Sunday, May 16, 2010
Apocalypse When exactly??
Whoops. I still haven't gotten round to watching Apocalypse Now. I never have a 3 hour block of free time, it seems. Some movies need so much commitment...*sigh*
Friday, May 14, 2010
Claustrophiliac movies
NOTE: Let it be known that I am not completely sure that Claustrophilia is a word, although it certainly should be, but it is intended as the opposite of Claustrophobia- fear of enclosed spaces.
Sometimes, just to be clever, a filmmaker will create a film with a neat little visual gimmick to draw in the curious. Sometimes it's a "one-take" movie, sometimes its black and white for no apparent reason, sometimes its dodgy handheld camerawork a la Cloverfield, sometimes its 3D (see my thoughts on 3D here). One old trick is making a movie set entirely in one room, one house, or one boat, as the case may be. Yeah, it does scream, "Hey look at me I can make a film out of ANYTHING", but it can make for very interesting viewing, as tension and interest has to be maintained through careful cinematography.
Here's a few flicks for all you claustrophiliacs out there.
Lifeboat (1944)
The brilliant Alfred Hitchcock, in one of his lesser known works, places survivors of a torpedoed ship on a lifeboat- which they must share with a man who helped sink their ship. Awkward.
Rear Window (1954)
Hitchcock's at it again, this time in an apartment with James Stewart and the lovely Grace Kelly. Wheelchair-bound Stewart reckons there's been a murder across the courtyard, but no one believes him. Paranoid, thrilling, voyeuristic fun.
12 Angry Men (1957)
A courtroom drama set almost exclusively in the jury room. 11 of the 12 jurors are convinced the defendant is guilty, but Juror No. 8 is determined to change their minds in the next hour and a half.
Sleuth (1972)
Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine engage in a deadly duel of wits as the former invites the latter (his wife's lover) to his abode. A film driven by its two lead performers.
Cube (1997)
6 strangers find themselves trapped in a giant cube and must use each of their strengths to find their way out. With the tagline: The Walls Are Closing In, this is surely one claustrophiliacs should relish and all others will be thoroughly disturbed by.
Panic Room (2002)
Jodie Foster and daughter Kristen Stewart find themselves confined to the panic room of their new house as a couple of crims are attempting to raid its contents. It's Twilight meets Freaky Friday! OK, not really.
8 Women (8 Femmes)(2002)
A French murder mystery/musical(?!) about 8 women trapped in a house during a snow storm. The sole man of the house is murdered and weirdness ensues. As the characters' relationships get more and more twisted up, you'll feel trapped, too.
Paranormal Activity (2009)
Katie's convinced she's being followed by a demon, so her man Micah sets up a camera in their bedroom that documents the paranormal occurrences that follow. A Blair Witch-esque horror/thriller made on the cheap in the director's own home.
For more claustrophiliac fun, check out the trailer for Buried in the post below, and tell me about your favourite claustro-fest film with a comment!
Sometimes, just to be clever, a filmmaker will create a film with a neat little visual gimmick to draw in the curious. Sometimes it's a "one-take" movie, sometimes its black and white for no apparent reason, sometimes its dodgy handheld camerawork a la Cloverfield, sometimes its 3D (see my thoughts on 3D here). One old trick is making a movie set entirely in one room, one house, or one boat, as the case may be. Yeah, it does scream, "Hey look at me I can make a film out of ANYTHING", but it can make for very interesting viewing, as tension and interest has to be maintained through careful cinematography.
Here's a few flicks for all you claustrophiliacs out there.
Lifeboat (1944)The brilliant Alfred Hitchcock, in one of his lesser known works, places survivors of a torpedoed ship on a lifeboat- which they must share with a man who helped sink their ship. Awkward.
Rear Window (1954)Hitchcock's at it again, this time in an apartment with James Stewart and the lovely Grace Kelly. Wheelchair-bound Stewart reckons there's been a murder across the courtyard, but no one believes him. Paranoid, thrilling, voyeuristic fun.
12 Angry Men (1957)A courtroom drama set almost exclusively in the jury room. 11 of the 12 jurors are convinced the defendant is guilty, but Juror No. 8 is determined to change their minds in the next hour and a half.
Sleuth (1972)Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine engage in a deadly duel of wits as the former invites the latter (his wife's lover) to his abode. A film driven by its two lead performers.
Cube (1997)6 strangers find themselves trapped in a giant cube and must use each of their strengths to find their way out. With the tagline: The Walls Are Closing In, this is surely one claustrophiliacs should relish and all others will be thoroughly disturbed by.
Panic Room (2002)Jodie Foster and daughter Kristen Stewart find themselves confined to the panic room of their new house as a couple of crims are attempting to raid its contents. It's Twilight meets Freaky Friday! OK, not really.
8 Women (8 Femmes)(2002)A French murder mystery/musical(?!) about 8 women trapped in a house during a snow storm. The sole man of the house is murdered and weirdness ensues. As the characters' relationships get more and more twisted up, you'll feel trapped, too.
Paranormal Activity (2009)Katie's convinced she's being followed by a demon, so her man Micah sets up a camera in their bedroom that documents the paranormal occurrences that follow. A Blair Witch-esque horror/thriller made on the cheap in the director's own home.
For more claustrophiliac fun, check out the trailer for Buried in the post below, and tell me about your favourite claustro-fest film with a comment!
Buried trailer
Just saw the trailer for Buried.
I have high hopes. Heard about it a few months ago in a list of top upcoming movies to be shown at Sundance (or at least i think it was Sundance. Maybe it was Cannes. I dunno). The promo tempted questions into my mind. What's the context? How have the screenwriters managed (or attempted to manage) a film that I presume is set entirely in such a small space? How exactly is this guy going to, erm, relieve himself? And can Ryan Reynolds act himself out of a box? We shall see.
I have high hopes. Heard about it a few months ago in a list of top upcoming movies to be shown at Sundance (or at least i think it was Sundance. Maybe it was Cannes. I dunno). The promo tempted questions into my mind. What's the context? How have the screenwriters managed (or attempted to manage) a film that I presume is set entirely in such a small space? How exactly is this guy going to, erm, relieve himself? And can Ryan Reynolds act himself out of a box? We shall see.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Director: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow
Viewed: At the cinema
Iron Man was one of 2007's biggest hits, both with critics and cinemagoers. Why? Because it gave us a refreshing and decidedly unorthodox hero in billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr). Here, Tony Stark is much the same- briliant, arrogant, impulsive, narcissistic and freakin awesome.
The coda of Iron Man showed Stark revealing to the world that he is, indeed, the infamous Iron Man. Lately, Stark's been having a good time being loved by all, while a big scary tatt-heavy Russian guy, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) is plotting against him on the other side of the world. Stark's long-suffering girlfriend/secretary, Pepper, is getting pretty fed up with him, the US government wants his suit, his new assistant (Scarlett Johanssen) is being mysterious in a sexy sorta way, and to top it all off, his Iron Man power source, that happens to be lodged in his chest, is slowly giving him blood poisoning.
The whole star-studded cast seem to be having fun. Downey Jr gets to fool around being the arrogant prick we all love. Scarlett Johanssen gets to be sexy, strong AND smart (ooh, groundbreaking). Don Cheadle (as the new Rhodey) gets to be dignified, exasperated and ultimately kinda badass. Sam Rockwell as Stark's clueless but power-hungry rival, Justin Hammer, was a little too caricature-ish for my liking, but he was clearly getting into it; he looked like he was relishing every minute in his bad guy role. Rockwell plays Hammer like he's straight out of a comic, but Rourke, however, takes his role with the utmost seriousness. Rourke is just...intense. Vanko looks like he's about to explode every time he's onscreen. Which is most appropriate for some of his action scenes.
Ah, yes, the action scenes. Can't have a superhero movie without a coupla dudes in metal exoskeletons punching and exploding each other to bits. While most of these are quite well-done and reasonably exciting there was one particular sequence that seemed like a wholly unnecessary and ridiculous excuse to destroy some expensive sets. I am afraid I cannot divulge details without spoilers, but I can say that it was thankfully not the finale, which I found satisfying enough.
NOTE to those with sensitive ear drums: Be prepared for some ear-splittingly loud sequences. Squealing tyres, screeching metal, weapons-grade explosives, AC/DC at full blast and some very enthusiastic crowds add up to a helluva lot of LOUD.
For a $200+ million movie, Iron Man 2 gives you what you'd expect in the SFX department. However, it also keeps up with the sense of humour that made its predecessor a hit. It's a pleasant antidote to the Dark Knight breed of comic book adaptation. Robert Downey Jr and the very lovely Gwyneth Paltrow have some wit-laden spats that are good fun to watch, as their timing is impeccable and their performances are so charming. Stark hogs most of the good one-liners, but there's a few to sprinkle around for the rest of the cast.
At just over 2 hours, Iron Man Deux is rather long. Not Dark Knight long, but lengthy enough to warrant a spot of subplot-trimming. There's a big chunk in the middle of it all that drags due to the vast weight of Tony Stark's numerous and rather complicated issues. Lopping a few of the inter-character conflicts and the whole daddy-issues thing out of it, saving them and recycling them for a sequel may have been a good idea to save us the extended wait for the obligatory climactic showdown.
Of course, there's an open ending for sequels, though I must say I don't really mind. In fact, if Favreau, Downey and co. can keep this up, I'm actually pretty damn excited.
Rating: 7
Verdict: Much more action heavy than the last instalment, although there's some substance behind it. Iron Man 2 is an "action film" but its greatest strengths are its performances and irreverent tone.
PS Apologies for the constant The Dark Knight comparisons. It just seems like TDK is the benchmark for superhero flicks these days (although I personally found it to be vastly overrated).
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow
Viewed: At the cinema
Iron Man was one of 2007's biggest hits, both with critics and cinemagoers. Why? Because it gave us a refreshing and decidedly unorthodox hero in billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr). Here, Tony Stark is much the same- briliant, arrogant, impulsive, narcissistic and freakin awesome.
The coda of Iron Man showed Stark revealing to the world that he is, indeed, the infamous Iron Man. Lately, Stark's been having a good time being loved by all, while a big scary tatt-heavy Russian guy, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) is plotting against him on the other side of the world. Stark's long-suffering girlfriend/secretary, Pepper, is getting pretty fed up with him, the US government wants his suit, his new assistant (Scarlett Johanssen) is being mysterious in a sexy sorta way, and to top it all off, his Iron Man power source, that happens to be lodged in his chest, is slowly giving him blood poisoning.
The whole star-studded cast seem to be having fun. Downey Jr gets to fool around being the arrogant prick we all love. Scarlett Johanssen gets to be sexy, strong AND smart (ooh, groundbreaking). Don Cheadle (as the new Rhodey) gets to be dignified, exasperated and ultimately kinda badass. Sam Rockwell as Stark's clueless but power-hungry rival, Justin Hammer, was a little too caricature-ish for my liking, but he was clearly getting into it; he looked like he was relishing every minute in his bad guy role. Rockwell plays Hammer like he's straight out of a comic, but Rourke, however, takes his role with the utmost seriousness. Rourke is just...intense. Vanko looks like he's about to explode every time he's onscreen. Which is most appropriate for some of his action scenes.
Ah, yes, the action scenes. Can't have a superhero movie without a coupla dudes in metal exoskeletons punching and exploding each other to bits. While most of these are quite well-done and reasonably exciting there was one particular sequence that seemed like a wholly unnecessary and ridiculous excuse to destroy some expensive sets. I am afraid I cannot divulge details without spoilers, but I can say that it was thankfully not the finale, which I found satisfying enough.
NOTE to those with sensitive ear drums: Be prepared for some ear-splittingly loud sequences. Squealing tyres, screeching metal, weapons-grade explosives, AC/DC at full blast and some very enthusiastic crowds add up to a helluva lot of LOUD.
For a $200+ million movie, Iron Man 2 gives you what you'd expect in the SFX department. However, it also keeps up with the sense of humour that made its predecessor a hit. It's a pleasant antidote to the Dark Knight breed of comic book adaptation. Robert Downey Jr and the very lovely Gwyneth Paltrow have some wit-laden spats that are good fun to watch, as their timing is impeccable and their performances are so charming. Stark hogs most of the good one-liners, but there's a few to sprinkle around for the rest of the cast.
At just over 2 hours, Iron Man Deux is rather long. Not Dark Knight long, but lengthy enough to warrant a spot of subplot-trimming. There's a big chunk in the middle of it all that drags due to the vast weight of Tony Stark's numerous and rather complicated issues. Lopping a few of the inter-character conflicts and the whole daddy-issues thing out of it, saving them and recycling them for a sequel may have been a good idea to save us the extended wait for the obligatory climactic showdown.
Of course, there's an open ending for sequels, though I must say I don't really mind. In fact, if Favreau, Downey and co. can keep this up, I'm actually pretty damn excited.
Rating: 7
Verdict: Much more action heavy than the last instalment, although there's some substance behind it. Iron Man 2 is an "action film" but its greatest strengths are its performances and irreverent tone.
PS Apologies for the constant The Dark Knight comparisons. It just seems like TDK is the benchmark for superhero flicks these days (although I personally found it to be vastly overrated).
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
An Education (2009)
Director: Lone Scherfig
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina
Viewed: On laptop
An Education is set in 1960s Britain. Francophile schoolgirl Jenny can't understand her parents' fixation on Oxford University, she enjoys smoking and general pretentious ('60s) indie-ness and she is thoroughly bored of essays and Latin. When she meets and is charmed by 30-something David, she is swept up into a grown-up world of glamour, indulgence and a little danger- she begins to question the ideas she had about what "an education" really is.
I couldn't help feeling a little squirmy while watching this. It was not so much the age difference between David and Jenny that bothered me, but the obvious seediness of David's character that went just about unnoticed by Jenny, despite her supposed intelligence. Girl, his every pore is positively seeping with untrustworthiness! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? These are the things I wish I could say. One can see Jenny's attraction to his lifestyle, but her attraction to him? Not so easy to understand. I put it down to Sarsgaard's performance- a believable character, just not quite right for this film.
But oh my god, this film is beautiful. The clothes, jewellery, furniture, paintings, lighting fixtures, EVERY DETAIL- it's easy to see how 16 year old Jenny was seduced. However, the salivation-inducing clothes and locations temporarily blinded me from the fact that this was a fairly run-of-the-mill coming of age story with some rather sizable holes in characterisation and plot. At first I, like the heroine, was quite caught up in the glamour of it all, but the films faults really start to show through in the 2nd half.
Naturally, the main question of this film is "What really is an education?" There were times when the script started to enter interesting territory but failed to delve quite as deep as I felt it could have. There were occasional clever insights, but these were disregarded in an ending that failed to be provocative. The result is that the film is definitely not bad, but also it's not quite as important or complex as it thinks it is, although there's plenty of eye candy to distract us from that fact.
Script aside, Carey Mulligan most certainly deserved all that praise and Oscar buzz she got for her performance. In fact, I think she deserved to take home the little golden man, although I must admit that I have not seen The Blind Side. Mulligan plays the role of Jenny with such conviction, charm and ease, even when she is being an absolute snobby bitch we can still love her. I personally find it hard to believe that Sandra Bullock could possibly have played a role (let alone a dramatic one) more comfortably than Mulligan does here.
She is backed up with an entire cast of great performances (Sarsgaard excepted) including Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour as her parents, Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike as David's sophisticated friends, Olivia Williams as an English teacher and Emma Thompson in a surprisingly small role.
An Education would not be a waste of your time, but don't expect it to turn your life around. Mulligan is lovely, some interesting comments are made and it looks fantastic, but you probably won't learn anything new from it.
Rating: 7
Verdict: An Education's main strengths are its stunning production design, great cast and an exceptional lead performance, but script and plot-wise its quite ordinary.
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina
Viewed: On laptop
An Education is set in 1960s Britain. Francophile schoolgirl Jenny can't understand her parents' fixation on Oxford University, she enjoys smoking and general pretentious ('60s) indie-ness and she is thoroughly bored of essays and Latin. When she meets and is charmed by 30-something David, she is swept up into a grown-up world of glamour, indulgence and a little danger- she begins to question the ideas she had about what "an education" really is.
I couldn't help feeling a little squirmy while watching this. It was not so much the age difference between David and Jenny that bothered me, but the obvious seediness of David's character that went just about unnoticed by Jenny, despite her supposed intelligence. Girl, his every pore is positively seeping with untrustworthiness! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? These are the things I wish I could say. One can see Jenny's attraction to his lifestyle, but her attraction to him? Not so easy to understand. I put it down to Sarsgaard's performance- a believable character, just not quite right for this film.
But oh my god, this film is beautiful. The clothes, jewellery, furniture, paintings, lighting fixtures, EVERY DETAIL- it's easy to see how 16 year old Jenny was seduced. However, the salivation-inducing clothes and locations temporarily blinded me from the fact that this was a fairly run-of-the-mill coming of age story with some rather sizable holes in characterisation and plot. At first I, like the heroine, was quite caught up in the glamour of it all, but the films faults really start to show through in the 2nd half.
Naturally, the main question of this film is "What really is an education?" There were times when the script started to enter interesting territory but failed to delve quite as deep as I felt it could have. There were occasional clever insights, but these were disregarded in an ending that failed to be provocative. The result is that the film is definitely not bad, but also it's not quite as important or complex as it thinks it is, although there's plenty of eye candy to distract us from that fact.
Script aside, Carey Mulligan most certainly deserved all that praise and Oscar buzz she got for her performance. In fact, I think she deserved to take home the little golden man, although I must admit that I have not seen The Blind Side. Mulligan plays the role of Jenny with such conviction, charm and ease, even when she is being an absolute snobby bitch we can still love her. I personally find it hard to believe that Sandra Bullock could possibly have played a role (let alone a dramatic one) more comfortably than Mulligan does here.
She is backed up with an entire cast of great performances (Sarsgaard excepted) including Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour as her parents, Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike as David's sophisticated friends, Olivia Williams as an English teacher and Emma Thompson in a surprisingly small role.
An Education would not be a waste of your time, but don't expect it to turn your life around. Mulligan is lovely, some interesting comments are made and it looks fantastic, but you probably won't learn anything new from it.
Rating: 7
Verdict: An Education's main strengths are its stunning production design, great cast and an exceptional lead performance, but script and plot-wise its quite ordinary.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Apocalypse Now thoughts
Started watching Apocalypse Now today. Pretty confronting. And very theatrical. I kept thinking about how much Charlie Sheen looks like Martin Sheen. Felt like I was watching a very very serious version of Two and a Half Men. Actually, it was about as funny as an episode of Two and a Half Men. Ha. Burrrrn.
Also, not quite so gory as I thought it would be so far and not really deserving of the R18+ Australian rating. Then again, it was rated back in 1979, I guess people were somewhat more conservative.
Will blog more tomorrow when I'm finished watching.
Also, not quite so gory as I thought it would be so far and not really deserving of the R18+ Australian rating. Then again, it was rated back in 1979, I guess people were somewhat more conservative.
Will blog more tomorrow when I'm finished watching.
Enchanted (2007)
Director: Kevin Lima
Starring: Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Timothy Spall, Susan Sarandon
Viewed: On TV
Do you loathe and despise Disney films? Do the airheaded princesses, cutesy animals and chirpy tunes get on your nerves? Well, prepare to be surprised, Enchanted may just be the Disney film for you. Be warned that it does do a fairly convincing job of masquerading as the very thing it sets out to satirise. Enchanted is actually an (almost) daring blend of homage and satire.
The beautifully animated opening scenes reference Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid as it introduces us to Giselle (Amy Adams), a beautiful young woman who happens to reside in a cottage with a bunch of forest critters. She sings of her longing to meet the man with whom she can share "True Love's Kiss", whom she does actually find in the form of Prince Edward (James Marsden) shortly after. Once Edward has declared "We shall be married in the morning!", Giselle is whisked away to the castle to be wed. But Edward's evil stepmother, Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) wants to protect her throne and dispatches the unsuspecting Giselle to a place where "there are no happily ever afters"- New York City, of course. There the naive Giselle meets love-sceptic and lawyer, Robert (McDreamy), and his daughter, Morgan. Giselle must adapt to this unfamiliar live-action environment and change her ideas about love.
Amy Adams is a sweet Giselle and she plays the role absolutely straight-faced. She also did her own singing and her voice is perfectly suited to Stephen Schwartz' and Alan Menken's Oscar-nominated songs. Dempsey and Timothy Spall are great in their respective roles as the dream man and villain. Unfortunately, Susan Sarandon's character was much better off animated. In live action she looks more drag queen than evil queen and she's about as scary as a moldy toothbrush.
But James Marsden is the real scene stealer, here. He plunges into the role of empty-headed, narcissistic suitor with glee and his hilarious facial expressions really made this movie for me. It must be said that it takes a smart person to play a dumb person well, which the very attractive Marsden most certainly does. Plus he can sing. Swoon.
Now let me sing the praises of the script and songs. I don't think I can even count the number of Disney references, here. Most of them aren't very in your face, either, they are subtle, and so multiple viewings of this can be most rewarding (I, myself, have seen it about 4 or 5 times, now). The songs have a strong resemblance to other Disney tunes, but are infused with the same slightly satirical humour as the rest of the film. The only exception is "So Close", a moving ballad that fits in just right with its scene. The script is witty and the attempts at satire are gentle, and would probably be missed by a lot of kids. At times the humour was almost full-blown attack. But not quite. Disney couldn't possibly be *gasp* self-deprecating!
Although the film starts a little sluggishly, it hits its stride once Giselle starts making her mark on the "real world". I was left smiling throughout the middle section of Enchanted.
Oh, and now we come to the ending. Er. Well. To be honest the climactic ballroom-rooftop scene has to be the weakest in the film. Without giving away too much, the villain fails to even look scary (as all good villains should) and is given far too many sarcastic one-liners, and the ending feels kind of rushed. The resolution forgoes the sharp observations made on "true love" made previously and drowns itself in Disney syrup. If the cast wasn't just so damn charming and if the preceding 80 minutes wasn't so entertaining I could have hated Enchanted.
As it is, Enchanted is one of my guilty pleasures. Yes, it occasionally lapses into Disney-ish sentimentality, yes, its views on love are a bit muddled, and yes the final showdown is kind of crap. But the sentiment is tempered with tongue-in-cheek humour, a near-perfect cast, shamelessly joyous and memorable songs and a multitude of Disney in-jokes for fans to enjoy.
Rating: 7
Verdict: Occasionally loses its edge, but Enchanted is still an insanely enjoyable and fairly clever homage to/satire of Disney classics.
Starring: Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Timothy Spall, Susan Sarandon
Viewed: On TV
Do you loathe and despise Disney films? Do the airheaded princesses, cutesy animals and chirpy tunes get on your nerves? Well, prepare to be surprised, Enchanted may just be the Disney film for you. Be warned that it does do a fairly convincing job of masquerading as the very thing it sets out to satirise. Enchanted is actually an (almost) daring blend of homage and satire.
The beautifully animated opening scenes reference Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid as it introduces us to Giselle (Amy Adams), a beautiful young woman who happens to reside in a cottage with a bunch of forest critters. She sings of her longing to meet the man with whom she can share "True Love's Kiss", whom she does actually find in the form of Prince Edward (James Marsden) shortly after. Once Edward has declared "We shall be married in the morning!", Giselle is whisked away to the castle to be wed. But Edward's evil stepmother, Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) wants to protect her throne and dispatches the unsuspecting Giselle to a place where "there are no happily ever afters"- New York City, of course. There the naive Giselle meets love-sceptic and lawyer, Robert (McDreamy), and his daughter, Morgan. Giselle must adapt to this unfamiliar live-action environment and change her ideas about love.
Amy Adams is a sweet Giselle and she plays the role absolutely straight-faced. She also did her own singing and her voice is perfectly suited to Stephen Schwartz' and Alan Menken's Oscar-nominated songs. Dempsey and Timothy Spall are great in their respective roles as the dream man and villain. Unfortunately, Susan Sarandon's character was much better off animated. In live action she looks more drag queen than evil queen and she's about as scary as a moldy toothbrush.
But James Marsden is the real scene stealer, here. He plunges into the role of empty-headed, narcissistic suitor with glee and his hilarious facial expressions really made this movie for me. It must be said that it takes a smart person to play a dumb person well, which the very attractive Marsden most certainly does. Plus he can sing. Swoon.
Now let me sing the praises of the script and songs. I don't think I can even count the number of Disney references, here. Most of them aren't very in your face, either, they are subtle, and so multiple viewings of this can be most rewarding (I, myself, have seen it about 4 or 5 times, now). The songs have a strong resemblance to other Disney tunes, but are infused with the same slightly satirical humour as the rest of the film. The only exception is "So Close", a moving ballad that fits in just right with its scene. The script is witty and the attempts at satire are gentle, and would probably be missed by a lot of kids. At times the humour was almost full-blown attack. But not quite. Disney couldn't possibly be *gasp* self-deprecating!
Although the film starts a little sluggishly, it hits its stride once Giselle starts making her mark on the "real world". I was left smiling throughout the middle section of Enchanted.
Oh, and now we come to the ending. Er. Well. To be honest the climactic ballroom-rooftop scene has to be the weakest in the film. Without giving away too much, the villain fails to even look scary (as all good villains should) and is given far too many sarcastic one-liners, and the ending feels kind of rushed. The resolution forgoes the sharp observations made on "true love" made previously and drowns itself in Disney syrup. If the cast wasn't just so damn charming and if the preceding 80 minutes wasn't so entertaining I could have hated Enchanted.
As it is, Enchanted is one of my guilty pleasures. Yes, it occasionally lapses into Disney-ish sentimentality, yes, its views on love are a bit muddled, and yes the final showdown is kind of crap. But the sentiment is tempered with tongue-in-cheek humour, a near-perfect cast, shamelessly joyous and memorable songs and a multitude of Disney in-jokes for fans to enjoy.
Rating: 7
Verdict: Occasionally loses its edge, but Enchanted is still an insanely enjoyable and fairly clever homage to/satire of Disney classics.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
From Russia With Love
Director: Terence Young
Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Robert Shaw
Viewed: On TV
007 has had quite a long run on the silver screen. His last appearance was just 2 years ago in the action-heavy and confusingly-plotted Quantum of Solace, and in 2006, Daniel Craig wowed us in Casino Royale. Old Jimmy B started out way back in '62 with Dr No, and he followed that one with this, From Russia With Love.
It's clear from the outset that Connery's Bond (the original, I suppose) is a real suave dude, as he has to be. He's got lines like, "Your lips are the perfect size-- for ME that is". Oh, Mr Bond, please, I'm swooning. Blergh.
Despite some lame wisecracks and a pervading sense of narcissism, you can see how Bond could be seen as so desirable in this movie. He's sexy, successful and savvy, plus he's got a really awesome job- getting rid of baddies. Connery's 007 is cleary different from Daniel Craig's Bond in that he makes no attempt to give the character an intriguing or mysterious charm, he's more of an all-out ladies' guy with SEX written all over his smirking, swarthy face. The campiness has strong nostalgic value.
The plot here isn't exactly memorable, it's straightforward Russian spy business, so I won't really go into that. It's briskly paced as Bond hops from one European location to the next, deaths are quickly dealt, and characters rapidly drawn out. The villains are suitably villainous and the good guys appropriately jokey and genial. They are caricatures, but they serve their place in the drama of it all.
There's some humour to be derived from the more dated aspects of the film that have now become Bond stereotypes. The unbelievably chesty Bond girl, the cat-stroking anonymous villain and the ridiculously complicated gadgetry gave me a few giggles, as did the absolute seriousness with which the film regards itself.
From Russia With Love has all the Bond staples- sex, violence, exotic locations, beautiful women, evil foreigners and handy gadgets. If you want to see the essence of a Bond film, it's all here.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Fast, interesting and exciting- Classic Bond.
Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Robert Shaw
Viewed: On TV
007 has had quite a long run on the silver screen. His last appearance was just 2 years ago in the action-heavy and confusingly-plotted Quantum of Solace, and in 2006, Daniel Craig wowed us in Casino Royale. Old Jimmy B started out way back in '62 with Dr No, and he followed that one with this, From Russia With Love.
It's clear from the outset that Connery's Bond (the original, I suppose) is a real suave dude, as he has to be. He's got lines like, "Your lips are the perfect size-- for ME that is". Oh, Mr Bond, please, I'm swooning. Blergh.
Despite some lame wisecracks and a pervading sense of narcissism, you can see how Bond could be seen as so desirable in this movie. He's sexy, successful and savvy, plus he's got a really awesome job- getting rid of baddies. Connery's 007 is cleary different from Daniel Craig's Bond in that he makes no attempt to give the character an intriguing or mysterious charm, he's more of an all-out ladies' guy with SEX written all over his smirking, swarthy face. The campiness has strong nostalgic value.
The plot here isn't exactly memorable, it's straightforward Russian spy business, so I won't really go into that. It's briskly paced as Bond hops from one European location to the next, deaths are quickly dealt, and characters rapidly drawn out. The villains are suitably villainous and the good guys appropriately jokey and genial. They are caricatures, but they serve their place in the drama of it all.
There's some humour to be derived from the more dated aspects of the film that have now become Bond stereotypes. The unbelievably chesty Bond girl, the cat-stroking anonymous villain and the ridiculously complicated gadgetry gave me a few giggles, as did the absolute seriousness with which the film regards itself.
From Russia With Love has all the Bond staples- sex, violence, exotic locations, beautiful women, evil foreigners and handy gadgets. If you want to see the essence of a Bond film, it's all here.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Fast, interesting and exciting- Classic Bond.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
M*A*S*H (1970)
Director: Robert Altman
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Robert Duvall, Sally Kellerman, Tom Skerritt
Viewed: On TV
Most would be familiar with the long-running and very successful TV series, MASH, and its famous theme, "Suicide is Painless". Well, that MASH was a spin-off of Robert Altman's MASH, and the show borrowed its characters, setting and musical theme from the film. The movie MASH was gorier, more sexually explicit and the themes were heavier, but its zany spirit was much the same.
MASH, like the TV show, covers the various escapades of the men and women working in a MASH unit during the Korean War. Largely the focus is on Captain "Hawkeye" Pierce (Donald Sutherland) although, as in all Altman films, there is a strong ensemble cast to go with him. A war hospital is obviously an odd choice of backdrop for a comedy and but the gory surgical procedures shown just seem to make the silliness funnier. Most of the humour comes from the general unprofessionalism with which the unit is run and the don't-give-a-damn attitude of Hawkeye and his friend McIntyre (Elliott Gould). There are occasional moments of seriousness (they are surrounded by the dead and dying, after all) but MASH is largely determined to defy our expectations of wartime movies.
MASH does play like a sitcom thanks to its episodic format, semi-seriousness and wacky characters, hence the easy transition of the premise to television. Robert Altman's trademark overlapping dialogue is well-suited to comedy and his trademark tracking shots help convey the chaos of the unit. However, the casual misogyny of some of the characters makes the attempts at humour uncomfortable at times, or just plain unfunny. The occasional attacks on self-righteous religious fanatics seems justified enough, but the attacks on feminism (and hints of homophobia) made Hawkeye and co a little harder to admire.
MASH does seem to go on for a little too long, but it doesn't let up its black sense of humour. It's got some things to say about war and authority, too, lending the slight plot greater weight. Definitely would have had a bigger punch back in the 70s, but still well made, and mostly funny.
Rating: 7
Verdict: MASH is somewhat dated, but its still pretty funny and maybe a little bit shocking.
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Robert Duvall, Sally Kellerman, Tom Skerritt
Viewed: On TV
Most would be familiar with the long-running and very successful TV series, MASH, and its famous theme, "Suicide is Painless". Well, that MASH was a spin-off of Robert Altman's MASH, and the show borrowed its characters, setting and musical theme from the film. The movie MASH was gorier, more sexually explicit and the themes were heavier, but its zany spirit was much the same.
MASH, like the TV show, covers the various escapades of the men and women working in a MASH unit during the Korean War. Largely the focus is on Captain "Hawkeye" Pierce (Donald Sutherland) although, as in all Altman films, there is a strong ensemble cast to go with him. A war hospital is obviously an odd choice of backdrop for a comedy and but the gory surgical procedures shown just seem to make the silliness funnier. Most of the humour comes from the general unprofessionalism with which the unit is run and the don't-give-a-damn attitude of Hawkeye and his friend McIntyre (Elliott Gould). There are occasional moments of seriousness (they are surrounded by the dead and dying, after all) but MASH is largely determined to defy our expectations of wartime movies.
MASH does play like a sitcom thanks to its episodic format, semi-seriousness and wacky characters, hence the easy transition of the premise to television. Robert Altman's trademark overlapping dialogue is well-suited to comedy and his trademark tracking shots help convey the chaos of the unit. However, the casual misogyny of some of the characters makes the attempts at humour uncomfortable at times, or just plain unfunny. The occasional attacks on self-righteous religious fanatics seems justified enough, but the attacks on feminism (and hints of homophobia) made Hawkeye and co a little harder to admire.
MASH does seem to go on for a little too long, but it doesn't let up its black sense of humour. It's got some things to say about war and authority, too, lending the slight plot greater weight. Definitely would have had a bigger punch back in the 70s, but still well made, and mostly funny.
Rating: 7
Verdict: MASH is somewhat dated, but its still pretty funny and maybe a little bit shocking.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
My Must-Sees for the rest of the year
Iron Man 2
The first one was a whole lot of fun, so hopefully this won't suffer from the curse of the sequel. With Sam Rockwell in it, it's gotta be a little different, although I'm not so sure about Scarlett Johanssen, who's usually rather bland, and Mickey Rourke putting on a Russian accent. Fingers crossed it won't be another Spiderman 3.
Australian Release Date: April 29
Toy Story 3
It's Pixar. I have to see it.
24 June
Scott Pilgrim vs The World
Based on the Scott Pilgrim comics, where teen Scott literally has to fight for his girlfriend's affections. Who's he fighting? Her 7 evil ex-boyfriends, of course. Michael Cera is Scott Pilgrim, so he's bound to be likeable (if a little Michael Cera-ish).
26 August
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (and Part 2, of course)
Having seen the previous 6 films and read all the books, I think I'm legally obliged to watch this. Looking forward to seeing Bill Nighy (as Rufus Scrimgeour) join the usual cast. And I wonder what bits of the book they're going to chop out/leave in?
18 November
Megamind
Will Ferrell stars in this Dreamworks animation as a supervillain who can't cope with having defeated his arch-rival. I think Will Ferrell should stick to voice acting (god, some of his comedies are awful). He sounds great in the trailer for this, and he is joined by Brad Pitt, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill in the voice cast. What a brilliantly stellar combination. Yeah, trailer's a bit lame, but this could still be good.
December 9
The Green Hornet
Michel Gondry directing a super hero movie? With Seth Rogen as the superhero? Sounds awesome.
Boxing Day
The first one was a whole lot of fun, so hopefully this won't suffer from the curse of the sequel. With Sam Rockwell in it, it's gotta be a little different, although I'm not so sure about Scarlett Johanssen, who's usually rather bland, and Mickey Rourke putting on a Russian accent. Fingers crossed it won't be another Spiderman 3.
Australian Release Date: April 29
Toy Story 3
It's Pixar. I have to see it.
24 June
Scott Pilgrim vs The World
Based on the Scott Pilgrim comics, where teen Scott literally has to fight for his girlfriend's affections. Who's he fighting? Her 7 evil ex-boyfriends, of course. Michael Cera is Scott Pilgrim, so he's bound to be likeable (if a little Michael Cera-ish).
26 August
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (and Part 2, of course)
Having seen the previous 6 films and read all the books, I think I'm legally obliged to watch this. Looking forward to seeing Bill Nighy (as Rufus Scrimgeour) join the usual cast. And I wonder what bits of the book they're going to chop out/leave in?
18 November
Megamind
Will Ferrell stars in this Dreamworks animation as a supervillain who can't cope with having defeated his arch-rival. I think Will Ferrell should stick to voice acting (god, some of his comedies are awful). He sounds great in the trailer for this, and he is joined by Brad Pitt, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill in the voice cast. What a brilliantly stellar combination. Yeah, trailer's a bit lame, but this could still be good.
December 9
The Green Hornet
Michel Gondry directing a super hero movie? With Seth Rogen as the superhero? Sounds awesome.
Boxing Day
The Black Hole (1979)
Director: Gary Nelson
Starring: Maximilian Schell, Robert Forster, Anthony Perkins, Yvette Mimieux, Ernest Borgnine
Viewed: On DVD
A cheesy post-Star Wars sci-fi, but it bears closer resemblance to sci-fis of the 1950s. Complete with pseudo-space-jargon, so-bad-they're-funny one liners, flat cast, dodgy SFX and R2D2 wannabes. Incredibly unexciting, never quite figures out what the hell its getting at. Borderline sleep-inducing, but there's some entertainment value in the all-out cheesiness.
Rating: 3
Starring: Maximilian Schell, Robert Forster, Anthony Perkins, Yvette Mimieux, Ernest Borgnine
Viewed: On DVD
A cheesy post-Star Wars sci-fi, but it bears closer resemblance to sci-fis of the 1950s. Complete with pseudo-space-jargon, so-bad-they're-funny one liners, flat cast, dodgy SFX and R2D2 wannabes. Incredibly unexciting, never quite figures out what the hell its getting at. Borderline sleep-inducing, but there's some entertainment value in the all-out cheesiness.
Rating: 3
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Jules et Jim (1962)
Director: Francois Truffaut
Starring: Jeanne Moreau, Oskar Werner, Henri Serre
Viewed: On DVD
Jules et Jim is one of those movies that you feel like you are supposed to enjoy. It is, after all, one of the most significant films in the history of French cinema, it is directed by the famed Francois Truffaut and is widely acclaimed. One feels obliged to sing its praises for fear of being deemed uncultured.
Yes, it is easy to admire the efficient and inventive camerawork, one can appreciate the social commentary on women, love, sex and change, and I suppose Jules et Jim would make a fascinating piece for study and analysis. But as a piece of entertainment? Well, let's just say it wouldn't be your first choice for a night in with friends.
The film opens in France in 1912. We are introduced to Jules and Jim, two friends, both with their differences but held together by the unexplainable bonds of friendship. Jules is Austrian by birth and is not so successful with French women, while Jim is a real ladies' man. After a few flings with the local ladies, Jules and Jim meet Catherine, a lively, adventurous and temperamental young woman. The entire film centers around the development of their relationships with each other. But remember, we started off in 1912. ANY movie that starts in 1912 will most probably move into 1915 aaannndd... the First World War. Naturally, the two leads are recruited into the war...on opposite sides. Don't you hate it when that happens?
And I'm not even going into the love triangle/square/pentagon that develops later on. Now I could talk about each character's conflicting needs and desires, their vice and virtues, and what they represent until the cows come home. But I'm not going to, 'cause that's kinda boring.
Well, it starts off well enough. There is no real semblance of a plot in the first half hour, but its certainly an interesting look at the relationship between two men and the way they spend their youth. There is a pleasantly odd sense of humour about it that held my interest. While Jules et Jim starts off fairly light-heartedly, it gets bogged down when things start to get melodramatic and relationship-y. It is rather odd to see how blase these people are about their relationships. Jules is such a pushover, he basically encourages his wife to have an affair in the room upstairs; Jim switches between women without any consideration of how each might feel about it; and Catherine willingly sleeps alternately with two men under the same roof. They're all such self-destructive nutsos, it's hard to empathise with them.
And that's the problem with Jules et Jim: while the central characters are certainly psychologically complex, they're just not likeable or sympathetic, despite some admirable qualities. When the viewer can't feel close to the characters, its very difficult to actually care about what happens to them. Now, I can tell you, watching these characters making melodramatic monologues and switching sex partners like they're playing musical chairs for 90 minutes is not a lot of fun when you just DON'T CARE. Moving the focus away from Jules and Jim and onto Catherine was probably a mistake: their friendship needed to be better developed.
Now don't get me wrong, I can really appreciate the arty side of this: Jules et Jim is definitely thought-provoking and no doubt Truffaut's use of film techniques to drive forward the narrative were revolutionary. The editing of the piece is amazingly effective in conveying mood and movement. Jeanne Moreau as Catherine succeeds in being attractive, flighty, vivacious, cunning, cruel and a tad bipolar and makes up somewhat for the blank performances of her co-stars. The characters are well drawn out and are certainly believable (even if some if their dialogue ain't).
But I just found it hard to enjoy this film, which I think is certainly key to my decision as to whether or not it's worth watching. To be honest, Jules et Jim is probably one for cinema history buffs and those curious to see what all the fuss is about.
Rating: 6
Verdict: Jules et Jim is very skilfully made and on an intellectual level it could be considered a masterpiece, but it fails to hold interest or inspire empathy in its second half.
Starring: Jeanne Moreau, Oskar Werner, Henri Serre
Viewed: On DVD
Jules et Jim is one of those movies that you feel like you are supposed to enjoy. It is, after all, one of the most significant films in the history of French cinema, it is directed by the famed Francois Truffaut and is widely acclaimed. One feels obliged to sing its praises for fear of being deemed uncultured.
Yes, it is easy to admire the efficient and inventive camerawork, one can appreciate the social commentary on women, love, sex and change, and I suppose Jules et Jim would make a fascinating piece for study and analysis. But as a piece of entertainment? Well, let's just say it wouldn't be your first choice for a night in with friends.
The film opens in France in 1912. We are introduced to Jules and Jim, two friends, both with their differences but held together by the unexplainable bonds of friendship. Jules is Austrian by birth and is not so successful with French women, while Jim is a real ladies' man. After a few flings with the local ladies, Jules and Jim meet Catherine, a lively, adventurous and temperamental young woman. The entire film centers around the development of their relationships with each other. But remember, we started off in 1912. ANY movie that starts in 1912 will most probably move into 1915 aaannndd... the First World War. Naturally, the two leads are recruited into the war...on opposite sides. Don't you hate it when that happens?
And I'm not even going into the love triangle/square/pentagon that develops later on. Now I could talk about each character's conflicting needs and desires, their vice and virtues, and what they represent until the cows come home. But I'm not going to, 'cause that's kinda boring.
Well, it starts off well enough. There is no real semblance of a plot in the first half hour, but its certainly an interesting look at the relationship between two men and the way they spend their youth. There is a pleasantly odd sense of humour about it that held my interest. While Jules et Jim starts off fairly light-heartedly, it gets bogged down when things start to get melodramatic and relationship-y. It is rather odd to see how blase these people are about their relationships. Jules is such a pushover, he basically encourages his wife to have an affair in the room upstairs; Jim switches between women without any consideration of how each might feel about it; and Catherine willingly sleeps alternately with two men under the same roof. They're all such self-destructive nutsos, it's hard to empathise with them.
And that's the problem with Jules et Jim: while the central characters are certainly psychologically complex, they're just not likeable or sympathetic, despite some admirable qualities. When the viewer can't feel close to the characters, its very difficult to actually care about what happens to them. Now, I can tell you, watching these characters making melodramatic monologues and switching sex partners like they're playing musical chairs for 90 minutes is not a lot of fun when you just DON'T CARE. Moving the focus away from Jules and Jim and onto Catherine was probably a mistake: their friendship needed to be better developed.
Now don't get me wrong, I can really appreciate the arty side of this: Jules et Jim is definitely thought-provoking and no doubt Truffaut's use of film techniques to drive forward the narrative were revolutionary. The editing of the piece is amazingly effective in conveying mood and movement. Jeanne Moreau as Catherine succeeds in being attractive, flighty, vivacious, cunning, cruel and a tad bipolar and makes up somewhat for the blank performances of her co-stars. The characters are well drawn out and are certainly believable (even if some if their dialogue ain't).
But I just found it hard to enjoy this film, which I think is certainly key to my decision as to whether or not it's worth watching. To be honest, Jules et Jim is probably one for cinema history buffs and those curious to see what all the fuss is about.
Rating: 6
Verdict: Jules et Jim is very skilfully made and on an intellectual level it could be considered a masterpiece, but it fails to hold interest or inspire empathy in its second half.
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Director: Richard Lester
Starring: The Beatles
Viewed: On DVD
There is no doubt that the Beatles were a talented bunch. Singers, performers, song-writers, all-round popular guys, and with A Hard Day's Night, they set out to show they've got the skills for movies, too. The over-achieving bastards.
In all honesty, it is very hard to hate the Fab Four, even if you are one of the 43 people that aren't fans of their music. They are so appealing and natural on-screen, I just couldn't help liking them.
They play, well, themselves- and they do a decent job of it. There isn't much of a plot around them, rather a collection of scenarios and running jokes for them to bounce off. The film opens with the group running for their lives, pursued by a mob of rabid female fans, set to the music of the titular tune. They board a train, headed for Liverpool, where they are to perform at a TV studio. There are a few obstacles on the way: Paul's "clean" old grandfather who can't keep himself out of trouble, pesky fans, random interruptions, and the group's long-suffering managers/babysitters trying to keep them all together in the one place at the one time. And occasionally they all break into song just to help people forget there isn't really much happening.
This is mostly an excuse for the boys to sing a couple of ballads and show how charming they can be as a bunch of fun-loving, cheeky, care-free, witty and smart young guys. I was left feeling thoroughly convinced that they would be a fun lot to be around. Yeah, most of A Hard Day's Night is just John, Paul, George and Ringo doin' everyday, on-tour stuff. Amusing themselves, taking a bath, playing cards, reading the mail, running around fields, making fun of the squares- but that's what's so interesting about this. The writers haven't tried to make the Beatles look like heroes or concocted some awful story about them saving the world or doing good deeds. These figures were so exposed to the media, to hype and advertising, but we are shown four ordinary guys being four ordinary guys (who happen to be international superstars). It's a surprisingly intimate insight into life on tour.
This could have ended up being a painfully obvious piece of plugging, but it's smarter than that. Witty one-liners ("What do you call that hairstyle?" "Arthur"), funny sight gags, a host of catchy tunes and a complete lack of pretension help the film along in its slower moments. The style of the film is sometimes so natural, and at other times surpisingly surreal, so it really is not your usual musical crossover movie (ugh, Hannah Montana). The surprisingly unconventional style of the film and the natural charm of its stars make this one worth a look for anybody, not just fans.
Rating: 7
Verdict: A must-see for Beatles fans; an interesting, funny, charming and decidedly different experience for everyone else.
Starring: The Beatles
Viewed: On DVD
There is no doubt that the Beatles were a talented bunch. Singers, performers, song-writers, all-round popular guys, and with A Hard Day's Night, they set out to show they've got the skills for movies, too. The over-achieving bastards.
In all honesty, it is very hard to hate the Fab Four, even if you are one of the 43 people that aren't fans of their music. They are so appealing and natural on-screen, I just couldn't help liking them.
They play, well, themselves- and they do a decent job of it. There isn't much of a plot around them, rather a collection of scenarios and running jokes for them to bounce off. The film opens with the group running for their lives, pursued by a mob of rabid female fans, set to the music of the titular tune. They board a train, headed for Liverpool, where they are to perform at a TV studio. There are a few obstacles on the way: Paul's "clean" old grandfather who can't keep himself out of trouble, pesky fans, random interruptions, and the group's long-suffering managers/babysitters trying to keep them all together in the one place at the one time. And occasionally they all break into song just to help people forget there isn't really much happening.
This is mostly an excuse for the boys to sing a couple of ballads and show how charming they can be as a bunch of fun-loving, cheeky, care-free, witty and smart young guys. I was left feeling thoroughly convinced that they would be a fun lot to be around. Yeah, most of A Hard Day's Night is just John, Paul, George and Ringo doin' everyday, on-tour stuff. Amusing themselves, taking a bath, playing cards, reading the mail, running around fields, making fun of the squares- but that's what's so interesting about this. The writers haven't tried to make the Beatles look like heroes or concocted some awful story about them saving the world or doing good deeds. These figures were so exposed to the media, to hype and advertising, but we are shown four ordinary guys being four ordinary guys (who happen to be international superstars). It's a surprisingly intimate insight into life on tour.
This could have ended up being a painfully obvious piece of plugging, but it's smarter than that. Witty one-liners ("What do you call that hairstyle?" "Arthur"), funny sight gags, a host of catchy tunes and a complete lack of pretension help the film along in its slower moments. The style of the film is sometimes so natural, and at other times surpisingly surreal, so it really is not your usual musical crossover movie (ugh, Hannah Montana). The surprisingly unconventional style of the film and the natural charm of its stars make this one worth a look for anybody, not just fans.
Rating: 7
Verdict: A must-see for Beatles fans; an interesting, funny, charming and decidedly different experience for everyone else.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Popcorn is the devil's food
Man, I do not understand how popcorn can be seen as the ultimate "movie food". I just think popcorn is frustrating to eat, no matter what else I'm trying to do at the time.
Popcorn is gross. Normally it's flavourless apart from the slight aftertaste of burnt cardboard and it needs a small vat of butter to make it palatable. What's the point in that? Just drink butter instead. Yum. Butter is good.
And don't get me started on the cinema-made stuff. Each piece tastes like its been infused with a mound of artificial salt and is cleverly concocted to encourage you to purchase an overpriced, watered down Coke along with it, just to undo the tongue-burning damage caused.
Then there's your teeth. Everytime I chuck a handful in my mouth, I am assured to be left with a chunk of popcorn firmly lodged in one of my molars which no amount of tongue motion or teeth-grinding will remove.
And popcorn is noisy, even after its been popped. In a crowded cinema with fifty-odd people chewing, munching, chomping on the stuff and occasionally rummaging around in their red'n'white buckets for the last few pieces, it is frustratingly difficult to focus on the massive screen right in front of my face. Do not underestimate the power of popcorn.
I concede there is some novelty in watching popcorn being made at home. But after the first 20 or so *pop*s, little yellow things turning into fluffy white things stops being so exciting. I just wanna eat, dammit, why do I have to turn this thing into another thing before I can eat it?? AAARRRGGHHH *smashes popcorn machine*
Popcorn is an assault on the ears, tongue and teeth (and a major strain to my nerves). Popcorn is one of the reasons I don't believe in God. No God could have been so cruel as to make such a food the primary sustenance for innocent movie-goers. When at the cinema, I shall henceforth consume only foods that have been pureed and are served in a cup. Mmm. Liquid popcorn.
Popcorn is gross. Normally it's flavourless apart from the slight aftertaste of burnt cardboard and it needs a small vat of butter to make it palatable. What's the point in that? Just drink butter instead. Yum. Butter is good.
And don't get me started on the cinema-made stuff. Each piece tastes like its been infused with a mound of artificial salt and is cleverly concocted to encourage you to purchase an overpriced, watered down Coke along with it, just to undo the tongue-burning damage caused.
Then there's your teeth. Everytime I chuck a handful in my mouth, I am assured to be left with a chunk of popcorn firmly lodged in one of my molars which no amount of tongue motion or teeth-grinding will remove.
And popcorn is noisy, even after its been popped. In a crowded cinema with fifty-odd people chewing, munching, chomping on the stuff and occasionally rummaging around in their red'n'white buckets for the last few pieces, it is frustratingly difficult to focus on the massive screen right in front of my face. Do not underestimate the power of popcorn.
I concede there is some novelty in watching popcorn being made at home. But after the first 20 or so *pop*s, little yellow things turning into fluffy white things stops being so exciting. I just wanna eat, dammit, why do I have to turn this thing into another thing before I can eat it?? AAARRRGGHHH *smashes popcorn machine*
Popcorn is an assault on the ears, tongue and teeth (and a major strain to my nerves). Popcorn is one of the reasons I don't believe in God. No God could have been so cruel as to make such a food the primary sustenance for innocent movie-goers. When at the cinema, I shall henceforth consume only foods that have been pureed and are served in a cup. Mmm. Liquid popcorn.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Movies you've never seen (but should) Part 1
There's some movies that never get seen quite as much as they ought to. Here's just a few.
The Band's Visit
A film telling the quiet tale of an Egyptian band mistakenly sent to an Israeli town in the middle of nowhere. Not for action-lovers.
A Film With Me In It
A very black (and I mean very black) comedy starring Dylan Moran, the star of TV show Black Books
The World's Fastest Indian
Anthony Hopkins rides a bike. More exciting than you'd think.
My Left Foot
An Irish film about cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown whose only mobile appendage was his...well, his left foot. Der. Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his portrayal of Brown.
The Manchurian Candidate
A conspiracy thriller starring Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep; this one plays on TV a fair bit, so catch it next time around. It's not exactly unknown (its got Meryl Streep, for Christ's sake) but I think it's criminally underrated.
I just realized that I should probably start watching more indie stuff. My tastes are very mainstream and concocting this list was harder than you might guess... Movies no-one's heard of AND movies I really liked? Movies I really like are rare enough, so this was kinda hard.
I promise to be back with more next time...in PART 2!
Any ideas for random good movies I probably haven't heard of?
The Band's Visit
A film telling the quiet tale of an Egyptian band mistakenly sent to an Israeli town in the middle of nowhere. Not for action-lovers.
A Film With Me In It
A very black (and I mean very black) comedy starring Dylan Moran, the star of TV show Black Books
The World's Fastest Indian
Anthony Hopkins rides a bike. More exciting than you'd think.
My Left Foot
An Irish film about cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown whose only mobile appendage was his...well, his left foot. Der. Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his portrayal of Brown.
The Manchurian Candidate
A conspiracy thriller starring Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep; this one plays on TV a fair bit, so catch it next time around. It's not exactly unknown (its got Meryl Streep, for Christ's sake) but I think it's criminally underrated.
I just realized that I should probably start watching more indie stuff. My tastes are very mainstream and concocting this list was harder than you might guess... Movies no-one's heard of AND movies I really liked? Movies I really like are rare enough, so this was kinda hard.
I promise to be back with more next time...in PART 2!
Any ideas for random good movies I probably haven't heard of?
Monday, April 19, 2010
It's MA15+ for a reason, guys. Check it.
As readers of this blog would know, I recently saw and very much enjoyed a screening of Kick Ass. It featured "Strong violence, coarse language and sexual references". And I was also aware of this when I entered the cinema.
Not so with some of my fellow viewers. In the cinema were three teenage boys (unsurprising) and some adults. In addition to these filmgoers were three young children, none of which could have been older than 8, accompanied by a woman who I presumed was their mother. I was made painfully aware of their presence due to various comments during the trailers of, "Ooh, that's rude," and "I don't get it. That's stupid".
"Well," thought I, "I wonder at what point they're going to walk out (or be dragged out)". A friend of mine experienced a similar situation at a different screening of the same movie.
You may be aware that Kick Ass is rated MA15+ in Australia. What does this mean? It means that Kick Ass may only be viewed by persons over 15 years of age, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Basically, it's pretty full-on, and sensitive parents should think twice about takin' the young 'uns.
OK, I'm not preaching to parents not to take their 10 year olds. If you think that they can handle it, they're not going to be scarred for life and they have the basic skills to differentiate between movies and real life, that's just dandy. Go ahead, take 'em to Nazi-Zombie Sex Robots 2 for all I care.
But what really ticks me off is parents who just don't know what they're chucking their kids into.
People, those colourful little boxes in the corner of movie posters and those spinning versions in trailers are there for a reason. Don't take your kiddies to a MA15+ flick expecting Care Bears and rainbows, and don't claim to be morally outraged afterwards. It's your own freakin' fault for being uninformed.
There's a thing called the INTERNET now, that you can use to look up ratings. IMDb has a "Parents' Guide" for most movies detailing any content parents might find "unsuitable".
Be merciful to your fellow human-beings and take your under-15s to something "suitable". Like Alvin & the Chipmunks. Or Old Dogs. Actually, I retract that statement, those movies aren't suitable for anybody.
Right, who wants to go see Nazi-Zombie Sex Robots 2?
Helpful Links
An example of a Parents Guide (contains spoilers for Kick Ass)
The Australian Classification Board Website
PS If anyone was wondering, the kids plus mum were out of the cinema about half an hour in. Hm, the masturbation scene might've tipped mum off.
Not so with some of my fellow viewers. In the cinema were three teenage boys (unsurprising) and some adults. In addition to these filmgoers were three young children, none of which could have been older than 8, accompanied by a woman who I presumed was their mother. I was made painfully aware of their presence due to various comments during the trailers of, "Ooh, that's rude," and "I don't get it. That's stupid".
"Well," thought I, "I wonder at what point they're going to walk out (or be dragged out)". A friend of mine experienced a similar situation at a different screening of the same movie.
You may be aware that Kick Ass is rated MA15+ in Australia. What does this mean? It means that Kick Ass may only be viewed by persons over 15 years of age, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Basically, it's pretty full-on, and sensitive parents should think twice about takin' the young 'uns.
OK, I'm not preaching to parents not to take their 10 year olds. If you think that they can handle it, they're not going to be scarred for life and they have the basic skills to differentiate between movies and real life, that's just dandy. Go ahead, take 'em to Nazi-Zombie Sex Robots 2 for all I care.
But what really ticks me off is parents who just don't know what they're chucking their kids into.
People, those colourful little boxes in the corner of movie posters and those spinning versions in trailers are there for a reason. Don't take your kiddies to a MA15+ flick expecting Care Bears and rainbows, and don't claim to be morally outraged afterwards. It's your own freakin' fault for being uninformed.
There's a thing called the INTERNET now, that you can use to look up ratings. IMDb has a "Parents' Guide" for most movies detailing any content parents might find "unsuitable".
Be merciful to your fellow human-beings and take your under-15s to something "suitable". Like Alvin & the Chipmunks. Or Old Dogs. Actually, I retract that statement, those movies aren't suitable for anybody.
Right, who wants to go see Nazi-Zombie Sex Robots 2?
Helpful Links
An example of a Parents Guide (contains spoilers for Kick Ass)
The Australian Classification Board Website
PS If anyone was wondering, the kids plus mum were out of the cinema about half an hour in. Hm, the masturbation scene might've tipped mum off.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Charlotte's Web
Director: Gary Winick
Starring: Dominic Scott Kay, Julia Roberts, Dakota Fanning
Viewed: On DVD
Verdict: A gentle telling of the classic tale with good performances, a very cute pig and thankfully tasteful use of CGI. Not quite the classic the fondly-remembered animated version was, but a pleasant alternative for new viewers.
Rating: 7
How to Train Your Dragon (3D)
Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera
Viewed: In IMAX 3D
Until 2009 I had very little respect for Dreamworks Animations. OK, Shrek (2001) was pretty decent, but it was nothing compared to Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Monsters Inc, even WALL-E. But 2009 renewed my faith in Dreamworks. I actually really enjoyed Monsters vs Aliens, which may partially be attributed to the many movie in-jokes that made me feel smart, but it actually was pretty well-made in terms of script, voice-acting and animation quality (plus it was 3D! Shiny!).
Things were looking good for my relationship with Dreamworks until Up came along and blew me away. I am currently going steady with Up. So me and Dreamworks were just friendly. And now they've released How To Train Your Dragon.
Being an avid filmgoer, I saw the trailer for HTTYD a month or two before it was released. It looked fairly formulaic and unexciting. Figured I'd skip it. But I was recently offered the opportunity to see a movie at IMAX with some rellies. Having already seen Avatar, this was the next best thing (unless you want to see Kelly Slater in a 3D surfing doco?).
I was very much surprised. Yes, HTTYD is formulaic and somewhat forced and predictable at times, but it's also entertaining, funny, visually inventive, surprisingly moving, offers breathtaking flight sequences and has a few turns in the plot that you mightn't expect.
Jay Baruchel voices Hiccup, a boy living in a Viking village plagued by dragons. He's a klutz with an occasionally grating voice and absolutely sucks at fighting dragons. Eager to prove himself to his father (Gerard Butler, the Viking with a Scottish accent) Hiccup manages to hunt down the most sought after dragon of all- the Night Fury. Unable to actually kill it, Hiccup eventually develops a friendship and connection with the creature (dubbed, "Toothless") that resembles symbiosis. And all the while Hiccup is in training to become a dragon killer, along with Viking hottie, Astrid (America Ferrera). Of course, there are lessons to be learned along the way about trust, honesty, understanding, heroism, Viking headwear etc. etc.
I'd have to recommend this in IMAX 3D- the flying and battle scenes are great. The animators have rendered the humans and dragons in more realistic ways than ever before, and the quality of the design is just as good as anything Pixar's churned out.
Baruchel's great talent for comedy and kind of nerdily cute voice make Hiccup an endearing hero who is matched in expressiveness by his dragon friend (oh, the things those great green eyes can say...). The "training" sessions between Hiccup and Toothless really develop the characters and make their relationship seem genuinely valuable, which is a rare thing in a movie. HTTYD succeeded in making a grump like me actually care about what's happening onscreen to CGI characters. Astrid is rather bland character-wise, but, eh, who cares, she's not that important anyway.
Despite the importance of the film's various messages, they are not pushed too hard (most of the time) allowing the audience to sit back and enjoy, without having
morals shoved down their throats. The morals are familiar (believe in yourself, don't judge a book by its cover) but they are handled gently.
Obligatory complaints: There's a couple of annoying supporting characters this could have done without and a few forced attempts at father/son conflict which seemed lame and unnecessary. Attempts at toilet humour are not appreciated. Fortunately these are only occasional hindrances to an otherwise great movie.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Doesn't have quite the originality and emotional pull of Up, but How To Train Your Dragon holds its own in visual appeal, voice-acting and charm.
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera
Viewed: In IMAX 3D
Until 2009 I had very little respect for Dreamworks Animations. OK, Shrek (2001) was pretty decent, but it was nothing compared to Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Monsters Inc, even WALL-E. But 2009 renewed my faith in Dreamworks. I actually really enjoyed Monsters vs Aliens, which may partially be attributed to the many movie in-jokes that made me feel smart, but it actually was pretty well-made in terms of script, voice-acting and animation quality (plus it was 3D! Shiny!).
Things were looking good for my relationship with Dreamworks until Up came along and blew me away. I am currently going steady with Up. So me and Dreamworks were just friendly. And now they've released How To Train Your Dragon.
Being an avid filmgoer, I saw the trailer for HTTYD a month or two before it was released. It looked fairly formulaic and unexciting. Figured I'd skip it. But I was recently offered the opportunity to see a movie at IMAX with some rellies. Having already seen Avatar, this was the next best thing (unless you want to see Kelly Slater in a 3D surfing doco?).
I was very much surprised. Yes, HTTYD is formulaic and somewhat forced and predictable at times, but it's also entertaining, funny, visually inventive, surprisingly moving, offers breathtaking flight sequences and has a few turns in the plot that you mightn't expect.
Jay Baruchel voices Hiccup, a boy living in a Viking village plagued by dragons. He's a klutz with an occasionally grating voice and absolutely sucks at fighting dragons. Eager to prove himself to his father (Gerard Butler, the Viking with a Scottish accent) Hiccup manages to hunt down the most sought after dragon of all- the Night Fury. Unable to actually kill it, Hiccup eventually develops a friendship and connection with the creature (dubbed, "Toothless") that resembles symbiosis. And all the while Hiccup is in training to become a dragon killer, along with Viking hottie, Astrid (America Ferrera). Of course, there are lessons to be learned along the way about trust, honesty, understanding, heroism, Viking headwear etc. etc.
I'd have to recommend this in IMAX 3D- the flying and battle scenes are great. The animators have rendered the humans and dragons in more realistic ways than ever before, and the quality of the design is just as good as anything Pixar's churned out.
Baruchel's great talent for comedy and kind of nerdily cute voice make Hiccup an endearing hero who is matched in expressiveness by his dragon friend (oh, the things those great green eyes can say...). The "training" sessions between Hiccup and Toothless really develop the characters and make their relationship seem genuinely valuable, which is a rare thing in a movie. HTTYD succeeded in making a grump like me actually care about what's happening onscreen to CGI characters. Astrid is rather bland character-wise, but, eh, who cares, she's not that important anyway.
Despite the importance of the film's various messages, they are not pushed too hard (most of the time) allowing the audience to sit back and enjoy, without having
morals shoved down their throats. The morals are familiar (believe in yourself, don't judge a book by its cover) but they are handled gently.
Obligatory complaints: There's a couple of annoying supporting characters this could have done without and a few forced attempts at father/son conflict which seemed lame and unnecessary. Attempts at toilet humour are not appreciated. Fortunately these are only occasional hindrances to an otherwise great movie.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Doesn't have quite the originality and emotional pull of Up, but How To Train Your Dragon holds its own in visual appeal, voice-acting and charm.
The Graduate
Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Dustin Hoffmann, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross
Viewed: On DVD
Feeling worried? Don't know what the point of life is? Concerned about your future? If you're not, watch The Graduate and you will be.
The brilliantly awkward Dustin Hoffmann plays Benjamin, a College grad who's disgusted with his parents and isn't sure what to do with his life. Bored out of his mind, he takes up an affair with his dad's business partner's wife, the seductive Mrs Robinson (Anne Bancroft) despite the fact its sending him nowhere fast. Ben whiles away the summer in bed with Mrs Robinson, only breaking off the relationship so that he can go out with Elaine, the Robinsons' daughter. True, it's pretty creepy, but Hoffmann creates such a pathetic yet likeable character, dumping your 40-year old ex for her 20 year old daughter seems almost logical.
Anne Bancroft won an Oscar for her portrayal of the lonely, jealous and ultimately vindictive housewife and she deserved every bit of it. She played a MILF of the 60s- Mrs Robinson is a controlling and manipulative woman, and yet Bancroft makes her seem vulnerable as well as dangerous. As I have mentioned, Dustin Hoffmann is also incredible, but in a different way. He looks like he's stumbled in out of nowhere and hasn't the slightest clue what's going on and doesn't really care. And amazingly, it works. He actually made The Graduate a funnier film than I thought it would be- and it is surprisingly hilarious for a movie with such a depressing outlook- but he also makes us think, too. He evokes great empathy for a chracter that could have been utterly repellent. Ben becomes more decisive as the film progresses, but you are still left with the feeling that it will all come to nothing.
I felt constantly reminded throughout this movie that no matter what one does, we are doomed to live a pointless existence burdened by petty problems and by our own emotions. Deep. Yeah, think about it. This could all be very pretentious and boring, but an array of fascinating camera techniques, interesting performances and the wonderfully ironic and funny dialogue held my attention, along with the memorable, ghostly, upbeat, mysterious and very appropriate songs of Simon and Garfunkel in the soundtrack.
I really cannot fault this film- it looks good and sounds good (although its definitely not feel-good). The performances are close to perfect, although Katherine Ross could have played a slightly stronger Elaine. The dialogue all sounds so natural thanks to the script, performances and some very good improv. This is a movie that very much deserves its reputation as one of the greatest films of all time.
Rating: 10
Verdict: Watching The Graduate is a very thought-provoking and moving experience that you will not regret.
Did I misinterpret The Graduate (like that guy from 500 Days of Summer)? Give me your take on it in the comments section.
Starring: Dustin Hoffmann, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross
Viewed: On DVD
Feeling worried? Don't know what the point of life is? Concerned about your future? If you're not, watch The Graduate and you will be.
The brilliantly awkward Dustin Hoffmann plays Benjamin, a College grad who's disgusted with his parents and isn't sure what to do with his life. Bored out of his mind, he takes up an affair with his dad's business partner's wife, the seductive Mrs Robinson (Anne Bancroft) despite the fact its sending him nowhere fast. Ben whiles away the summer in bed with Mrs Robinson, only breaking off the relationship so that he can go out with Elaine, the Robinsons' daughter. True, it's pretty creepy, but Hoffmann creates such a pathetic yet likeable character, dumping your 40-year old ex for her 20 year old daughter seems almost logical.
Anne Bancroft won an Oscar for her portrayal of the lonely, jealous and ultimately vindictive housewife and she deserved every bit of it. She played a MILF of the 60s- Mrs Robinson is a controlling and manipulative woman, and yet Bancroft makes her seem vulnerable as well as dangerous. As I have mentioned, Dustin Hoffmann is also incredible, but in a different way. He looks like he's stumbled in out of nowhere and hasn't the slightest clue what's going on and doesn't really care. And amazingly, it works. He actually made The Graduate a funnier film than I thought it would be- and it is surprisingly hilarious for a movie with such a depressing outlook- but he also makes us think, too. He evokes great empathy for a chracter that could have been utterly repellent. Ben becomes more decisive as the film progresses, but you are still left with the feeling that it will all come to nothing.
I felt constantly reminded throughout this movie that no matter what one does, we are doomed to live a pointless existence burdened by petty problems and by our own emotions. Deep. Yeah, think about it. This could all be very pretentious and boring, but an array of fascinating camera techniques, interesting performances and the wonderfully ironic and funny dialogue held my attention, along with the memorable, ghostly, upbeat, mysterious and very appropriate songs of Simon and Garfunkel in the soundtrack.
I really cannot fault this film- it looks good and sounds good (although its definitely not feel-good). The performances are close to perfect, although Katherine Ross could have played a slightly stronger Elaine. The dialogue all sounds so natural thanks to the script, performances and some very good improv. This is a movie that very much deserves its reputation as one of the greatest films of all time.
Rating: 10
Verdict: Watching The Graduate is a very thought-provoking and moving experience that you will not regret.
Did I misinterpret The Graduate (like that guy from 500 Days of Summer)? Give me your take on it in the comments section.
Movie couples- gotta love 'em
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Bob Hope and that other guy. Cheech and Chong. Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe. Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. Tim Burton, Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp (ooh threesome). They're all inseparable.
I love movie couples. They make me feel comfortable, all seems right with the world. Tim Burton's got a new movie out? Are Johnny Depp and Helena B-C in it? Yes? Oh good, I was getting worried there.
It's like peanut butter M&Ms. Some brilliant person just went: "Hm. I wonder what would happen if I combine peanut butter and chocolate and put them in little bite size pieces." *mixes together* *tastes* "OMG I've just made perfection in a candy shell" *proceeds to make all manner of PB and chocolate candies*. Yes. That is what movie couples are like. They just seem so right together, it seems like a shame not to put them together again and again and again to provide the public with hours of viewing pleasure.
Y'know how people always complain that a certain actor or actress is always playing the same role (ahem, MEGAN FOX...JENNIFER ANISTON...WILL FERRELL)? But do you know WHY they always play the same role? Because they are good at it (except for Will Ferrell, he's just irritating). I really don't mind repetitiveness if the actor always makes it seem new and does it well.
Thankfully there is no such stigma towards movie couples. Who cares if they always do the same thing? They're good together. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. There's a joy that comes from watching them interact- I mean, when there's two of the them, each appearance has to be a bit different, keeps it interesting. Movie couples also give me something to look forward to, there are expectations that come with them, but I'm assured based on past experience that there'll be at least two people in the movie that work well together.
Basically, I like the security feeling I get from paired-up movie stars. I'm gonna get a good movie and if I've got screwed-up relationships, there's always people I can look to to remind myself all's well.
My personal choices for future team-ups:
Tina Fey-Steve Carell (comedic genius)
Pixar-Dreamworks (never gonna happen, I know)
Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie (I'd like another Mr & Mrs Smith please)
Who would you like to see team up on film or who should team up again? Post a comment to let me know about your favourite dynamic duos.
I love movie couples. They make me feel comfortable, all seems right with the world. Tim Burton's got a new movie out? Are Johnny Depp and Helena B-C in it? Yes? Oh good, I was getting worried there.
It's like peanut butter M&Ms. Some brilliant person just went: "Hm. I wonder what would happen if I combine peanut butter and chocolate and put them in little bite size pieces." *mixes together* *tastes* "OMG I've just made perfection in a candy shell" *proceeds to make all manner of PB and chocolate candies*. Yes. That is what movie couples are like. They just seem so right together, it seems like a shame not to put them together again and again and again to provide the public with hours of viewing pleasure.
Y'know how people always complain that a certain actor or actress is always playing the same role (ahem, MEGAN FOX...JENNIFER ANISTON...WILL FERRELL)? But do you know WHY they always play the same role? Because they are good at it (except for Will Ferrell, he's just irritating). I really don't mind repetitiveness if the actor always makes it seem new and does it well.
Thankfully there is no such stigma towards movie couples. Who cares if they always do the same thing? They're good together. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. There's a joy that comes from watching them interact- I mean, when there's two of the them, each appearance has to be a bit different, keeps it interesting. Movie couples also give me something to look forward to, there are expectations that come with them, but I'm assured based on past experience that there'll be at least two people in the movie that work well together.
Basically, I like the security feeling I get from paired-up movie stars. I'm gonna get a good movie and if I've got screwed-up relationships, there's always people I can look to to remind myself all's well.
My personal choices for future team-ups:
Tina Fey-Steve Carell (comedic genius)
Pixar-Dreamworks (never gonna happen, I know)
Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie (I'd like another Mr & Mrs Smith please)
Who would you like to see team up on film or who should team up again? Post a comment to let me know about your favourite dynamic duos.
We need another Dakota Fanning. Fast.
Having just finished watching the latest version of Charlotte's Web (2006), I can safely say that Dakota Fanning is more than just a sweet face framed with the golden hair of an angel- she is a great child actress.
Please note that I did say CHILD ACTRESS. The problem with children's roles is that they have to be played by children. Bummer. And I have found that too frequently do filmmakers go for cutesy little kids that can't act for s**t but are very good at whining and opening their adawable wittle eyes nice and big. Not so with Miss Fanning.
Little Dakota, at the age of 11 way back in 2006, managed to be likable, sincere and believable, not whiny or annoying in a role that could easily have been assigned to a girl of lesser talent. She could act. Fanning's healthy portfolio of children's roles have earned her the tag of "child star", and she is often parodied as the very epitomy of what I have said she is not. I think everyone needs to watch her in one of her movies again (Charlotte's Web, anyone?) to remind themselves of why she has been more successful than so many adult actors.
But we have a problem here. Dakota Fanning is getting old.
Over the past few years, in an attempt to move away from the "children's roles" she has become known for, she has been taking on roles that might seem controversial and more "grown-up". However, most of these movies have flopped (with the exception of New Moon, but my views on THAT is another story).
Anyway, Dakota Fanning's future aside, in graduating to puberty she has left a gap in the roles for 5-12 year olds. So who's gonna take them on instead? Saoirse Ronan? Nope, she's 16 already. Kick Ass' Chloe Moretz? At 13 that's pushing it. And I can't really think of any more. C'mon, why aren't there any good actresses starting at 5 like Dakota did with I Am Sam? We need them.
A super-sappy child performance can ruin a film for me. It can make the movie seem manipulative and it can just be annoying. Take the Cheaper by the Dozen movies (if any of you actually remember them). Those kids were so freakin' annoying. Yeah, all twelve of them. In a movie where we're meant to be cheering them on, we got a bunch of brats who all fail to be even slightly endearing.
So please, Hollywood. Give us another Dakota Fanning.
Give me some ideas for the next great child actors/actresses in the comments section.
Please note that I did say CHILD ACTRESS. The problem with children's roles is that they have to be played by children. Bummer. And I have found that too frequently do filmmakers go for cutesy little kids that can't act for s**t but are very good at whining and opening their adawable wittle eyes nice and big. Not so with Miss Fanning.
Little Dakota, at the age of 11 way back in 2006, managed to be likable, sincere and believable, not whiny or annoying in a role that could easily have been assigned to a girl of lesser talent. She could act. Fanning's healthy portfolio of children's roles have earned her the tag of "child star", and she is often parodied as the very epitomy of what I have said she is not. I think everyone needs to watch her in one of her movies again (Charlotte's Web, anyone?) to remind themselves of why she has been more successful than so many adult actors.
But we have a problem here. Dakota Fanning is getting old.
Over the past few years, in an attempt to move away from the "children's roles" she has become known for, she has been taking on roles that might seem controversial and more "grown-up". However, most of these movies have flopped (with the exception of New Moon, but my views on THAT is another story).
Anyway, Dakota Fanning's future aside, in graduating to puberty she has left a gap in the roles for 5-12 year olds. So who's gonna take them on instead? Saoirse Ronan? Nope, she's 16 already. Kick Ass' Chloe Moretz? At 13 that's pushing it. And I can't really think of any more. C'mon, why aren't there any good actresses starting at 5 like Dakota did with I Am Sam? We need them.
A super-sappy child performance can ruin a film for me. It can make the movie seem manipulative and it can just be annoying. Take the Cheaper by the Dozen movies (if any of you actually remember them). Those kids were so freakin' annoying. Yeah, all twelve of them. In a movie where we're meant to be cheering them on, we got a bunch of brats who all fail to be even slightly endearing.
So please, Hollywood. Give us another Dakota Fanning.
Give me some ideas for the next great child actors/actresses in the comments section.
Thanks a lot Avatar
Touted as the film that would "revolutionise cinema" as we know it, Avatar had a lot to live up to. Well, lame dialogue and suspected plagiarism aside, it turned out Avatar really was revolutionary. Not just for the "ooh pretty" factor, or it's ridiculously massive box office returns, but for its ability to really immerse viewers in the world of Pandora through James Cameron's use of CGI, motion capture and 3D. It looks like its giving 3D a real comeback. But I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
3D was originally used as a gimmick to draw audiences away from their new television sets, not as a means of increasing the artistic value of a film. The extent of audience interaction was the occasional cheap shock of a hand popping out of the screen.
Well, 3D's actually really great when you've got an entirely different world a la Avatar, complete with freaky blue feline/humanoid thingys, sparkly plants, massive floaty mountains and DRAGONS. But I've got a feeling that when "3D" becomes the buzzword for "lots of bums on seats", then I'm not going to be so happy. Once the studios cotton on to the fact that people will see basically anything in 3D (and I think they are already have) we'll be seeing a lot more crappy movies literally thrown in our faces and probably some pretty good movies with 3D hastily added in simply because its the obligatory visual "bonus".
So far we've been seeing some pretty good 3D movies- Avatar, Up, Coraline, Monsters vs Aliens, How to Train your Dragon (a lot of animation...) and the visual treat Alice in Wonderland. However, crap-a-thons like Clash of the Titans will become increasingly popular, I predict, and even some lower-budget productions are likely to get the 3D treatment for no good reason.
I like 3D cause it can make you feel more involved in the movie, or it can just make it more exciting or beautiful to watch. I do not, however, appreciate random appendages or projectiles flying out of the screen as if to remind the brainless audience they are watching a 3D movie (see the beginning of Monsters vs Aliens for a nice visual gag making my point).
Perhaps I'm just bitter and paranoid and have too little faith in the film industry, but I'll be saying "I told you so" when we see Sex and the City 4- IN 3D!!
So where do you think 3D movies are headed? Have a rant in the comments section.
3D was originally used as a gimmick to draw audiences away from their new television sets, not as a means of increasing the artistic value of a film. The extent of audience interaction was the occasional cheap shock of a hand popping out of the screen.
Well, 3D's actually really great when you've got an entirely different world a la Avatar, complete with freaky blue feline/humanoid thingys, sparkly plants, massive floaty mountains and DRAGONS. But I've got a feeling that when "3D" becomes the buzzword for "lots of bums on seats", then I'm not going to be so happy. Once the studios cotton on to the fact that people will see basically anything in 3D (and I think they are already have) we'll be seeing a lot more crappy movies literally thrown in our faces and probably some pretty good movies with 3D hastily added in simply because its the obligatory visual "bonus".
So far we've been seeing some pretty good 3D movies- Avatar, Up, Coraline, Monsters vs Aliens, How to Train your Dragon (a lot of animation...) and the visual treat Alice in Wonderland. However, crap-a-thons like Clash of the Titans will become increasingly popular, I predict, and even some lower-budget productions are likely to get the 3D treatment for no good reason.
I like 3D cause it can make you feel more involved in the movie, or it can just make it more exciting or beautiful to watch. I do not, however, appreciate random appendages or projectiles flying out of the screen as if to remind the brainless audience they are watching a 3D movie (see the beginning of Monsters vs Aliens for a nice visual gag making my point).
Perhaps I'm just bitter and paranoid and have too little faith in the film industry, but I'll be saying "I told you so" when we see Sex and the City 4- IN 3D!!
So where do you think 3D movies are headed? Have a rant in the comments section.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Kick Ass
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Nicholas Cage
Viewed: At the Cinema
Wow. Kick Ass is a roller coaster of a movie- its got heapings of ultra-violence, teen angst, a hilarious script, a teensy bit of sex, a whole lot of four-letter words plus the tiniest trained assassin you ever saw. In short, Kick Ass is AWESOME FUN.
It's the story of teenager Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who asks (and eventually answers) the question- "Why has nobody ever tried to be a superhero?". He takes on the persona of Kick Ass, costumed crime fighter, only to find himself badly injured with metal plates in his body (giving him a curious semi-immunity to pain) after his first crime-fighting encounter. Now a rumour's going round school that he's gay, and Dave's crush (Lyndsy Fonseca) reckons he'd make a great confidante for that reason. Undeterred by the fact that he has no training or skills, Dave continues to spend his evenings in his green and yellow wetsuit trying to make the world a better place. One night, when Kick Ass is getting his ass kicked by a couple of "villains" his actions are recorded by cameraphone. Soon after, Kick Ass becomes YouTube's next big thing and earns local infamy. Unfortunately, a ring of gangsters are now after Kick Ass, and Dave soon finds that he isn't the only vigilante crimefighter out there.
I for one didn't find Kick Ass as outrageous as it's been hyped to be. Violent, yes, but offensive? Not really. Alright, Kick Ass isn't for everybody, but if you're willing to get into it you'll be in for a heck of a fun ride.
But "oh," you say, "I've heard about this movie. What kind of sicko takes pleasure in witnessing the violent killings of dozens of men BY AN 11-YEAR OLD GIRL?!" OK. So it sounds bad. Yes, one of the central characters, young Mindy McCready (Moretz) is trained up by her dad (Cage) to be a crazy-ass super-killer.
But Kick Ass is a crazy fusion of the real world and the comic-book world- Dave's just an ordinary dude, Mindy really just wants to be a little girl, the gangster's son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) just wants to be appreciated, and getting bashed up really does hurt, but hey, this is also a universe where all manner of weaponry is accessible to every man and his dog, where all stabbings are set to funky music, where mass murder has no consequences and where the average Joe really can get the hot chick after all. Ah, if only.
The world we are plunged into is so cartoonish, we just have to accept that the Bad Guys are bad, the Good Guys are good (if a little nuts) and that Bad Guys need to die and that Good Guys need to live long and prosper. Just sit back and enjoy the sheer inventiveness, boldness and the shameless gleefulness of the action scenes and put your annoying old conscience in the back seat for a bit.
And to anyone that finds said assassin's use of four-letter words offensive, I think that your priorities need to be sorted out.
OK, that's settled.
One of the things that has always pissed me off about the Spiderman movies is that Peter Parker is such a mopey wimp behind the mask. I really couldn't care less whether he lives or dies. Here, however, Aaron Johnson gives us both a superhero and just a plain hero that we can really cheer for. He's a normal guy, but that's what makes him so lovable, we can genuinely empathise with him. We feel his pain, we can understand his desire to help those in need and we adore his geekiness. Any teenager can see a part of themselves in Dave, plus, who doesn't love the underdog?
There are also some great random punches of humour that seem to come at the most inappropriate times- but that's what makes them so funny. There are also some comic-book references for all you geeks (including myself) to enjoy, some of which are unexpectedly poignant. Kick Ass seems determined to constantly surprise us, yielding new things to enjoy and never, ever is there a boring or over-sentimental moment.
The action sequences are so well handled and they look absolutely fantastic. Each scene has style and creative little touches ( a blood spatter here, a swipe of a samurai sword there, a nonchalant flick of the butterfly knife just to top things off...). The climactic face-off does not disappoint and is just as violent, dramatic, adrenaline-pumping and over-the-top as you could ask for. If this is your kind of thing, I'd recommend Zack Snyder's 2009 version of Watchmen and pretty much any Tarantino film.
But Kick Ass is not perfect. There are a few coincidences that are just a bit too coincidental, the ending is rather too well-tied up and there are a couple of occasions where you have to remind yourself, "It's just a movie" before you can actually enjoy it. Sometimes the "message" of the film gets lost and fuzzy amidst the madness, although it all comes together in the end. The character of Red Mist, aka Chris D'Amico, son of bad guy gangster Frank D'Amico, sidekick/enemy of Kick Ass- is a little bit under developed here. So he respects his dad? But he hates his dad's business? And he wants to run his dad's business? Does he like Dave? What? Chris is probably the most interesting character in the film, but a little more attention to him and his alter-ego Red Mist would have allowed us to see how interesting he could be.
Despite these minor flaws, Kick Ass manages to be entertaining, clever, the right kind of stupid, and very memorable.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Kick Ass is bloody, funny, touching and just a bit mad. Enjoy it with a friend.
Did you enjoy Kick Ass? Too bloody? Too curse-y? Best movie of all time? Tell me about it with a comment!
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Nicholas Cage
Viewed: At the Cinema
Wow. Kick Ass is a roller coaster of a movie- its got heapings of ultra-violence, teen angst, a hilarious script, a teensy bit of sex, a whole lot of four-letter words plus the tiniest trained assassin you ever saw. In short, Kick Ass is AWESOME FUN.
It's the story of teenager Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who asks (and eventually answers) the question- "Why has nobody ever tried to be a superhero?". He takes on the persona of Kick Ass, costumed crime fighter, only to find himself badly injured with metal plates in his body (giving him a curious semi-immunity to pain) after his first crime-fighting encounter. Now a rumour's going round school that he's gay, and Dave's crush (Lyndsy Fonseca) reckons he'd make a great confidante for that reason. Undeterred by the fact that he has no training or skills, Dave continues to spend his evenings in his green and yellow wetsuit trying to make the world a better place. One night, when Kick Ass is getting his ass kicked by a couple of "villains" his actions are recorded by cameraphone. Soon after, Kick Ass becomes YouTube's next big thing and earns local infamy. Unfortunately, a ring of gangsters are now after Kick Ass, and Dave soon finds that he isn't the only vigilante crimefighter out there.
I for one didn't find Kick Ass as outrageous as it's been hyped to be. Violent, yes, but offensive? Not really. Alright, Kick Ass isn't for everybody, but if you're willing to get into it you'll be in for a heck of a fun ride.
But "oh," you say, "I've heard about this movie. What kind of sicko takes pleasure in witnessing the violent killings of dozens of men BY AN 11-YEAR OLD GIRL?!" OK. So it sounds bad. Yes, one of the central characters, young Mindy McCready (Moretz) is trained up by her dad (Cage) to be a crazy-ass super-killer.
But Kick Ass is a crazy fusion of the real world and the comic-book world- Dave's just an ordinary dude, Mindy really just wants to be a little girl, the gangster's son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) just wants to be appreciated, and getting bashed up really does hurt, but hey, this is also a universe where all manner of weaponry is accessible to every man and his dog, where all stabbings are set to funky music, where mass murder has no consequences and where the average Joe really can get the hot chick after all. Ah, if only.
The world we are plunged into is so cartoonish, we just have to accept that the Bad Guys are bad, the Good Guys are good (if a little nuts) and that Bad Guys need to die and that Good Guys need to live long and prosper. Just sit back and enjoy the sheer inventiveness, boldness and the shameless gleefulness of the action scenes and put your annoying old conscience in the back seat for a bit.
And to anyone that finds said assassin's use of four-letter words offensive, I think that your priorities need to be sorted out.
OK, that's settled.
One of the things that has always pissed me off about the Spiderman movies is that Peter Parker is such a mopey wimp behind the mask. I really couldn't care less whether he lives or dies. Here, however, Aaron Johnson gives us both a superhero and just a plain hero that we can really cheer for. He's a normal guy, but that's what makes him so lovable, we can genuinely empathise with him. We feel his pain, we can understand his desire to help those in need and we adore his geekiness. Any teenager can see a part of themselves in Dave, plus, who doesn't love the underdog?
There are also some great random punches of humour that seem to come at the most inappropriate times- but that's what makes them so funny. There are also some comic-book references for all you geeks (including myself) to enjoy, some of which are unexpectedly poignant. Kick Ass seems determined to constantly surprise us, yielding new things to enjoy and never, ever is there a boring or over-sentimental moment.
The action sequences are so well handled and they look absolutely fantastic. Each scene has style and creative little touches ( a blood spatter here, a swipe of a samurai sword there, a nonchalant flick of the butterfly knife just to top things off...). The climactic face-off does not disappoint and is just as violent, dramatic, adrenaline-pumping and over-the-top as you could ask for. If this is your kind of thing, I'd recommend Zack Snyder's 2009 version of Watchmen and pretty much any Tarantino film.
But Kick Ass is not perfect. There are a few coincidences that are just a bit too coincidental, the ending is rather too well-tied up and there are a couple of occasions where you have to remind yourself, "It's just a movie" before you can actually enjoy it. Sometimes the "message" of the film gets lost and fuzzy amidst the madness, although it all comes together in the end. The character of Red Mist, aka Chris D'Amico, son of bad guy gangster Frank D'Amico, sidekick/enemy of Kick Ass- is a little bit under developed here. So he respects his dad? But he hates his dad's business? And he wants to run his dad's business? Does he like Dave? What? Chris is probably the most interesting character in the film, but a little more attention to him and his alter-ego Red Mist would have allowed us to see how interesting he could be.
Despite these minor flaws, Kick Ass manages to be entertaining, clever, the right kind of stupid, and very memorable.
Rating: 8
Verdict: Kick Ass is bloody, funny, touching and just a bit mad. Enjoy it with a friend.
Did you enjoy Kick Ass? Too bloody? Too curse-y? Best movie of all time? Tell me about it with a comment!
Date Night
Director: Shawn Levy
Starring: Tina Fey, Steve Carell
Viewed: At the cinema
I love Tina Fey. I mean, who doesn't? Mean Girls, 30 Rock and her infamous Palin impression have made Fey the thinking man's Megan Fox and the champion of the thinking woman.
So pairing her up with the ever-lovable Steve Carell? Genius. The two play married couple Phil and Claire Foster, who, in a bid to save their tepid marriage, go on an extra-special date night in one of NYC's trendiest eateries. They do not, however, have a reservation. Desperate for a table, Phil rashly decides to claim the table of another couple, the Tripplehorns, who have failed to show up. After indulging in a little food, wine and product placement for will.i.am, the Fosters are confronted by two thugs convinced that they are the Tripplehorns, who happen to be in possession of some important information. Hi-jinks, penis jokes and awkward dancing ensues.
There are some laughs to be had here, although if you like your comedy razor sharp, Date Night is not really your thing. If over-40s cussin' and pole-dancin' (both in an uncomfortable fashion) is the height of hilarity for you, then Date Night will have you in hysterics. Upon viewing Date Night, I was much perplexed- surely this could not have been written by the same Tina Fey who created the oh-so-clever 30 Rock? The same Tina Fey who wrote the biting teen movie Mean Girls? And surely it was not- Date Night was in fact written by Josh Klausner, screenwriter for Shrek the Third (gag). Ah. That explains it.
Thanks to my currently low maturity levels, Date Night did provide some mild amusement, despite its lack of Fey as a screenwriter. Amongst the giggles, however, there are some genuinely touching moments between the two Fosters. This is largely due to the believablilty of the two stars as a couple. Now, I don't know much about parenthood or marriage, but it seemed to me that there is a lot of truth to Date Night's commentary on mature relationships which really gave this some much-needed charm.
Mr Levy, director of the rather unexciting Night at the Museum franchise and the unashamedly silly Pink Panther franchise (he's got a thing for franchises, doesn't he?) seems to be trying extra hard to work against the talented duo. OK, so the weak plot is forgiveable but this has to feature some of the worst direction and camerawork I have ever witnessed in a motion picture. The plot is fuzzy, characters are not adequately identified ("Is that guy the DA or the gangster?") the camera seems to have difficulty following the action, and the car chase, thought great in concept, is executed clumsily. Date Night was filmed on a digital camera system (more often used in television than film) which gave the whole thing a distinctly artificial look that I found distracting and disconcerting. As a result, Date Night never quite works as action or comedy. Normally I don't give a toss about poor cinematography, but here I found it so distracting that it pulled a point or two off my rating.
It also didn't help that the supporting cast are all fairly flat and uninteresting, with the exception of the perpetually topless and very buff Mark Wahlberg. James Franco and Mila Kunis as the real Tripplehorns come across as irritating and shrill, mostly thanks to their inane dialogue. Taraji P Henson and Joe Pesci are both quite dull as a policewoman and gangster, respectively, and seem uncomfortable with attempting comedy.
In the end, Date Night isn't entirely hilarious and it's action elements are not as exciting as they should be. It's all a bit awkward despite the major appeal of the two leads. It's a shame: I wanted so much for this to be great, and was left at the end of this with disappointment. If your expectations aren't as high as mine, Date Night will probably still be a fun if forgettable night at the movies.
Rating: 5
Verdict: Carell and Fey are given plenty of occasions to show off their charisma and wit (largely through improvisation, I think) in the mess that is the plot and script, and, ultimately, they are really the only sparkly attractions in an otherwise unattractive film. I, for one, would be happy to see them pair off in another film, maybe next time with a script penned by Fey herself.
Faithful blog-readers, feel free to let me know your opinions on Date Night in the comments below. Was I spot on? Did I miss the point completely? Let it all out.
Starring: Tina Fey, Steve Carell
Viewed: At the cinema
I love Tina Fey. I mean, who doesn't? Mean Girls, 30 Rock and her infamous Palin impression have made Fey the thinking man's Megan Fox and the champion of the thinking woman.
So pairing her up with the ever-lovable Steve Carell? Genius. The two play married couple Phil and Claire Foster, who, in a bid to save their tepid marriage, go on an extra-special date night in one of NYC's trendiest eateries. They do not, however, have a reservation. Desperate for a table, Phil rashly decides to claim the table of another couple, the Tripplehorns, who have failed to show up. After indulging in a little food, wine and product placement for will.i.am, the Fosters are confronted by two thugs convinced that they are the Tripplehorns, who happen to be in possession of some important information. Hi-jinks, penis jokes and awkward dancing ensues.
There are some laughs to be had here, although if you like your comedy razor sharp, Date Night is not really your thing. If over-40s cussin' and pole-dancin' (both in an uncomfortable fashion) is the height of hilarity for you, then Date Night will have you in hysterics. Upon viewing Date Night, I was much perplexed- surely this could not have been written by the same Tina Fey who created the oh-so-clever 30 Rock? The same Tina Fey who wrote the biting teen movie Mean Girls? And surely it was not- Date Night was in fact written by Josh Klausner, screenwriter for Shrek the Third (gag). Ah. That explains it.
Thanks to my currently low maturity levels, Date Night did provide some mild amusement, despite its lack of Fey as a screenwriter. Amongst the giggles, however, there are some genuinely touching moments between the two Fosters. This is largely due to the believablilty of the two stars as a couple. Now, I don't know much about parenthood or marriage, but it seemed to me that there is a lot of truth to Date Night's commentary on mature relationships which really gave this some much-needed charm.
Mr Levy, director of the rather unexciting Night at the Museum franchise and the unashamedly silly Pink Panther franchise (he's got a thing for franchises, doesn't he?) seems to be trying extra hard to work against the talented duo. OK, so the weak plot is forgiveable but this has to feature some of the worst direction and camerawork I have ever witnessed in a motion picture. The plot is fuzzy, characters are not adequately identified ("Is that guy the DA or the gangster?") the camera seems to have difficulty following the action, and the car chase, thought great in concept, is executed clumsily. Date Night was filmed on a digital camera system (more often used in television than film) which gave the whole thing a distinctly artificial look that I found distracting and disconcerting. As a result, Date Night never quite works as action or comedy. Normally I don't give a toss about poor cinematography, but here I found it so distracting that it pulled a point or two off my rating.
It also didn't help that the supporting cast are all fairly flat and uninteresting, with the exception of the perpetually topless and very buff Mark Wahlberg. James Franco and Mila Kunis as the real Tripplehorns come across as irritating and shrill, mostly thanks to their inane dialogue. Taraji P Henson and Joe Pesci are both quite dull as a policewoman and gangster, respectively, and seem uncomfortable with attempting comedy.
In the end, Date Night isn't entirely hilarious and it's action elements are not as exciting as they should be. It's all a bit awkward despite the major appeal of the two leads. It's a shame: I wanted so much for this to be great, and was left at the end of this with disappointment. If your expectations aren't as high as mine, Date Night will probably still be a fun if forgettable night at the movies.
Rating: 5
Verdict: Carell and Fey are given plenty of occasions to show off their charisma and wit (largely through improvisation, I think) in the mess that is the plot and script, and, ultimately, they are really the only sparkly attractions in an otherwise unattractive film. I, for one, would be happy to see them pair off in another film, maybe next time with a script penned by Fey herself.
Faithful blog-readers, feel free to let me know your opinions on Date Night in the comments below. Was I spot on? Did I miss the point completely? Let it all out.
Hello, blog-readers!
Greetings and welcome to my humble blog. Please be aware that I have no idea how to write a blog, what my target audience is or how this is all gonna pan out. Hmm looks like a bad start. But it will get better, I promise.
Here is where I shall post my personal commentary on the vast world of cinema, or at least the small portion of it that I can access.
I love movies because they can make me laugh, make me think, make me misty-eyed, make me insanely happy, make me cower behind a pillow and sometimes make me want to sing and dance around. I hope that my little posts will help you find some films that will make you do all of the above and pretty much anything else.
Many critics assign a grade, rating or star value to a film. I shall do the same, using a scale of 1 to 10. Now I know a lot of people get all touchy about ratings and can misinterpret the critic's feelings about the film based on the rating they give. For some people, a 6 is a pretty awful piece of work, but for others it might mean the film ain't perfect, but it's enjoyable. I shall now outline my meaning behind each rating I give
1- This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities. That means its poorly made, all the actors have the magnetism and talent of a pack of pencils and the script has probably been written by an ape of average to low intelligence. Plus the movie is so painful it can't even earn the label of "so bad its good". Avoid this film at all costs.
2- Pretty similar to a 1 movie but with only one redeeming quality, such as one decent performance, or a couple of good one-liners, or maybe just some well-made costumes or music. But still pretty horrible. This film is probably only for completists of a particular actor/director's work, otherwise, AVOID.
3- Again, definitely not a must-see, but not the absolute worst film you ever saw, either. Only slightly better than a 2 or 1. A "so bad its good" movie might fit in here for me.
4- A decent movie ruined somewhat by major flaws. Or a rather awful piece elevated to a degree by a few outstanding elements. Whichever.
5- This is middle-of-the-road stuff. The movie's got it's good points, it's got some bad ones. Or it's just so boringly average I can't place it on either side of the scale.
6- A 6 would be either a very wellmade film but its not so enjoyable, or quite an enjoyable film that's not so well-made. Nothing special, but hey, the positives outweigh the negatives, so this would make for painless viewing.
7- Wooo, now we're getting to the really good stuff. This'd be generally enjoyable, well constructed film. Worth your money. (All $17 of it. Yeah, thats seriously how much a ticket costs these days. Sheesh.)
8- Recommended. Just about everything's about it is great, with maybe a few annoying things. That, or everythings very good, but nothing's really excellent. In any case, an 8 is good for a fantastic night in (or day out, whatever).
9- Really a must-see. Only falls short of being a 10 because I'm nit-picky.
10- This is the whole shebang- brilliant performances, a memorable script, cleverly directed and just generally an awesome viewing experience. Not perfect (nothing is, is it?) but almost could not be improved upon. Anywho, any weaknesses are more than made up for by the overall excellent-ness of everything else. A Classic (with a capital C) that MUST NOT BE MISSED.
So that's my system. Hope that clears up any confusion for ya. To be honest, you'd probably be better off reading my actual review of the movie to get a better idea of my view of it. Or you could watch the movie yourself, but that would defeat the purpose of my blog wouldn't it? Hmm.
Here is where I shall post my personal commentary on the vast world of cinema, or at least the small portion of it that I can access.
I love movies because they can make me laugh, make me think, make me misty-eyed, make me insanely happy, make me cower behind a pillow and sometimes make me want to sing and dance around. I hope that my little posts will help you find some films that will make you do all of the above and pretty much anything else.
Many critics assign a grade, rating or star value to a film. I shall do the same, using a scale of 1 to 10. Now I know a lot of people get all touchy about ratings and can misinterpret the critic's feelings about the film based on the rating they give. For some people, a 6 is a pretty awful piece of work, but for others it might mean the film ain't perfect, but it's enjoyable. I shall now outline my meaning behind each rating I give
1- This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities. That means its poorly made, all the actors have the magnetism and talent of a pack of pencils and the script has probably been written by an ape of average to low intelligence. Plus the movie is so painful it can't even earn the label of "so bad its good". Avoid this film at all costs.
2- Pretty similar to a 1 movie but with only one redeeming quality, such as one decent performance, or a couple of good one-liners, or maybe just some well-made costumes or music. But still pretty horrible. This film is probably only for completists of a particular actor/director's work, otherwise, AVOID.
3- Again, definitely not a must-see, but not the absolute worst film you ever saw, either. Only slightly better than a 2 or 1. A "so bad its good" movie might fit in here for me.
4- A decent movie ruined somewhat by major flaws. Or a rather awful piece elevated to a degree by a few outstanding elements. Whichever.
5- This is middle-of-the-road stuff. The movie's got it's good points, it's got some bad ones. Or it's just so boringly average I can't place it on either side of the scale.
6- A 6 would be either a very wellmade film but its not so enjoyable, or quite an enjoyable film that's not so well-made. Nothing special, but hey, the positives outweigh the negatives, so this would make for painless viewing.
7- Wooo, now we're getting to the really good stuff. This'd be generally enjoyable, well constructed film. Worth your money. (All $17 of it. Yeah, thats seriously how much a ticket costs these days. Sheesh.)
8- Recommended. Just about everything's about it is great, with maybe a few annoying things. That, or everythings very good, but nothing's really excellent. In any case, an 8 is good for a fantastic night in (or day out, whatever).
9- Really a must-see. Only falls short of being a 10 because I'm nit-picky.
10- This is the whole shebang- brilliant performances, a memorable script, cleverly directed and just generally an awesome viewing experience. Not perfect (nothing is, is it?) but almost could not be improved upon. Anywho, any weaknesses are more than made up for by the overall excellent-ness of everything else. A Classic (with a capital C) that MUST NOT BE MISSED.
So that's my system. Hope that clears up any confusion for ya. To be honest, you'd probably be better off reading my actual review of the movie to get a better idea of my view of it. Or you could watch the movie yourself, but that would defeat the purpose of my blog wouldn't it? Hmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)