a few arresting images, of lightening, red, the harbour, even if no scenes quite do this. Hitchcock has a few nice plays of suspense, but largely we are watching the movement of a psychology, a tough gig to pull off.
This is an interesting, an intriguing, rather than a massively heart-stopping piece of Hitchcock's work. Of course it is peerlessly well put together, if not memorably so.
So, we have a fascinatin premise at times explored well, even if the emphasis is a bit off. Nearly excellent, in truth a must-watch good.
The Ghost
This excellent thriller from the renowned auteur Roman Polanski is a great example of how mainstream excitment should be done.
We are thrust right into the story, and we are happily left unable to understand the complexities of the names and the situations. Of course, the obviously very much based on reality characters and plot (?) could have been clunky but works here rather well, as a form of dramtic irony. We are not seeing exact take-offs of the real people, but rather at once deliberately fanciful, and cock-eyed looks at, real people.
What really impresses about this film is the look of it, the sets and the colours, the overall tone. It is the slightly washed out, slightly absurd, surreal in its closed richness/meanigfulness of the locations that gives the whole film the look of an airport departures lounge at a midsize airport. Particularly notice the look of the central house; unremittingly ugly from outside, full of extravagances and faux-natural mod cons inside. The plot itself adds to the sense of unreality; it is at once a little silly and eerily familiar. Add to that the script; clunky and novelistic at times, this adds to the sense that things aren't wuite right, all oddly 'off', somehow.
The acting is decent, Ewan Macgregor has remembered how to perform. Brosnan is half-decent, but the real standout perfomarnce is the multifaceted characterising of Olivia Williams.
As a thriller, we don't have blinding tension but we have unease and points where the action picks up to be just about exciting. At times a starnge film, it is also a thoughtful one, with spectres and the repressed returning to haunt, through the glass of modern truish to life politics.
A fine piece of work, an example for all box-office conscious works to follow in this genre.
We are thrust right into the story, and we are happily left unable to understand the complexities of the names and the situations. Of course, the obviously very much based on reality characters and plot (?) could have been clunky but works here rather well, as a form of dramtic irony. We are not seeing exact take-offs of the real people, but rather at once deliberately fanciful, and cock-eyed looks at, real people.
What really impresses about this film is the look of it, the sets and the colours, the overall tone. It is the slightly washed out, slightly absurd, surreal in its closed richness/meanigfulness of the locations that gives the whole film the look of an airport departures lounge at a midsize airport. Particularly notice the look of the central house; unremittingly ugly from outside, full of extravagances and faux-natural mod cons inside. The plot itself adds to the sense of unreality; it is at once a little silly and eerily familiar. Add to that the script; clunky and novelistic at times, this adds to the sense that things aren't wuite right, all oddly 'off', somehow.
The acting is decent, Ewan Macgregor has remembered how to perform. Brosnan is half-decent, but the real standout perfomarnce is the multifaceted characterising of Olivia Williams.
As a thriller, we don't have blinding tension but we have unease and points where the action picks up to be just about exciting. At times a starnge film, it is also a thoughtful one, with spectres and the repressed returning to haunt, through the glass of modern truish to life politics.
A fine piece of work, an example for all box-office conscious works to follow in this genre.
Saturday 17 April 2010
Dr Zhivago
David Lean epic romance. A terrific film, made by one of the great directors. It has barely dated, the use of cuts of the characters faces, the fast pace, and the incredible story all come together to make a fantastic film.
Despite the epic length it zips from scene to scene swiftly, though still somehow manages to retain heft. Apart from a slight-over suddenness of the central romance we are treated to a moving panorama.
Lean is the real star of the show with this excerscie is mastery, but Sharif's intense, sometimes restrained, always wonderfully humane performance can't be commended too highly.
A true masterpiece, one of the great epic films.
Despite the epic length it zips from scene to scene swiftly, though still somehow manages to retain heft. Apart from a slight-over suddenness of the central romance we are treated to a moving panorama.
Lean is the real star of the show with this excerscie is mastery, but Sharif's intense, sometimes restrained, always wonderfully humane performance can't be commended too highly.
A true masterpiece, one of the great epic films.
Thursday 15 April 2010
Little Miss Sunshine
Breakthrough American indie, pretty conventional, road movie, that has a pleasant and humorous tone, some sweet moments, and its compass pointing in the right direction.
The cast are excellent, especially Alan Arkin and Steve Carell. They are at once very funny while remaining very much real. Perhaps the film would have been funnier if it had become more absurd, and it does at times become all rather surreal, but generally the groundedness of it gives it a direction and purpose than keeps the attention firmly held.
The director will not necessarilly, because they've done a good job tonally in this film, have a great career; the scenes aren't noticeably well shot (aesthetically or storytelling-wise), and the story is rather lightweight. They do however completely overcome these weaknesses in this particular case, by a terrific script, not attention seeking but always in the foreground, and a willigness to listen to characters while I once keep things moving along. The moments of tenderness are a little cliched, but deserve their pathos and the actors hand it very well. The tone developed is able to puncture these moments with laughter, even as it keeps them true.
This film would be just a bit better than 'good' if it was not for the routine at the end, which is one of the most joyful and fun scenes we have seen in a long time. It was in this scene that we realised we had become emotionally invested; thanks to the good script and the fine acting. This is a scene to be treasured.
Overall, we liked this film very much.
The cast are excellent, especially Alan Arkin and Steve Carell. They are at once very funny while remaining very much real. Perhaps the film would have been funnier if it had become more absurd, and it does at times become all rather surreal, but generally the groundedness of it gives it a direction and purpose than keeps the attention firmly held.
The director will not necessarilly, because they've done a good job tonally in this film, have a great career; the scenes aren't noticeably well shot (aesthetically or storytelling-wise), and the story is rather lightweight. They do however completely overcome these weaknesses in this particular case, by a terrific script, not attention seeking but always in the foreground, and a willigness to listen to characters while I once keep things moving along. The moments of tenderness are a little cliched, but deserve their pathos and the actors hand it very well. The tone developed is able to puncture these moments with laughter, even as it keeps them true.
This film would be just a bit better than 'good' if it was not for the routine at the end, which is one of the most joyful and fun scenes we have seen in a long time. It was in this scene that we realised we had become emotionally invested; thanks to the good script and the fine acting. This is a scene to be treasured.
Overall, we liked this film very much.
Sons Of Cuba
Documentary charting the progress of three young adolescents in a noted Cuban boxing academy, the Havana Club. A fine documentary, not overtly political but giving insight into not just one particular country's culture, but the universal practice of youthful sports stars, hopes, dreams, and hard work.
This film is shot and paced in a pretty standard manner, as is convention zeroing in one three particular boys in the run up to the National Championships. None of them have a particulalry ridiously entertaining arc or story to tell, but all are more or less engaging. We see the boys at home and at the academy, the director is though discrete in not poking his nose into some obvious very private moments that happen off camera. This can make it rather undramatic at times, but is immensely understandable and can give curious pathos to the simple reactions we are allowed to see (classic Greek tragedian trick). 'The Singer' is a funny little guy, 'The Dalmation' has some wonderful moments of tenderness but is clearly more fragile than we can understand. The star of this show is though 'The Old Man', whose relationship with his father makes for the finest parts of the documentary. Indeed, the father is one of the most fascinating characters we have come across. The champion on hard times, living on memories, is a cliche, but he invests it with a warmth, a stubborness, a relaisation but at once a lack of self-knowledge, and a ambiguos and odd relationship with his son that leads to a shatteringly good climax. Another interesting character is the coach, whose hugging of his bitter enemy at the end, along with his tenderness with the boys, shows a good character sometimes blown away by his own passion to win.
The depiction of Cuba is slanted slightly towards painting it as ridiculous, but didn't for us make it seem all that bad. Indeed, there is a great togetherness in the parades and idolastion of Castro, even of the antagonistic elements are uncomfortable. Does the academy push the kids too hard? At times, yes, but no more than any other practice which requires hard work does. The choice of boxing as subject rather loads the die on this one.
The director has been largely even-handed, though does stray into criticism occasionally. Despite this, he has created a powerful film with some deeply moving characters. Very good, indeed excellent.
This film is shot and paced in a pretty standard manner, as is convention zeroing in one three particular boys in the run up to the National Championships. None of them have a particulalry ridiously entertaining arc or story to tell, but all are more or less engaging. We see the boys at home and at the academy, the director is though discrete in not poking his nose into some obvious very private moments that happen off camera. This can make it rather undramatic at times, but is immensely understandable and can give curious pathos to the simple reactions we are allowed to see (classic Greek tragedian trick). 'The Singer' is a funny little guy, 'The Dalmation' has some wonderful moments of tenderness but is clearly more fragile than we can understand. The star of this show is though 'The Old Man', whose relationship with his father makes for the finest parts of the documentary. Indeed, the father is one of the most fascinating characters we have come across. The champion on hard times, living on memories, is a cliche, but he invests it with a warmth, a stubborness, a relaisation but at once a lack of self-knowledge, and a ambiguos and odd relationship with his son that leads to a shatteringly good climax. Another interesting character is the coach, whose hugging of his bitter enemy at the end, along with his tenderness with the boys, shows a good character sometimes blown away by his own passion to win.
The depiction of Cuba is slanted slightly towards painting it as ridiculous, but didn't for us make it seem all that bad. Indeed, there is a great togetherness in the parades and idolastion of Castro, even of the antagonistic elements are uncomfortable. Does the academy push the kids too hard? At times, yes, but no more than any other practice which requires hard work does. The choice of boxing as subject rather loads the die on this one.
The director has been largely even-handed, though does stray into criticism occasionally. Despite this, he has created a powerful film with some deeply moving characters. Very good, indeed excellent.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Pretty much the definition of minor Hitchcock, this well-plotted piece of storytelling is a good film but no masterpiece.
The tale is told well, if occasioanlly jarringly relying on questionable plot devices, but keeps up the suspense well. We are interesting what is happening, how it will pan out (if we couldn't care less about the annoying brat of a kid). The little comic tricks and contrivances don't exactly enhance the realism but are fun enough, with a few snorts and giggles.
What can one say about Jimmy Stewart? Doris Day does her job adequately. The general look of the cast and area are classic Htichcock i.e. very bouregoise, the violence having more of an 'oddness' to it than a 'horror'. We are never QUITE gripped into spasms of worry and suspense, but are kept amused.
So, obviously a superbly well shot and paced film (individual scenes, looks of the camera at animate objects, are classic Hitchcock genius that no one else can evoke as succesfully), but not one of the directors very finest. One to look out for, if not to desperately seek.
The tale is told well, if occasioanlly jarringly relying on questionable plot devices, but keeps up the suspense well. We are interesting what is happening, how it will pan out (if we couldn't care less about the annoying brat of a kid). The little comic tricks and contrivances don't exactly enhance the realism but are fun enough, with a few snorts and giggles.
What can one say about Jimmy Stewart? Doris Day does her job adequately. The general look of the cast and area are classic Htichcock i.e. very bouregoise, the violence having more of an 'oddness' to it than a 'horror'. We are never QUITE gripped into spasms of worry and suspense, but are kept amused.
So, obviously a superbly well shot and paced film (individual scenes, looks of the camera at animate objects, are classic Hitchcock genius that no one else can evoke as succesfully), but not one of the directors very finest. One to look out for, if not to desperately seek.
Alice In Wonderland
Term Burton's latest, presumably his biggest budgeted, piece. Modelled on elements of the Alice books, but interpreted and taken very differently.
It left us asking; why has Time Burton done this. The man obviously started out as an artist, with his particular aesthetic and intellgient sensibilities ('Sleepy Hollow' as his best work). Yes, the visual style of vivid sharp colours, the kohl-eyed actors and sense of the macabre, all remain (even if his distinctive style was never THAT original or different, and if it now wears more than thin as a broekn record, at least it is SOMETHING). However, the way the film is constructed and plotted is little better than your standard blockbuster rubbish.
Who is it that decides we have the rather mind-numbing set-pieces and the simplistic characters? If it was Burton, his excuse would presumably be that this is a kids film, which is undoubtedly true. It may have been the bean-counters or the test-audiences, more likely, however. The poor pacing leads to unnecessary action scenes and a rather formulaic structure.
Among this though are some nice touches. The opening and closing evocation of reality is more interesting than what happens in between. Depp, never knowingly underplayed, is fun. The ticking clock motif is very good....but woefully underutilized. Compare to the masterful, nightmarish rythms of Disney's 'Alice' and we have the comparison of one film which wants to follow a tone, and one which doesn't. Depp's dancing and rather drawn-out comedy again give the impression of a film lacking tonal coherence, at times.
We do not want to give the impression that this film was BAD. It has a well played and refreshing heroine, is engaging enough in its momentum, and has that distinctive look. Yet, we feel that Burton asserting himself as an artist could have made this a better film for both kids and adults. Perhaps to do that, Burton needs a commercial disaster. Alice won't blow the world away, but it's not a disaster.
It left us asking; why has Time Burton done this. The man obviously started out as an artist, with his particular aesthetic and intellgient sensibilities ('Sleepy Hollow' as his best work). Yes, the visual style of vivid sharp colours, the kohl-eyed actors and sense of the macabre, all remain (even if his distinctive style was never THAT original or different, and if it now wears more than thin as a broekn record, at least it is SOMETHING). However, the way the film is constructed and plotted is little better than your standard blockbuster rubbish.
Who is it that decides we have the rather mind-numbing set-pieces and the simplistic characters? If it was Burton, his excuse would presumably be that this is a kids film, which is undoubtedly true. It may have been the bean-counters or the test-audiences, more likely, however. The poor pacing leads to unnecessary action scenes and a rather formulaic structure.
Among this though are some nice touches. The opening and closing evocation of reality is more interesting than what happens in between. Depp, never knowingly underplayed, is fun. The ticking clock motif is very good....but woefully underutilized. Compare to the masterful, nightmarish rythms of Disney's 'Alice' and we have the comparison of one film which wants to follow a tone, and one which doesn't. Depp's dancing and rather drawn-out comedy again give the impression of a film lacking tonal coherence, at times.
We do not want to give the impression that this film was BAD. It has a well played and refreshing heroine, is engaging enough in its momentum, and has that distinctive look. Yet, we feel that Burton asserting himself as an artist could have made this a better film for both kids and adults. Perhaps to do that, Burton needs a commercial disaster. Alice won't blow the world away, but it's not a disaster.
1234
Occasionally charming but ultimately underwhelming British Indie Flick, mega-low budget, set in London and around the new music scene.
The two main problems with this film is the rather cliched, not particularly funny script, and the rather formulaic plotting. The acting doesn't help either. It is another example of the lack of ambition in the British film industry; the plot is obvious and rooted in the mundane, which oddly enough means that it falls apart at times, notably in the last ten minutes. The acting is also very poor, especially by the lead.
For all that, the story is told at a decent enough pace. The milleu is interesting, it's a fun look at the particular scene in some respects, and the attention just about remains. Although the direction/cinematography is generally forgettable, there is one good shot of changing reflections and colours at a concert.
So, the romance isn't believable or brilliantly handled, but earns a little bit of affection through its dogedness and not overstaying of welcome. Not much of a film really, but far from hateful.
The two main problems with this film is the rather cliched, not particularly funny script, and the rather formulaic plotting. The acting doesn't help either. It is another example of the lack of ambition in the British film industry; the plot is obvious and rooted in the mundane, which oddly enough means that it falls apart at times, notably in the last ten minutes. The acting is also very poor, especially by the lead.
For all that, the story is told at a decent enough pace. The milleu is interesting, it's a fun look at the particular scene in some respects, and the attention just about remains. Although the direction/cinematography is generally forgettable, there is one good shot of changing reflections and colours at a concert.
So, the romance isn't believable or brilliantly handled, but earns a little bit of affection through its dogedness and not overstaying of welcome. Not much of a film really, but far from hateful.
Monday 12 April 2010
Lost In Translation
We watched this a few years back, and remember a good film that was a little boring and a little overrated, though with some beautiful moments. Are memories are those of idiots. This is a beautiful film, one of the most important of the decade, a masterpiece, and not far short of the gold standard of perfection.
Now the print is a little old we feel even more isolated, slightly fuzzy, even sometimes slightly surreal in the settings and in the glacial action. The lack of dailogue and, especially early on, the preponderance of care given to shots of the actors faces marks this out as a film of refinement and intelligence. Tokyo is seen as, while of course beautiful, like all cities it can never quite be grasped. The tracking shots over it show as much what CAN'T be thought or said as what can.
The use of the Japanese setting does just about avoid mockery, though needs to be read the right way to do so. The acting is excellent, Johannson's doe eyes being just self-conscious enough not to become annoying.
The film has European cinema elements, the lack of dialogue/ obvious 'action', and the platonic nature of the central relationship. This however remains a Hollywood film, which greatly improves it in this case, for the reason that it sees that what it portrays is not just a connection, but is truly a romance. Often, among the trad. art-house crowd, we would be left wondering why the characters don't even consider romance; here that is tackled, bringing greater intensity and truth to the relationship.
This is an important film because it is the modern view of loneliness, silence, the place in the city, and the blinding, inarticuable, blank clearing of relationships. It is sad and it is uplifting. It is a wondrously good depiction.
Especially the final scenes; some of the finest we have come across in recent cinema. A film we are thoroughly glad we re-watched, and intend on doing so every few years or so.
Now the print is a little old we feel even more isolated, slightly fuzzy, even sometimes slightly surreal in the settings and in the glacial action. The lack of dailogue and, especially early on, the preponderance of care given to shots of the actors faces marks this out as a film of refinement and intelligence. Tokyo is seen as, while of course beautiful, like all cities it can never quite be grasped. The tracking shots over it show as much what CAN'T be thought or said as what can.
The use of the Japanese setting does just about avoid mockery, though needs to be read the right way to do so. The acting is excellent, Johannson's doe eyes being just self-conscious enough not to become annoying.
The film has European cinema elements, the lack of dialogue/ obvious 'action', and the platonic nature of the central relationship. This however remains a Hollywood film, which greatly improves it in this case, for the reason that it sees that what it portrays is not just a connection, but is truly a romance. Often, among the trad. art-house crowd, we would be left wondering why the characters don't even consider romance; here that is tackled, bringing greater intensity and truth to the relationship.
This is an important film because it is the modern view of loneliness, silence, the place in the city, and the blinding, inarticuable, blank clearing of relationships. It is sad and it is uplifting. It is a wondrously good depiction.
Especially the final scenes; some of the finest we have come across in recent cinema. A film we are thoroughly glad we re-watched, and intend on doing so every few years or so.
Up In The Air
Another look at the film we slated at the time; frankly, nothing has changed.
The script remains piss-poor, cliche laden and occasionally jarring. There are a few funny lines, we emphasise there are a few funny lines. Generally however, the times it remembers it thinks it's a screwball comedy are nauseatingly embarrasing and full of non-sequiters, rather than anything else.
And the acting; George Clooney's smirk is unnecessary and smug, and Anna Kendrick is pretty bad. Vera Farmiga is the only one who gets away largely unscathed.
Still a vastyly overrated, soon to be forgotten, bad bad film.
The script remains piss-poor, cliche laden and occasionally jarring. There are a few funny lines, we emphasise there are a few funny lines. Generally however, the times it remembers it thinks it's a screwball comedy are nauseatingly embarrasing and full of non-sequiters, rather than anything else.
And the acting; George Clooney's smirk is unnecessary and smug, and Anna Kendrick is pretty bad. Vera Farmiga is the only one who gets away largely unscathed.
Still a vastyly overrated, soon to be forgotten, bad bad film.
Saturday 10 April 2010
Safety Last!
Classic Harold Lloys silent film, 70 minutes long, and worth double the vast majority of films twice that length.
We genuinely gasped in worry, excitment and awe as Lloyd pulled off fabulous, dangerous stunts with beautifully acted, composed ablomb. This is what we call the stuntwork, the question always being; 'How did he do that'? As long as one is willing to get involved one will find oneself in a state of great excitment, tension, and release, the emotional impact undimmed by the years (1923).
The story as such is surprisingly biting, and really a critique of money-centric capitalism. Credit for putting a message and a thought behind what is essentially a roll of comedy/high-wire set pieces. The humour is good, and lasts, if not in belly laughs then in a constant state of 'humphs' and mild amusements that are emphasised by the absurd tensions.
This film also looks beautiful, from Lloyd's low key movements, to the expressive supporting cast in their clever costumes. Silent film is a more visual medium, and drinking in the scenes of the city and the grace of the people was a treat.
All round, a wonderful experience, a short piece of exhillaration and smart humour.
We genuinely gasped in worry, excitment and awe as Lloyd pulled off fabulous, dangerous stunts with beautifully acted, composed ablomb. This is what we call the stuntwork, the question always being; 'How did he do that'? As long as one is willing to get involved one will find oneself in a state of great excitment, tension, and release, the emotional impact undimmed by the years (1923).
The story as such is surprisingly biting, and really a critique of money-centric capitalism. Credit for putting a message and a thought behind what is essentially a roll of comedy/high-wire set pieces. The humour is good, and lasts, if not in belly laughs then in a constant state of 'humphs' and mild amusements that are emphasised by the absurd tensions.
This film also looks beautiful, from Lloyd's low key movements, to the expressive supporting cast in their clever costumes. Silent film is a more visual medium, and drinking in the scenes of the city and the grace of the people was a treat.
All round, a wonderful experience, a short piece of exhillaration and smart humour.
Thursday 8 April 2010
Easy Rider
The classic '69 biker/hippie/ counterculture flick, that really started off independent cinema in the States.
We liked it very much, once we had got into the atmosphere of the shambling, unguided, kinda funny and kinda profound world of the protagonists. This is one of those rare films that gets better the longer it goes on.
It is shot beautifully, or at least has a beautiful landscape, and if some of the tricks are a little bit dated they are still powerful.
As far as ideas go, this movie is smarter than it makes out. It has an odd ambiguity about everyone and everything, refusing to make heroic what could have easily been portrayed as such. They, as Fonda says (he is the powerhouse of the film, if less naturally entertaining than Hopper), have failed as well.
A cool film and a smart film. One not to miss.
We liked it very much, once we had got into the atmosphere of the shambling, unguided, kinda funny and kinda profound world of the protagonists. This is one of those rare films that gets better the longer it goes on.
It is shot beautifully, or at least has a beautiful landscape, and if some of the tricks are a little bit dated they are still powerful.
As far as ideas go, this movie is smarter than it makes out. It has an odd ambiguity about everyone and everything, refusing to make heroic what could have easily been portrayed as such. They, as Fonda says (he is the powerhouse of the film, if less naturally entertaining than Hopper), have failed as well.
A cool film and a smart film. One not to miss.
Wednesday 7 April 2010
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
The epic concluding part of Sergio Leone/ Ennio Morricone/ Clint Eastwood's 'Dollars' Trilogy, it is surely the grandest, the sparsest, and the most weighty of the three films. It shows quite a continuity between the earlier films and the later, even more operatic, even slower, 'Once Upon A Time In The West'.
This is obviously a classic film, it doesn't mess around worrying about anything as it knows it simply works. The scenes are sharp despite their dwelling-slowness, every individual element is exciting and a story in itself. We watched the extended version, and it would probably be better to cut a couple of scenes; all around though, the hundreds of tangents and side-elements make up the enviroment, the atmosphere. The re-dubbing of 'lost' scenes is also a little clunky.
Morricone's music actually wasn't our favourite here; the central riff is great, if rather hysterical, and beside that isn't (for us) hugely memorable. The way that it is shot though is perhaps the finest. The horses going across the desert and the destruction-civil-war backdrops show Leone growing in ambition and power.
A far as characterisation, we have Clint being the great Clint, showing a little more humanity which is rather necessary for such a long and multi layered film as this. Lee Van Cleef, who doesn't appear to be playing the same character, is strong and difficult (in the good way), though does dissapear for long periods. Eli Wallach's Tuco is the great new addition; a nice bit of ambiguity, rather fun, and fits in nicely.
The curious thing about the 'Dollars' films are the balance struck between the deliberately cold, nasty, harsh characters, and the slightly self-knowing twinkle and wink in Eastwood's eye. Are these films serious? The answer is yes and no. These films are fine watches, gloriously entertaining and often cool. They are though uncertain, playful movies in many ways though.
And of course there are the final scenes, the circle of guns, and all the iconic moments. A must for any serious film fan to see.
This is obviously a classic film, it doesn't mess around worrying about anything as it knows it simply works. The scenes are sharp despite their dwelling-slowness, every individual element is exciting and a story in itself. We watched the extended version, and it would probably be better to cut a couple of scenes; all around though, the hundreds of tangents and side-elements make up the enviroment, the atmosphere. The re-dubbing of 'lost' scenes is also a little clunky.
Morricone's music actually wasn't our favourite here; the central riff is great, if rather hysterical, and beside that isn't (for us) hugely memorable. The way that it is shot though is perhaps the finest. The horses going across the desert and the destruction-civil-war backdrops show Leone growing in ambition and power.
A far as characterisation, we have Clint being the great Clint, showing a little more humanity which is rather necessary for such a long and multi layered film as this. Lee Van Cleef, who doesn't appear to be playing the same character, is strong and difficult (in the good way), though does dissapear for long periods. Eli Wallach's Tuco is the great new addition; a nice bit of ambiguity, rather fun, and fits in nicely.
The curious thing about the 'Dollars' films are the balance struck between the deliberately cold, nasty, harsh characters, and the slightly self-knowing twinkle and wink in Eastwood's eye. Are these films serious? The answer is yes and no. These films are fine watches, gloriously entertaining and often cool. They are though uncertain, playful movies in many ways though.
And of course there are the final scenes, the circle of guns, and all the iconic moments. A must for any serious film fan to see.
Mic-Macs
This is a great piece of fun, a morally uncomplicated little tale with a fun, occasionally beautiful aesthetic.
The moral black and whites of the plot are fine now and again, this film really is like Mouse-Trap or even Home Alone in that. Further elements are, to its credit, there, with the camaraderie and occasionally melancholy, insincere whimsy of our lost boys and girls characters.
The main theme of this film though is the kind of clicking-into-place capering, the shuttling about of mechcanics and tinkering. It is all very neat, very satisfying, and rather funny. This is also in the plot; not realistic obviously, but a nice little mechanical device, sweet and neat.
Perhaps the pace could be rather more even, but generally the director, Jeunet ('Amelie') does a fine job in keeping us gripped. The sharp colours and the beautiful smoke in the background of the rooftop scenes also add an old-fashioned, back to the 1950's, look that we like.
A fun little film, sweet and a smooth. French whimsy which isn't annoying, recommended.
The moral black and whites of the plot are fine now and again, this film really is like Mouse-Trap or even Home Alone in that. Further elements are, to its credit, there, with the camaraderie and occasionally melancholy, insincere whimsy of our lost boys and girls characters.
The main theme of this film though is the kind of clicking-into-place capering, the shuttling about of mechcanics and tinkering. It is all very neat, very satisfying, and rather funny. This is also in the plot; not realistic obviously, but a nice little mechanical device, sweet and neat.
Perhaps the pace could be rather more even, but generally the director, Jeunet ('Amelie') does a fine job in keeping us gripped. The sharp colours and the beautiful smoke in the background of the rooftop scenes also add an old-fashioned, back to the 1950's, look that we like.
A fun little film, sweet and a smooth. French whimsy which isn't annoying, recommended.
No One Knows About Persian Cats
This isn't a great film, but it is a fascinating subject it tackles, and is probably worth seeing even if it is not exactly enjoyable.
We are back on the same subject, questioning whether a worthy/good/interesting topic badly tackled should be given extra marks. The Iranian music scene, the oppression, the political situation, are a fascinating and curious milleu. Indeed, we do get a sense of this; of the underground rooms, the quiet, reticent movements against a painful superstructure. Some of the naturalism of the non-naturalistic cast works, and we do have some sweet moments among this youth nation.
Here though are the problems; the acting is stilted and rather poor, the script/subtitles are clunky and plot-explaining, unnecessary, and frankly pretty much ruin the film. The whole thing nearly becomes cheesy.
As far as the way it is shot, we have a few nice widescreen horizons of Tehran, though generally this is unexploited.
Another problem is that we are never really given the context, we don't really know what pressures, strains and community structures the horror of some of the situations occur in. The police never are quite given a proper role, we don't know what's acceptable and what's not. Fine if you live there, for the ignorant masses just confusing and rather self-centered.
To conclude, a fine subject not particularly well executed or handled.
We are back on the same subject, questioning whether a worthy/good/interesting topic badly tackled should be given extra marks. The Iranian music scene, the oppression, the political situation, are a fascinating and curious milleu. Indeed, we do get a sense of this; of the underground rooms, the quiet, reticent movements against a painful superstructure. Some of the naturalism of the non-naturalistic cast works, and we do have some sweet moments among this youth nation.
Here though are the problems; the acting is stilted and rather poor, the script/subtitles are clunky and plot-explaining, unnecessary, and frankly pretty much ruin the film. The whole thing nearly becomes cheesy.
As far as the way it is shot, we have a few nice widescreen horizons of Tehran, though generally this is unexploited.
Another problem is that we are never really given the context, we don't really know what pressures, strains and community structures the horror of some of the situations occur in. The police never are quite given a proper role, we don't know what's acceptable and what's not. Fine if you live there, for the ignorant masses just confusing and rather self-centered.
To conclude, a fine subject not particularly well executed or handled.
Monday 5 April 2010
Being John Malkovich
This Spike Jonze directed, Charlie Kauffman written surrealist fantasy is a very good film, it deserves its fame, and but for a few touches it would be able to compete with Kauffman's masterpiece 'Eternal Sunshines'. The quality of it certainly makes one curious to see 'Adaption'.
John Cusack is not a sympathetic charcter but a fine played one, the John Malkovich character is probably the most engaging and curious of the bunch, Cameron Diaz is not a great actress but does a good job here. Keener and Bean do decent work.
The plotting is imaginative, wildly different from the mainstream, and finds itself in pleasingly obtuse corners that generally bring about emotional engagement. It is not so much well shot as the sets and screens are constructed well, the sense of atmosphere isn'y particularly all-encompassing but does have certain endearing recurrent motifs. The fact the strangeness of the plot doesn't descend into 'kookiness' should be applauded.
Perhaps it does run through it's labyrinth too quickly; stopping to reflect would maybe mean we wouldn't go along with the absurdity, but at the same time it may have made for a little more engagment. All the same, this is an intelligently written, very funny, and occasionally mvoving fine piece of film. Congratulations for the ability to pull off such a complex idea with clarity and real panache.
John Cusack is not a sympathetic charcter but a fine played one, the John Malkovich character is probably the most engaging and curious of the bunch, Cameron Diaz is not a great actress but does a good job here. Keener and Bean do decent work.
The plotting is imaginative, wildly different from the mainstream, and finds itself in pleasingly obtuse corners that generally bring about emotional engagement. It is not so much well shot as the sets and screens are constructed well, the sense of atmosphere isn'y particularly all-encompassing but does have certain endearing recurrent motifs. The fact the strangeness of the plot doesn't descend into 'kookiness' should be applauded.
Perhaps it does run through it's labyrinth too quickly; stopping to reflect would maybe mean we wouldn't go along with the absurdity, but at the same time it may have made for a little more engagment. All the same, this is an intelligently written, very funny, and occasionally mvoving fine piece of film. Congratulations for the ability to pull off such a complex idea with clarity and real panache.
Beyond The Pole
This pathetic piece of crap doesn't deserve any more of our time. If you have no budget you should try and be ambitious, be inventive, not recycle some already lame jokes in an embarrasingly stilted and cack-handed manner.
The dailogue is just atrociously cliched, the mock-documentary format over-used and badly done. This may be partly down to the acting, which is utterly devoid of nuicance and makes one want to curl away from the screen in embarrasement as they try to emote. It is an unfunny comedy, and if it is trying to say something it does so in such an idiotic, inarticulate way that the message is offensive. Never mind the way it descends into mawkishness.
If you've got no budget, go the Peter Jackson route and throw some ketchup around, show some liveliness, do something different. Don't make a startingly obvious, overdone, atrociously executed and glaringly unfunny crap-fest like this. Embarrassed to be British, when the low budget film industry produces shit like this.
The dailogue is just atrociously cliched, the mock-documentary format over-used and badly done. This may be partly down to the acting, which is utterly devoid of nuicance and makes one want to curl away from the screen in embarrasement as they try to emote. It is an unfunny comedy, and if it is trying to say something it does so in such an idiotic, inarticulate way that the message is offensive. Never mind the way it descends into mawkishness.
If you've got no budget, go the Peter Jackson route and throw some ketchup around, show some liveliness, do something different. Don't make a startingly obvious, overdone, atrociously executed and glaringly unfunny crap-fest like this. Embarrassed to be British, when the low budget film industry produces shit like this.
Saturday 3 April 2010
Samson & Delilah
Harsh, genuinely Beckettian and rather good, this grim parable about the destruction of the Australian aboriginal culture, through the destruction of the two titular characters, broadens out to have universal appeal beyond its immediate category.
There are very few lines of dialogue, rendering a sense of purposelessness, hopelessness, and rendering what speech there is as absurd. Samson's inability to speak is both a denunciation of the raping of aboriginal culture (a micking reminder for the disconnected victims), a symbol for the lack of possible speech in the absurd world, and a literal analysis of petrol-sniffing. The most powerful moments are when the title characters are victims of violence, this is just sheer pointlessness driven by anger and boredom, a simulacra for existential nothingness. The scene where the guitar's unpleasant feedback attacks the audience's ears, and the malevolent women with clubs, are especially noticeable.
The film's main subject is in many ways petrol sniffing, which is dealt with while at the same time it stands for something much wider. We never quite understand what it's like, why the experiences are so, which is an upside in that it can stand for more than just the phenomenological experience, and a downside in that it can all seem a bit odd and isolated (but only rarely, to repeat this is a very decent film). The story isn't hyper-real naturalism, it's a parable in many ways.
This film is confident and willing to go along with its own powerful premises, letting things slowly unfold. The shooting of the area is not exactly original, tracking shots of migrating birds etc, but the mundanity of what is usually shown as spectacular and life-affirming shows us how frankly pathetic the situation is.
Does this film cop-out at the end? The song is good, but not entirely appropriate. It is quite a sweet 'love story' at the centre, and this gives the film some compass, but maybe we would have preffered a sparser approach at the end.
The acting is not specially wonderful, although we should give kudos to Samson as the finest of the bunch. The fact that he looks so startling is partly a criticism that people of the race are never seen on screen, and partly of the film's brutal aesthetic couched in what should be beauty, but fails to be (to the film's thematic credit).
All told, this is an inteeligent and at times well made film. There are a few slight twinges towards cliches, but generally it is a spare, startling, ambitous and, to use that word again, confident film. Thumbs up.
There are very few lines of dialogue, rendering a sense of purposelessness, hopelessness, and rendering what speech there is as absurd. Samson's inability to speak is both a denunciation of the raping of aboriginal culture (a micking reminder for the disconnected victims), a symbol for the lack of possible speech in the absurd world, and a literal analysis of petrol-sniffing. The most powerful moments are when the title characters are victims of violence, this is just sheer pointlessness driven by anger and boredom, a simulacra for existential nothingness. The scene where the guitar's unpleasant feedback attacks the audience's ears, and the malevolent women with clubs, are especially noticeable.
The film's main subject is in many ways petrol sniffing, which is dealt with while at the same time it stands for something much wider. We never quite understand what it's like, why the experiences are so, which is an upside in that it can stand for more than just the phenomenological experience, and a downside in that it can all seem a bit odd and isolated (but only rarely, to repeat this is a very decent film). The story isn't hyper-real naturalism, it's a parable in many ways.
This film is confident and willing to go along with its own powerful premises, letting things slowly unfold. The shooting of the area is not exactly original, tracking shots of migrating birds etc, but the mundanity of what is usually shown as spectacular and life-affirming shows us how frankly pathetic the situation is.
Does this film cop-out at the end? The song is good, but not entirely appropriate. It is quite a sweet 'love story' at the centre, and this gives the film some compass, but maybe we would have preffered a sparser approach at the end.
The acting is not specially wonderful, although we should give kudos to Samson as the finest of the bunch. The fact that he looks so startling is partly a criticism that people of the race are never seen on screen, and partly of the film's brutal aesthetic couched in what should be beauty, but fails to be (to the film's thematic credit).
All told, this is an inteeligent and at times well made film. There are a few slight twinges towards cliches, but generally it is a spare, startling, ambitous and, to use that word again, confident film. Thumbs up.
Friday 2 April 2010
Funny Face
Tasteful trash from 1956 starring Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire. The plot is weak and the characters change course every few scenes, there's not exactly any sense of peril, and some of its politics are questionable/ confused. What it thinks it is trying to say about existentialism is beyond me.
Hepburn of course looks beautiful, charming, and the (perhaps underexploited) camerawork shows this well at times. We may have an auteur trying to get out. Hepburn is however not a great singer, rather sreaching, though kudos for her dancing.
The above criticisms all rather fade when one sees this film is all about the set piece song and dance numbers which, if not memorable, are decent enough. Fred Astaire has a couple of moments where his genius is left to show, though he is generally under used.
Not a fascinating film, there are worse ways to pass one hundred minutes thanks to its snappiness and pleasant numbers (the title song is really quite decent) but far from a classic.
Hepburn of course looks beautiful, charming, and the (perhaps underexploited) camerawork shows this well at times. We may have an auteur trying to get out. Hepburn is however not a great singer, rather sreaching, though kudos for her dancing.
The above criticisms all rather fade when one sees this film is all about the set piece song and dance numbers which, if not memorable, are decent enough. Fred Astaire has a couple of moments where his genius is left to show, though he is generally under used.
Not a fascinating film, there are worse ways to pass one hundred minutes thanks to its snappiness and pleasant numbers (the title song is really quite decent) but far from a classic.
The Oscar Nomiated Short Films: Animation
These short films, with the exception of 'Loaf and Death', were shorter than the live action category. The best were better, the worst were worse.
French Roast: Good animations of the tramp and the nun, not a particularly fascinating story but interesting enough.
La Dama y La Muerte (The Lady and The Reaper): Funny, with some cool fast moving animation. Generally quite by the book, but some good little touches too (the locking of the boat)
A Matter of Loaf and Death: Half an hour long, this has all the cheesiness (badoom-chi), quirkiness and sentiment we love in Wallace and Gromit. Not great departure from their previous work, but no worse for that.
Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty: For our money the best of both days, this quick Irish comedy is just imaginative in its idea, sharp and fantastic in its execution, nicely layered in its use of animation, and above all damn funnt.
Partly Cloudy (not nominated): Shown before 'UP', this is bid budget and a little mawkish, but not bad at all.
Runaway (not nominated): Rather obvious in its politics, the first really political fiml here, a short parable that is probably right but doesn't say so in a particularly funny or new manner.
The Kinematographer: Has the greatest 'weight' of all the shorts, it is a moving and well animated tale. The best shot, with wonderful sweeping opening scenes, and an undoubtedly affecting story. Let down though by a poor script and rather wooden voice acting.
Logorama (Winner): A terrific idea, if rather annoyingly realised, it is a smart satire with some clever touches that maybe outstays its welcome/ doesn't exploit its premise fully. The swearing is also awkward.
So, we would have given the prize to 'Granny O'Grimm'. The animation category was, on balance, better than the live-action, and we would repeat the comments from yesterday about the encouragement of this art form, and patronisation of it, being applauded.
French Roast: Good animations of the tramp and the nun, not a particularly fascinating story but interesting enough.
La Dama y La Muerte (The Lady and The Reaper): Funny, with some cool fast moving animation. Generally quite by the book, but some good little touches too (the locking of the boat)
A Matter of Loaf and Death: Half an hour long, this has all the cheesiness (badoom-chi), quirkiness and sentiment we love in Wallace and Gromit. Not great departure from their previous work, but no worse for that.
Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty: For our money the best of both days, this quick Irish comedy is just imaginative in its idea, sharp and fantastic in its execution, nicely layered in its use of animation, and above all damn funnt.
Partly Cloudy (not nominated): Shown before 'UP', this is bid budget and a little mawkish, but not bad at all.
Runaway (not nominated): Rather obvious in its politics, the first really political fiml here, a short parable that is probably right but doesn't say so in a particularly funny or new manner.
The Kinematographer: Has the greatest 'weight' of all the shorts, it is a moving and well animated tale. The best shot, with wonderful sweeping opening scenes, and an undoubtedly affecting story. Let down though by a poor script and rather wooden voice acting.
Logorama (Winner): A terrific idea, if rather annoyingly realised, it is a smart satire with some clever touches that maybe outstays its welcome/ doesn't exploit its premise fully. The swearing is also awkward.
So, we would have given the prize to 'Granny O'Grimm'. The animation category was, on balance, better than the live-action, and we would repeat the comments from yesterday about the encouragement of this art form, and patronisation of it, being applauded.
Thursday 1 April 2010
The Oscar Nominated Short Films: Live Action
Five Films that run between seventeen and twenty two minutes, an ecletic mix of comedy, tragedy, and farce that were the academy's selections for the category this year.
Kavi: A bit of a Unicef advert, but an important call-to-attention of the human slavery business in India. It seemed a little like a number of even-tinier films tacked together, but had some fine shots and convincing performances. The music was delightfully different.
The New Tenants: A comedy/ farce that brings up a few laughs, and has one very arresting character (the druggy). However, it is not sharp enough to have consistent comedy, and tries to pack too much in, leaving an unsatisfactory and pretentious ending. Lacks the bite better direction could have given it.
Miracle Fish: Probably the winner we would have crowned, this establishes well and has a wondrous, dreamy quality to both the child's vision and the whole later scenes. Nicely enigmatic, shot with an eye to lighting effects, but quick enough for the format. It rather over-eggs the ending, but all told very impressive.
The Door: Undoubtedly the most boring to watch, and it is unrelentingly gloomy, easy to cast off with a big who cares. One was rather wishing for it to end. Despite this, the auteur would likely make the best feature film of the five. There are some wonderful, slow moving shots of the snow, the weary travellers passing through. Individual scenes, individual pictures (the ferris wheel, the entire packing-up scene) are nicely, calmly evoked. Perhaps with a more focussed sriptwriter, this could be a talent. Not a great short film though.
Instead of Abracadabra: Delightful, funny little piece of Scandanavian whimsy, with strong comedy of embarrasment (in an absurd manner) as well as some near-slapstick. It had cheery music, a bright and breezy aesthetic, and was the funnest to watch out of all the five. It also had an ability to make itself rather touching, the absurdity and silliness cloaking real characterisation. Impressive.
So, we have very different themes in all five, and if none really blew us away then all had some redeeming features. The winner, 'The New Tenants' was the wrong decision; it may not have been the worst to watch, but it was the worst made. We will watch out particularly for the directors of 'Miracle Fish' and 'Abracadabra', though we will also do so for the director of the rather dull 'The Room'.
Short Films are rarely seen, but are a terrific medium that should be brought out of the film school. To reflect on the use of images, slow or fast, to tell no story or a quick one, we look forward to having more experience of the art form.
Kavi: A bit of a Unicef advert, but an important call-to-attention of the human slavery business in India. It seemed a little like a number of even-tinier films tacked together, but had some fine shots and convincing performances. The music was delightfully different.
The New Tenants: A comedy/ farce that brings up a few laughs, and has one very arresting character (the druggy). However, it is not sharp enough to have consistent comedy, and tries to pack too much in, leaving an unsatisfactory and pretentious ending. Lacks the bite better direction could have given it.
Miracle Fish: Probably the winner we would have crowned, this establishes well and has a wondrous, dreamy quality to both the child's vision and the whole later scenes. Nicely enigmatic, shot with an eye to lighting effects, but quick enough for the format. It rather over-eggs the ending, but all told very impressive.
The Door: Undoubtedly the most boring to watch, and it is unrelentingly gloomy, easy to cast off with a big who cares. One was rather wishing for it to end. Despite this, the auteur would likely make the best feature film of the five. There are some wonderful, slow moving shots of the snow, the weary travellers passing through. Individual scenes, individual pictures (the ferris wheel, the entire packing-up scene) are nicely, calmly evoked. Perhaps with a more focussed sriptwriter, this could be a talent. Not a great short film though.
Instead of Abracadabra: Delightful, funny little piece of Scandanavian whimsy, with strong comedy of embarrasment (in an absurd manner) as well as some near-slapstick. It had cheery music, a bright and breezy aesthetic, and was the funnest to watch out of all the five. It also had an ability to make itself rather touching, the absurdity and silliness cloaking real characterisation. Impressive.
So, we have very different themes in all five, and if none really blew us away then all had some redeeming features. The winner, 'The New Tenants' was the wrong decision; it may not have been the worst to watch, but it was the worst made. We will watch out particularly for the directors of 'Miracle Fish' and 'Abracadabra', though we will also do so for the director of the rather dull 'The Room'.
Short Films are rarely seen, but are a terrific medium that should be brought out of the film school. To reflect on the use of images, slow or fast, to tell no story or a quick one, we look forward to having more experience of the art form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)