If you've ever wondered, "how disgusting can a movie be?..." well, this film pretty much answers the question. For what it is - and you probably know more or less what it is, or you wouldn't be reading this - it is fully realized in pretty much every aspect. Casting Harvey was pure genius. He carries the film with his amazing performance. There are plenty of little twists to keep you occupied, some of which are actually humorous in a grotesque way.
The odd thing, though, is that the film really isn't scary. Maybe because Martin is so divorced from reality that he seems incapable of true evil. Rather, he is just driven by a single-minded vision to complete his project. Probably the first real success he's had in his sad, sad life.
The effects are spot-on, and the pacing generally good, although I found it dragged a bit about 2/3 of the way through. However, the brashness and oddness of this film have surely earned it a spot alongside cult classics such as Eraserhead.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
leon
An interview with Anne Parillaud, in the Evening Standard, 24.8.90, it was said that the message of Nikita is not one of violence but the idea is that people who are full of despair and missing love are not alone.
This idea continues in Léon. Léon was Besson's first foray into international film production. The similarities, or parallels, between Nikita and Léon are undoubted. Both the central protagonists attempt to come to terms with their dysfunctionality, to society, against a background of violence, which they both continue to act upon as the agent of someone else. There is no clean difference (we may also include Le Dernier Combat for comparison.) The only difference is gender.
I always found that until obtaining the "Version Integral" there was a character hole in the plot. The original cut released for US audiences was felt, by Besson, had an "offending" scene cut which ruined later scenes. The American test audiences hated it, seeing it as perverse and paedophiliac. The film was still panned by US critics as quasi-child pornography on general release. What it to be understood about this film, and this is what infuriated Besson, is that the film is about pure love. Not sex, which is all the Americans, could see.
And so we have ascertained that the characters in Besson's films are, simply, great. Then there is the action which is all the grace and style of Nikita. Typical of Besson's style with fast action-shooting and violent characterisation. This has to be one of Jean Reno's and by far Natalie Portman's best screen performance. To me, Gary Oldman plays his part to the tee, said by some magazines to be the best screen bad guy - it is one of his best performances.
Stylisation and excess are hallmarks of Besson's work. Characters are larger than life. Décors are in excess of realism. Besson's characters lack psychological depth. "The sumptuous and the ornate cohabit with the violent or the vulgar." Besson's use of excess is also extremely playful mixing violence with humour. Besson's work appeals to the tastes of popular culture and may not please that of the elite - arguably a reason for the rejection of his work by many intellectual film journals.
I have yet to hear of a person putting a bad word against this film. There is nothing I can personally fault so I give this film 10/10, a score only two other somewhat different films hold in my IMDb list of 345 films - "The Wizard of Oz" and "La Cité des Enfants perdu". If you like French Cinema or consider yourself a cinephile you must see the latter.
This idea continues in Léon. Léon was Besson's first foray into international film production. The similarities, or parallels, between Nikita and Léon are undoubted. Both the central protagonists attempt to come to terms with their dysfunctionality, to society, against a background of violence, which they both continue to act upon as the agent of someone else. There is no clean difference (we may also include Le Dernier Combat for comparison.) The only difference is gender.
I always found that until obtaining the "Version Integral" there was a character hole in the plot. The original cut released for US audiences was felt, by Besson, had an "offending" scene cut which ruined later scenes. The American test audiences hated it, seeing it as perverse and paedophiliac. The film was still panned by US critics as quasi-child pornography on general release. What it to be understood about this film, and this is what infuriated Besson, is that the film is about pure love. Not sex, which is all the Americans, could see.
And so we have ascertained that the characters in Besson's films are, simply, great. Then there is the action which is all the grace and style of Nikita. Typical of Besson's style with fast action-shooting and violent characterisation. This has to be one of Jean Reno's and by far Natalie Portman's best screen performance. To me, Gary Oldman plays his part to the tee, said by some magazines to be the best screen bad guy - it is one of his best performances.
Stylisation and excess are hallmarks of Besson's work. Characters are larger than life. Décors are in excess of realism. Besson's characters lack psychological depth. "The sumptuous and the ornate cohabit with the violent or the vulgar." Besson's use of excess is also extremely playful mixing violence with humour. Besson's work appeals to the tastes of popular culture and may not please that of the elite - arguably a reason for the rejection of his work by many intellectual film journals.
I have yet to hear of a person putting a bad word against this film. There is nothing I can personally fault so I give this film 10/10, a score only two other somewhat different films hold in my IMDb list of 345 films - "The Wizard of Oz" and "La Cité des Enfants perdu". If you like French Cinema or consider yourself a cinephile you must see the latter.
Jaws
Every once in a while the right talented people are at the right place together and come up with a masterpiece. "Jaws" is definitely one of those movies, that is thanks to the amazing cast and the crew the classic masterpiece that it is today.
Let's face it, the story is dumb and silly and in a way very average. Spielberg magically turns the silly story into a tense exciting thriller with brilliant dialogue and classic scene's. Mark my words, "Jaws" is a movie that will never be considered outdated.
Everything in the movie works so well! The acting, the dialogue, the tension, the typical Spielberg humor, the music, everything! It's hard to name just one thing why this movie is such a masterpiece. It is the mix of everything combined that makes the movie work. Probably my favorite thing about the movie would be the dialogue, they are very raw and performed well by the perfect cast. Another thing of course would be the music and I'm not just talking about the main theme but about the entire musical score in general.
The cast is great but they are mainly great together. All of the Scheider/Shaw/Dreyfuss scene's are like three ingredients thrown together and the end result of it is pure gold.
And than Bruce the shark. Yes, he really looks believable even now days.
A real classic masterpiece that launched Spielberg's career
10/10
Let's face it, the story is dumb and silly and in a way very average. Spielberg magically turns the silly story into a tense exciting thriller with brilliant dialogue and classic scene's. Mark my words, "Jaws" is a movie that will never be considered outdated.
Everything in the movie works so well! The acting, the dialogue, the tension, the typical Spielberg humor, the music, everything! It's hard to name just one thing why this movie is such a masterpiece. It is the mix of everything combined that makes the movie work. Probably my favorite thing about the movie would be the dialogue, they are very raw and performed well by the perfect cast. Another thing of course would be the music and I'm not just talking about the main theme but about the entire musical score in general.
The cast is great but they are mainly great together. All of the Scheider/Shaw/Dreyfuss scene's are like three ingredients thrown together and the end result of it is pure gold.
And than Bruce the shark. Yes, he really looks believable even now days.
A real classic masterpiece that launched Spielberg's career
10/10
puss in boots
I was able to see the San Francisco premiere for Puss N' Boots last night. I would say the audience was about 50% children and 50% adults. The movie was shown in 3D and I would definitely recommend it.
The star of the movie was definitely Banderas's Puss. If you liked the character from previous movies, you will not be disappointed. Salma Hayak as Kitty Softpaws was decent enough although not very memorable in any way. And finally, Zach Galifianakis's Humpty Dumpty will be a polarizing character in my opinion. If you thought Rumpelstiltskin from Shrek Forever After was a tad on the annoying side, I think you'll feel the same way about Humpty Dumpty.
Anyways, the story is good. The integration of former players in nursery rhymes and fairy tales is seamless. And the comedy is standard Shrek-style delivering lots of laughs for children and the occasional adult-only joke (some very funny).
The visuals are stunning. And the music is fantastic. It almost felt like an action-packed spaghetti western with a Latin flavor. I definitely enjoyed myself. I also talked to quite a few people afterwords and the consensus was that the children all loved it and the adults kept using the word "cute" in so many different ways to describe their feelings about the movie.
The star of the movie was definitely Banderas's Puss. If you liked the character from previous movies, you will not be disappointed. Salma Hayak as Kitty Softpaws was decent enough although not very memorable in any way. And finally, Zach Galifianakis's Humpty Dumpty will be a polarizing character in my opinion. If you thought Rumpelstiltskin from Shrek Forever After was a tad on the annoying side, I think you'll feel the same way about Humpty Dumpty.
Anyways, the story is good. The integration of former players in nursery rhymes and fairy tales is seamless. And the comedy is standard Shrek-style delivering lots of laughs for children and the occasional adult-only joke (some very funny).
The visuals are stunning. And the music is fantastic. It almost felt like an action-packed spaghetti western with a Latin flavor. I definitely enjoyed myself. I also talked to quite a few people afterwords and the consensus was that the children all loved it and the adults kept using the word "cute" in so many different ways to describe their feelings about the movie.
jack & jill
What in god's name has made the great Al Pacino THIS desperate? Now, no one on this planet would ever go into an Adam Sandler film expecting something brilliant, but generally, at worst, his films are stupidly entertaining. However, his latest film, "Jack and Jill" is so astoundingly horrible, I am not even sure how to articulate how truly bad it is in a way I will capture the remorse one will feel for having spent money to see it.
I went to the premiere, so all it cost me was (a thankfully short) ninety-three minutes.
This time around, Adam Sandler plays a commercial producer whose twin sister, also played by Sandler, comes to visit and...and... You know, I am not even going to waste time describing the plot of this film as it's not ever important enough to bother mention, but it involves cameos by all sorts of (evidently desperate) people from Sandler's impressive rolodex...including Al Pacino.
Yep, Sandler's rolodex is the only impressive thing to note about this film.
If you have seen the trailer, you have seen any and all even remotely noteworthy moments from this otherwise act of tedium. It is not funny, it is not clever, it is not even so bad, it's tolerable. Every single thing about this film is beyond grating.
Seriously. Up until now, the year's worst film was "Red Riding Hood." This film makes that one seem like an artistic stroke of genius. I was uncomfortable just watching it as I wondered what every single why every single person on screen did in their lives to agree to be a part of this...train wreck. Hell, even a train wreck deserves curiosity.
AND on top of all this, it stars KATIE HOLMES. That alone bears noting that if you are dumb enough to still see this film, make sure you have nothing lethal within arm's reach.
I went to the premiere, so all it cost me was (a thankfully short) ninety-three minutes.
This time around, Adam Sandler plays a commercial producer whose twin sister, also played by Sandler, comes to visit and...and... You know, I am not even going to waste time describing the plot of this film as it's not ever important enough to bother mention, but it involves cameos by all sorts of (evidently desperate) people from Sandler's impressive rolodex...including Al Pacino.
Yep, Sandler's rolodex is the only impressive thing to note about this film.
If you have seen the trailer, you have seen any and all even remotely noteworthy moments from this otherwise act of tedium. It is not funny, it is not clever, it is not even so bad, it's tolerable. Every single thing about this film is beyond grating.
Seriously. Up until now, the year's worst film was "Red Riding Hood." This film makes that one seem like an artistic stroke of genius. I was uncomfortable just watching it as I wondered what every single why every single person on screen did in their lives to agree to be a part of this...train wreck. Hell, even a train wreck deserves curiosity.
AND on top of all this, it stars KATIE HOLMES. That alone bears noting that if you are dumb enough to still see this film, make sure you have nothing lethal within arm's reach.
300
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'll be looking at three specific areas of the film: historical inaccuracy, representational issues, and a general critique based on film-making.
Once established that a film is fictional, in other words not historically accurate, it shouldn't matter whether it is accurate or not. However, the way the filmmakers deal with that abstracting of reality can disturb those who are knowledgeable about the subject, or who are simple keen on common sense. In other words, certain choices don't make sense, don't seem valid within the context of the fiction, or perhaps gear themselves more towards low-culture language/symbolism (ie Hollywood clichés). When information is taken from, in this case, the historically realistic, it still must be reassembled in valid manner. If you add a talking dragon to a King Arthur movie, there should be some explanation as to why it is there, and if it breathes flying sheep instead of fire then it contradicts the common conception of a dragon. Ultimately, it comes down to an intelligent use of elements that are abstracted from reality.
One of my problems with 300 is that I think it did a poor job of doing this. The fact that there's monsters and fictional creatures in the story is fine. What isn't fine are things like, dull blades that can cut a man's leg clean off in one swing, men who fight with a cross between WWE and matrix-style fighting, a dude eating a random red apple after a fight, other random choices that don't make sense (Japanese masks on the Persian soldiers), etc. In Kill Bill the Hansu sword didn't bother me when it cut off limb after limb, because there was a valid explanation/premise behind it. In 300 you get this huge abstraction of the phalanx, running bare-chested through a bluescreened field, throwing spears and magically killing thousands of men. In the large picture of 300, the fighting wasn't *that* bad, the Spartan soldiers would get hurt and there weren't many "Chuck Norris"-like BS moments. But I was not moved by any of it. There was no technique behind it.
As for the representational issues, I've heard many points and counter points: that it is a huge insult to Iran and Persian culture, that the film is only based on a comic book so this doesn't matter, that white people are the good guys and blacks and Arabs are the bad guys, etc. It all comes down to this: this is a Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros, picture. One good thing about modern Hollywood is that they cater to the mass audience and thus are usually considerate about race issues and whatnot. It is their responsibility. This film was extremely, extremely ignorant in its defamation of Persian/Iranian culture/history and its use of race in good vs evil. It *does not matter* what was in the comic book. Frank Miller can write whatever he wants in a comic book, because it is a very abstract medium that is taken for granted as "cartoonish." When Warner Bros. decides to ADAPT this comic into a live film, it is an entirely different deal. They had to realize all these hidden and obvious implications, and how ignorant and insulting it is. This film single-handedly mocks millions, millions of people. WB could have adapted any comic book into a film, any of Miller's other works. It was just a bad move to make this film, and that's all there is to it. No one could argue that an alternative script selection could have turned out worse. Nevertheless, 300 was made.
As for Iranians, I've heard/seen some reasonable negative reactions, and some unreasonable, uneducated reactions. I honestly don't think that most Iranians have the knowledge required of the film industry in order to properly assess a film such as in this situation. Most Americans don't even. But ultimately, there was no reason for them to receive this stupid insult of 300, and I feel ashamed to be in any way associated with it.
Getting to the more technical critique of the film: there was WAY too much post production, the writing and actor direction were HORRIBLE, there was zero character development, one-dimensional everything, everything was a caricature with no followable emotional track or realism, and so forth. The speeding up and slowing down of the film tried to emphasize certain actions and imbue it with drama or power, but instead was distracting and amateurish. EVERY single shot was over-color-corrected and looked like crap, it was so obvious to tell. The acting consisted of a few extremely cliché, hyper-masculine dramatic speeches, stealing from every epic film ranging from Braveheart to Last Samurai. The actors ONLY yelled. There was a scene where one soldier cried, but this added nothing. No one cared when people died because no one grew to know any of the characters. They only showed one side of themselves, they were caricatures. The actual content of their lines was disgraceful and rested at a 5th grade reading level. The director's choice to make the characters like football players or wrestlers, instead of increasing the power of the characters, made them incredibly fake and ineffective; whereas giving them moments of desperation, doubt, or any other realistic emotion could have lended to making them more powerful. Imagine one of the last scenes in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is being tortured in public. Now, imagine him having been a total emotionless A-hole the whole film, and instead of yelling "freedom" in a last cry, he yells it like a football player who doesn't give a crap. That was what 300 was like.
Anyway, I felt obligated to write against this film, though I never usually write reviews. I originally gave it a 6 because it didn't seem *that* bad, but am lowering it to a 4 because of the actual HARM it is doing to other people.
Once established that a film is fictional, in other words not historically accurate, it shouldn't matter whether it is accurate or not. However, the way the filmmakers deal with that abstracting of reality can disturb those who are knowledgeable about the subject, or who are simple keen on common sense. In other words, certain choices don't make sense, don't seem valid within the context of the fiction, or perhaps gear themselves more towards low-culture language/symbolism (ie Hollywood clichés). When information is taken from, in this case, the historically realistic, it still must be reassembled in valid manner. If you add a talking dragon to a King Arthur movie, there should be some explanation as to why it is there, and if it breathes flying sheep instead of fire then it contradicts the common conception of a dragon. Ultimately, it comes down to an intelligent use of elements that are abstracted from reality.
One of my problems with 300 is that I think it did a poor job of doing this. The fact that there's monsters and fictional creatures in the story is fine. What isn't fine are things like, dull blades that can cut a man's leg clean off in one swing, men who fight with a cross between WWE and matrix-style fighting, a dude eating a random red apple after a fight, other random choices that don't make sense (Japanese masks on the Persian soldiers), etc. In Kill Bill the Hansu sword didn't bother me when it cut off limb after limb, because there was a valid explanation/premise behind it. In 300 you get this huge abstraction of the phalanx, running bare-chested through a bluescreened field, throwing spears and magically killing thousands of men. In the large picture of 300, the fighting wasn't *that* bad, the Spartan soldiers would get hurt and there weren't many "Chuck Norris"-like BS moments. But I was not moved by any of it. There was no technique behind it.
As for the representational issues, I've heard many points and counter points: that it is a huge insult to Iran and Persian culture, that the film is only based on a comic book so this doesn't matter, that white people are the good guys and blacks and Arabs are the bad guys, etc. It all comes down to this: this is a Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros, picture. One good thing about modern Hollywood is that they cater to the mass audience and thus are usually considerate about race issues and whatnot. It is their responsibility. This film was extremely, extremely ignorant in its defamation of Persian/Iranian culture/history and its use of race in good vs evil. It *does not matter* what was in the comic book. Frank Miller can write whatever he wants in a comic book, because it is a very abstract medium that is taken for granted as "cartoonish." When Warner Bros. decides to ADAPT this comic into a live film, it is an entirely different deal. They had to realize all these hidden and obvious implications, and how ignorant and insulting it is. This film single-handedly mocks millions, millions of people. WB could have adapted any comic book into a film, any of Miller's other works. It was just a bad move to make this film, and that's all there is to it. No one could argue that an alternative script selection could have turned out worse. Nevertheless, 300 was made.
As for Iranians, I've heard/seen some reasonable negative reactions, and some unreasonable, uneducated reactions. I honestly don't think that most Iranians have the knowledge required of the film industry in order to properly assess a film such as in this situation. Most Americans don't even. But ultimately, there was no reason for them to receive this stupid insult of 300, and I feel ashamed to be in any way associated with it.
Getting to the more technical critique of the film: there was WAY too much post production, the writing and actor direction were HORRIBLE, there was zero character development, one-dimensional everything, everything was a caricature with no followable emotional track or realism, and so forth. The speeding up and slowing down of the film tried to emphasize certain actions and imbue it with drama or power, but instead was distracting and amateurish. EVERY single shot was over-color-corrected and looked like crap, it was so obvious to tell. The acting consisted of a few extremely cliché, hyper-masculine dramatic speeches, stealing from every epic film ranging from Braveheart to Last Samurai. The actors ONLY yelled. There was a scene where one soldier cried, but this added nothing. No one cared when people died because no one grew to know any of the characters. They only showed one side of themselves, they were caricatures. The actual content of their lines was disgraceful and rested at a 5th grade reading level. The director's choice to make the characters like football players or wrestlers, instead of increasing the power of the characters, made them incredibly fake and ineffective; whereas giving them moments of desperation, doubt, or any other realistic emotion could have lended to making them more powerful. Imagine one of the last scenes in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is being tortured in public. Now, imagine him having been a total emotionless A-hole the whole film, and instead of yelling "freedom" in a last cry, he yells it like a football player who doesn't give a crap. That was what 300 was like.
Anyway, I felt obligated to write against this film, though I never usually write reviews. I originally gave it a 6 because it didn't seem *that* bad, but am lowering it to a 4 because of the actual HARM it is doing to other people.
28 weeks later
Given that this time of year normally gives way to three-quels, kid friendly fayre or brainless blockbusters it's nice to have a proper 18 certificate horror film we can all go and see - without the worry of horror-lite 12A Hollywood horror, or 'lets try to gross out as much as possible' Hostel-a-like films.
Taking over directing duties from Danny Boyle is Juan Carlos Fresnadillo - and at just a shade over an hour and a half long - he has given us a great piece of well paced, atmospheric cinema, with more than enough moments in there to please fans of the original, as well as plenty in there for anyone new to movies' concept.
It's (funnily enough) 28 Weeks Later - and the infected have all died out, so it is now time to repopulate London. Cue more deserted streets, and a great opening which introduces us to the latest batch of protagonists to the rage virus - as well as lots of bored American soldiers - who whilst they don't actually add anything to the plot certainly keep the action moving.
Kudos to the producers for adding Robert Carlyle to the cast - who adds a certain vulnerability and air of menace to the role - think Begbie having a really really bad day - as well as a nicely rounded cast of supporting actors - including an impressive Imogen Poots, and Boyle alumni Rose Byrne.
Sure there are the usual horror staples to adhere to - stupid characters you just know are going to come to a sticky end, caricature soldiers to name but two - but ultimately you've got a well made film which is great to look at and, given a Spanish director surprisingly British horror movie that not only adds to the original but with the excellent ending certainly leaves the door open for Part 3.
Taking over directing duties from Danny Boyle is Juan Carlos Fresnadillo - and at just a shade over an hour and a half long - he has given us a great piece of well paced, atmospheric cinema, with more than enough moments in there to please fans of the original, as well as plenty in there for anyone new to movies' concept.
It's (funnily enough) 28 Weeks Later - and the infected have all died out, so it is now time to repopulate London. Cue more deserted streets, and a great opening which introduces us to the latest batch of protagonists to the rage virus - as well as lots of bored American soldiers - who whilst they don't actually add anything to the plot certainly keep the action moving.
Kudos to the producers for adding Robert Carlyle to the cast - who adds a certain vulnerability and air of menace to the role - think Begbie having a really really bad day - as well as a nicely rounded cast of supporting actors - including an impressive Imogen Poots, and Boyle alumni Rose Byrne.
Sure there are the usual horror staples to adhere to - stupid characters you just know are going to come to a sticky end, caricature soldiers to name but two - but ultimately you've got a well made film which is great to look at and, given a Spanish director surprisingly British horror movie that not only adds to the original but with the excellent ending certainly leaves the door open for Part 3.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)