Thursday's Reviews
Oldboy (2003)
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/images/oldboy.jpg Oldboy is stylish revenge thriller, in which Oh Dae-su, played by Choi Min-sik, is mysteriously kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years before being equally mysteriously released with the mission to find out who imprisoned him, and more importantly, why. The tension between Oh Dae-su’s thirst for revenge and his dependence on his tormentor for the reason for his captivity makes this a cut above your standard revenge movie plot; although there is vengeance of unflinching brutality, it is the unwrapping of the puzzle surrounding Dae-su’s kidnap which drives the plot. The violence and sheer horror of some of the events in the film would be difficult to stomach were they not perfectly counterbalanced by the equally extraordinary beauty in the colours, music and visual inventiveness. Korean director Park Chan-Wook’s style is a masterclass in how to handle ultraviolence with restraint and class (take note, Mr. Tarantino). The most disturbing parts of the film are not the most violent or showy, but the quiet scenes, such as the flashback to what happened at the school between Woo-jin and Soo-ah. Without giving too much away, I also liked the shadowing within the film – Dae-Su taking revenge on Woo-Jin, while Woo-jin takes revenge on him; Dae-Su’s arrest at the very beginning foreshadowing his subsequent kidnap and imprisonment. This film has been unfairly criticised by some for being contrived and unrealistic which is quite unfair, as Oldboy doesn’t inhabit the real world, it inhabits a hyper-real film world where everything is intensified – including colour, sound, and the abilities of both the protagonist and antagonist. To sum up, a work of quite dizzying brilliance. 5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Good review of a great film. Glad you started a review thread. I'll definitely be checking back for new ones! :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Leather Boys (1964)
http://www.movieforums.com/community...a13d2b2fd0.bmp If the idea of a British kitchen-sink drama from the 60's doesn't appeal to you, hold on, don't stop reading! I must admit that it didn't appeal to me either, at first, but I was pleasantly surprised by this film, which is apparently quite well-regarded by many people, including Morrissey. Watching it, I realised that although it is, in part, a domestic drama, following a young couple who marry young but find their expectations of marriage wildly different, and although there are plenty of arguments, it isn't nearly as grim as the phrase kitchen sink drama led me to believe it would be. Rita Tushingham plays Dot, who gets married chiefly in order to leave home, not have to get a job and be able to get her hair dyed. Dot was a sadly believable character, excited by all the possibilities of being married and grown up, but less keen on the responsibilities - like cooking, cleaning or putting up with her husband's family. The film seems to shift its focus onto Reggie, the husband, whose irritation with his wife is channeled into his growing interest in motorbikes - where he makes a new friend, Pete, who, inevitably, has a more than friendly interest in Reggie. There are moments of dark humour - such as Reggie's family's attempts to move his Nan into an old people's home. British viewers may also laugh at Johnny Briggs (Coronation Street's Mike Baldwin) who appears as Dot's beau. There is nothing extraordinary about this film, but the way it blends moments of tenderness and the characters' youthful hopes with moments of bleakness which makes it compelling. I liked the way it slowly becomes clear that it is not so much outside forces but the characters' own flaws and their inability to tolerate each others' flaws that stand in the way of their happiness. A must-watch if you are at all interested in the period detail - the motorbike cafe and the honeymoon at Butlins stand out. If you are interested in gay film, as well, this, alongside the more overt Victim (1961) is an interesting example. 4/5 *Review edited and revised from a post in Movie Tab |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Glad to see you've joined the 'Big, Long Opinion' club, Thursday. :D
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Red Road (2006)
http://images.contactmusic.com/image...3x10x06xmc.jpg Red Road, the debut feature of Andrea Arnold, concerns a woman, Jackie, played by Kate Dickie, whose job involves watching CCTV footage of the streets of Glasgow. One day, she sees a face from her past on camera, leading to obsession. To say more than this would spoil the film, not because it relies on plot twists, but because it is the atmosphere of tension and dread suffusing the film which make it what it is. Red Road, the ‘first British dogma film’, is one of three films by different directors using the same characters and actors. It won the Jury Prize at Cannes 2006 and Arnold won the BAFTA in 2007 for most promising newcomer. These were well deserved wins, in my opinion. The direction is excellent, seeing the city through CCTV cameras add a layer of menace and detachment. It is an ideal visual style for a film about a woman who watches the minutiae of other people’s lives, but seems detached from life herself. Colours are used very deliberately and the menacing tower blocks of the title become almost a character in themselves. The central performances are strong, effectively conveying the characters’ guilt, grief, regret and compassion. You do not need to understand why Jackie is obsessed with Clyde to feel that her obsession rings true. Red Road is not without its flaws – the confrontation which takes place towards the end of the film is not quite as cathartic for the viewer as it is for Jackie, for example. It is certainly not for everyone – there is a particularly strong sex scene which although essential to both the plot and tone of the film may be too much for some. It isn’t perfect, but it is extremely powerful, and a more than promising debut from a director to watch in the future. 4.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Jude (1996)
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...80px-Jude1.jpg The first of Michael Winterbottom’s Hardy adaptations, Jude removes most of ‘the obscure’ from the content as well as the title, which is no bad thing. A stripped down version of the novel, Jude does away with Hardy’s political ranting about marriage to concentrate on the eponymous hero, a stonemason with dreams of going to university in Christminster and his doomed relationship with his cousin, Sue Bridehead. The relationship is not unlike the forbidden relationship explored in Winterbottom’s 2003 film, Code 46, but slightly more successful, mostly due to strong performances from the leads, Christpher Eccleston and Kate Winslet. Eccleston, always good value, effectively conveys Jude’s descent from optimism to despair as he loses everything he loves and hopes for in his life. Winslet is convincing in a difficult role as the free-spirited, odd Sue who eventually succumbs to a religious mania brought on by grief. It is a solid enough film, but can’t quite seem to decide whether it wants to be modern and edgy in feel, or a traditional costume drama, and gritty scenes are undermined by a slowing down in pace and traditional music. A small point, but although the deaths of animals and the birth scene are horribly realistic, the dead children did not all look realistic, which took away some of the impact of that scene. If there is one thing you can expect from a Michael Winterbottom film (and his films are so diverse in other respects it is perhaps the only constant), it is frank nudity and sex scenes. These are present and correct in Jude, although the question of Sue's sexual relationship with her husband is skimmed over. The ending felt too abrupt, although after the wallow in misery the final part of the film becomes, it is not entirely unwelcome. In the end, the biggest problem with the film is simply the story itself. And finally…Jude is also notable for a scene in which both the most recent Dr. Who’s are on screen together, Eccleston joined in a bar scene by David Tennant playing a ‘drunk undergraduate’! 3.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Gegen die Wand (Head On)
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_...wand-33644.jpg Gegen die Wand, which translates more literally as ‘against the wall’, a much more apt title, is a brilliant story of love and redemption. Cahit (Birol Unel) is a washed-up 40-something German-Turkish ‘dosser’ with an alcohol problem. One night, he crashes his car into a wall. Sent to a clinic for the suicidal, he meets Sibel (Sibel Kekilli), who will do anything to escape her oppressive Turkish family, including asking Cahit to enter into a marriage of convenience. At first surly and distrustful, Cahit inevitably falls in love with Sibel, even though she is enjoying her new found freedom by pursuing one night stands and drugs. So far, so Greencard, albeit with more sex and drugs. The first half of the film is very funny – Cahit’s visit to his prospective in-laws, complete with fake uncle and non-alcoholic chocolates, is a highlight. But one fatal mistake in a bar sends the film spinning off into another direction, and the second half is much more downbeat with Sibel’s flight to Istanbul and the problems she encounters there, leading to a bittersweet conclusion. Written and directed by Fatih Akýn, Gegen die Wand manages to feel real and life-affirming, without ever becoming too heavy and miserable or too light and cheesy. It is a fine balance which is difficult to pull off, but Akýn succeeds, assisted by some very believable performances from his cast. The love story is very convincing, with the characters slowly realising their feelings for one another. The soundtrack, a fusion of traditional Turkish music and the kind of goth-rock you would expect to hear in German nightclubs, is perfect for the film. This is not just the best German film ever made, it is one of the best films ever made anywhere in the world. It is impossible to praise this film highly enough. 5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (2005)
http://www.vivid.ro/vivid75/pictures...elazarescu.jpg Mr. Lazarescu is a 62 year old man who phones an ambulance after experiencing headaches and stomach cramps. The film follows his progress as he is taken from one hospital to another, asked the same questions, examined and ignored by doctors and given increasingly serious diagnoses of his condition until, eventually, he dies. Sounds awful? It isn't. This Romanian film is not, as the quote from the Guardian on the cover of the dvd would have it, a ‘comic masterpiece’, by any stretch of the imagination. It is rather a searing indictment of the medical profession and humanity at large. Everybody Mr. Lazarescu meets is more occupied by their own concerns than his illness, from the neighbours who don’t want to ruin their Saturday night by going with him to the hospital to the arrogant doctors in one appalling scene who ignore the paramedic’s pleas for them to operate quickly, preferring instead to harangue her for daring to give a medical opinion when it is they who are the doctors. Filmed almost in real-time, with long takes, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu is the antithesis of flashy medical dramas like E.R. or House. Instead of a race against time to save lives, here a life slips away while time is wasted. By turns fascinating, boring, grim and above all, frustrating, this feels very close to real life on screen, albeit with a deliberate path. The banal conversations of the medical staff ring true. And yet somehow the film itself is anything but ordinary. The cleverness of the film, for me, was in the way that his trips to various hospitals and conversations with different doctors at first appear to be repetitions – they tell him off for drinking and initially assume that he is only suffering from a hangover – but it gradually becomes clear that Mr. Lazarescu’s journey is a downward spiral. Each time the diagnosis is more serious, time is clearly running out and yet he is getting further away rather than closer to salvation. Mr. Lazarescu himself slowly slips from a spirited and cantankerous, if scruffy, old man, to a weak, confused and frightened patient, to a still corpse, in an excellent performance by Iaon Fiscuteanu. It is not an easy film to watch, certainly, at times it is quite dull, although you are never in doubt that this is entirely deliberate. It is, however, quite mesmerising. Worth watching, it will stay with you for some time afterwards. 4/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for the great reviews :yup: I have added a few to my must see list, Thanks :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for reading :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I believe that there might be some humor in Death of Mr. Lazarescu, but most of it has been lost in translation.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by emir (Post 382813)
I believe that there might be some humor in Death of Mr. Lazarescu, but most of it has been lost in translation.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by Thursday Next (Post 382814)
Possibly. Or else it was just too oblique for me! The one thing I did find funny was when the doctor in the first hospital, having spent ages haranguing Mr. Lazarescu for drinking, asks him if he smokes, then says, 'good, keep it up'. :laugh:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Gohatto (Taboo) (1999)
http://www.filmkrant.nl/av/org/filmk...12/gohatto.jpg What exactly is the ‘taboo’ of the title? With whom is the central character in love, if anybody? What kind of mysterious power does he possess? What is the film about? Is it, in fact a good film at all? If this review is more questions than facts or even opinion, it is because the film itself is more about questions than answers, more about mystery and beauty than plot or character. Sozaburo Kano becomes a Samurai and enters a strange world ruled by loyalty, secrecy, ritual and violence. The Samurai possess a code of honour which requires the execution early in the film of a fellow samurai who has violated this code by borrowing money. Kano is chosen to carry out this task and it is this initiation by blood and the pleasure both he and those watching him seem to take in this act of violence that give a clue to the aims and themes of the film. Tashiro joins the Samurai at the same time and is instantly smitten by Kano; he is the first of many who become maddened with desire for the beautiful, enigmatic, androgynous Kano. The film is largely seen through the eyes of Captain Toshizo Hijikata, who may or may not be one of those in love with him. The film is not so much a puzzle with a solution as a visual poem mediating on the nature and contradiction of beauty and violence and the dangers of desire. There are even times during the film where the story is told through titles on a black screen rather than performed by the actors, adding to the poetic effect. The final scene in which Captain Hijikata cuts down a blossom tree is loaded with symbolism, but the reasons for certain actions and the nature of certain relationships remain maddeningly elusive. This could lead people to view it as a film with no point; but I think to see it that way would be to miss the point of the film; like the story told by one Samurai to another towards the end of the film, it could have many interpretations. It is also clear that this is a lost and foreign culture, the rules and taboos of which are probably beyond our comprehension. Visual poems, however, have their limitations. It is frustrating to watch a film with no answers, where we cannot tell what the characters are thinking. For a film whose main themes are sexuality and violence, it is surprisingly short on both. As with Kano himself, Gohatto is lovely to look at, but sometimes it isn’t easy to tell if there really is any depth or feeling behind the beauty, or whether we have been beguiled by beauty alone. 3/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Great review Wednesday :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 384270)
Great review Wednesday :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
No sorry :(
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Der Untergang (Downfall) (2004)
An extraordinary film of humanity and monstrosity, Der Untergang is the story of the last days of Hitler and the third Reich. To the film’s credit, the scope is much broader than the downfall of one man: the film continues a good 45 minutes after Hitler’s suicide, showing the effect of the war and the collapse of the Reich on those left to pick up the pieces – secretaries, soldiers, children. Bruno Ganz gives an astonishing performance as Adolf Hitler, so much so that by the end of the film I had trouble picturing Hitler without picturing Ganz. Hitler ages visibly throughout the course of the film, he becomes frailer, weaker and his physical tics – a shaking hand most noticeably – become more pronounced. The downfall is not merely physical, however, the arrogant pride of a dictator slowly gives way to suicidal resignation. Downfall is an important film in that it is a German film about German history and in that it shows us Nazis as human beings. This is not to say it in any way makes excuses for the violence of the regime. Nazis were human, and to simply demonise them as the cartoon villains would be to pretend that what happened could not happen again. Here we see those who are brave, cowardly, cruel and caring. They laugh, they cry, they fight, they love. There are those who are in the wrong place in the wrong time, those who have no choice and, yes, those who are downright evil and insane. Into this last category fall Goebbels and his wife, who, in one of the film’s most horrifying sequences, gives sleeping potion to her six children by pretending it is medicine, murders them one by one in their sleep before sitting down and playing a card game. But it is not only in content and political and historical importance that Der Untergang is a noteworthy film. Stylistically it is also very effective. To watch the film is to be in the bunker or on the streets of Berlin. The sound is essential in creating the mood – the hum of machines, the echo of boots in the corridor. There were also some striking shots, conversations glimpsed through doorways - altogether it is quite mesmerising to watch. There is a pervasive atmosphere of doom, lights flicker, soldiers get drunk, lynch mobs and orphaned child-soldiers roam through the rubble of Berlin. The horror and madness of war are represented convincingly – soldiers of a war already lost line up to receive medals in a busy hospital while their comrades scream and die around them. The pace of the film may put off less patient movie-goers; at nearly 3 hours long it is not a snappy action flick, despite no lack of explosions and shootings, but it is ideal for creating a sense of realism and showing that the downfall of the title is not so much a dramatic toppling as a slow ‘going under’, as Der Untergang could be more strictly translated. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/meeting02.jpg 5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Counterfeiters (Die Fälscher)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...ews/8794_1.jpg The Counterfeiters is really about one counterfeiter, Salomon Sorowitsch, who we first encounter as he checks into a hotel and visits a casino, shortly after the Second World War. Part way through a night of passion, the girl Saloman has picked up at the casino – and the audience – discover a number tattooed onto his arm, and make the realisation that he has been in a concentration camp. The rest of the film is a flashback back to those days, beginning with the night of Sorowitch’s arrest. This framing device is significant, because as Saloman sips champagne pensively alone at a table and thinks back on his time in the camps, it is almost as if this is the first time he has allowed himself to think back and reflect on what has happened to him. Sorowitsch is different from the other Jews he is incarcerated with in that he is a criminal, arrested for his counterfeiting, but ultimately prized by the Nazis for this ability, as they want to manufacture pound and dollar notes to disrupt the British and US economies. For some in the camps this makes him an object of fear or disdain, for others, an object of admiration. As a career criminal, though, he is focussed one thing: saving his own skin. This brings him into conflict with idealist Adolf Burger (August Diehl, in a memorable performance), who wants to sabotage the counterfeiting programme as a way of getting back at the Nazis. The tension underpinning this film is not whether Sorowitsch will survive: we know from the beginning that he does. The nail-biting question is how will he survive? Will he sell out his fellow prisoners? Will he collaborate with the amoral Sturmbannführer or will he sabotage the programme? The morality of the film is complicated by the Nazi threats to shoot prisoners unless they start producing results. The film gives us both sides of the question, with some prisoners arguing for survival and others for sacrifice. There are, of course, no easy answers. On the downside, some of the characterisation doesn’t move beyond the cliché – there is the second in command of the camp who is a simplistic thug, the obvious counterpoint to the treacherously friendly Sturmbannführer; then there is the young Russian student with the cough whom Sorowitsch befriends. At one point, one character receives a letter telling him that his wife has died in Auschwitz – would a concentration camp prisoner really receive letters from Auschwitz? And while thought-provoking, the film lacks any real stylistic flair. 4/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by Thursday Next (Post 384325)
Just out of interest, have you seen the film? I'd love to discuss it on here; tried searching but got nothing, so I guess it doesn't have a discussion already...
One thing to consider if you haven't seen any other Oshima films is that he's not trying to create a film that reads so much as a story or character "study" (meaning something that rewards you when you study the characters?) as an aesthetic*. I read a comment of Oshima's from I think the 60s or 70s where he was on a kick to re-imagine Japan by "banishing" greens from his compositions. This may have been referring to In the Realm of Senses. About the title, it could be that I'm forgetting something significant, but I don't remember much emphasis on the taboo nature of the situation in the film, it seemed more to be about everyone being physically attracted to that one character and the object of their affections being basically sinister and laying some sort of inscrutable trap for them using sexual desire. In that sense it kind of reminds me of certain femme fatale characters like Linda Fiorentino's in The Last Seduction. There are some similarities and differences both in the movies and in my reactions to them. In Seduction the character's motivation is ultimately readable, in Taboo the character is opaque (I'm pretty sure) even after the plot has been revealed. I don't know if you can say one is better than the other on this basis alone though. If the point is how people can be seduced by surface alone is it necessary or even desirable to even show the mundane self-interest lurking beneath or is it enough just to convey readable malicious intent and deception/self-deception? I guess one gets you wrapped in the characters by revealing more and is therefor more memorable (at least to me) but I'm not sure which approach I admire more. I would have to re-watch Oshima's film before even considering committing to either approach. You might want to check out Oshima's In the Realm of Senses which is about similar sensual obsessions but from what I've seen of it (about the first half hour) seemed to be a little more engaging. It also was a lot more explicit in the sex dept. I think. Any of this help a-tall? *note that these ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive but it's possible that the director wanted to emphasize the latter by reducing or sublimating the former. |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
By the way, I just looked up the original title Gohatto (御法度) in my kanji dictionary, and the definitions it gives are: law, ordinance; prohibition. Don't know if that clarifies anything.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks Linespalsy, interesting to hear another pov on this film! I think you are right on many points. 'Opaque' is certainly a good word to describe the film and the main character. It seemed to me that even though the film focussed on this one character, it was never about character exactly, but more about his aesthetic. I wasn't sure that I really liked the film at the time, but appreciated it more while I was writing my review as I felt I was beginning to understand some of the director's intentions.
As you say, plot and character and aesthetic are not mutually exclusive and personally I'd prefer a film with both, but I suppose we've become a bit used to films focussing on the former while neglecting the visual potential of films. Still, it was interesting, and I wouldn't be averse to watching some more Oshima films to compare. |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Innocence (2004)
http://pequenoscinerastas.files.word...enceposter.jpg Lucile Hadzihalilovic apparently announced that her debut film would be a horror film. Instead, she has created something more subtly disturbing; a boarding school film which behaves like a horror film. The Company of Wolves without the wolves. From the lingering opening shots of bubbling water and echoing gothic tunnels, Hadzihalilovic uses the trappings of a horror film, especially the claustrophobic camera angles, to create an atmosphere of creeping apprehension. Iris is the newest pupil – or inmate – of a bizarre boarding school for girls, in which girls arrive in coffins, wear coloured ribbons corresponding to their ages and in which the eldest disappear each night for reasons at first kept secret. The school grounds are a mixture of wild, natural woodland and swimming lake, gothic buildings and tunnels and a path lit oddly by electric lights. They are not permitted to leave, or have any contact with the outside world. There are only two teachers, Mademoiselle Edith, the science teacher, and Mademoiselle Eva, the ballet teacher (played by the beautiful Marion Cotillard) and a handful of servants. The film is essentially a mystery, reminiscent in some ways of Picnic at Hanging Rock. Why are the girls there? What happens when they leave? It is not spoiling the film to say that while some questions are answered, even more are raised. In a way, when some questions are answered it is almost disappointing. In raising so many questions, leaving so many pauses and hinting at so many possibilities, the film leaves it up to the viewer to imagine the outcome. The title is deliberately chosen. The film has attracted some criticism for its potential to appeal to paedophiles – in other words there is occasional nudity. But surely pre-pubescent girls stripping off to swim is entirely innocent – it is only our adult perceptions and fears that turn this into something sinister. Innocence itself is explored in the behaviour of the girls – the youngest girls form innocent but jealous attachments to the eldest. A jealous orange ribboned girl throws rocks at Iris towards the start of the film, and for a while you wonder whether the film is going to turn into a Lord of the Flies style scenario. The innocence in the film is the innocence of nature, it is sometimes cruel and not always good. It is the style, atmosphere and the mystery which make this film what it is; I don’t know how well it would stand up to a second viewing, but with so many unanswered questions it needs one nonetheless. In a film like this it is hard to tell whether things unexplained are deliberate or are flaws in the plotting, but the way missing girls were replaced was never really made clear which bothered me slightly. Boarding school drama, horror film, gothic fantasy, mystery, allegory for girlhood, exploration of innocence, an exercise in style and misdirection – Innocence is all of these. 4.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I haven't even heard of this one. I'll definitely be checking it out. Thanks for the great review!
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Candy (2006)
http://www.ica.org.uk/thumbnail.php?id=413&max=408 Candy is a miserable, yet poetic, Australian film about two people whose lives are defined by drugs. The Candy of the title is a beautiful young art student (Abbie Cornish), but it is also the cocaine and heroin which is at first a pleasure, then an addiction, then a nightmare for her and her lover, Dan (Heath Ledger). Any film about drugs walks a fine line between glamorising drug abuse and preaching against it, but Candy manages to strike the right balance. There is an honesty and realism about the portrayal of the good, bad and ugly sides of addiction, as the film spins from the giddy young couple in love to the realities of prostitution and crime to pay for their habit, through failed attempts at getting clean which allows you to believe in it as a story, not as a commentary about drugs. The performances are strong, especially from the two leads. Notable amongst the supporting cast are Candy’s overbearing, disapproving mother and the excellent Geoffrey Rush in a more ambiguous role as the couple’s friend/dealer. I liked the scene near the start where Candy overdoses whilst in the bath. Dan is distraught, trying to revive her, and watching it, you half expect this to be the end. But it is only the beginning, and you realise that if that experience doesn’t scare them off drugs, none of their other experiences will either. Yet you feel for the characters, you want them to succeed, to get free and get clean and make decent lives for themselves, even as you know they are spiralling out of control. The chemistry between Cornish and Ledger is convincing enough to make you believe in their romance, which is the heart of the drama. There are harrowing scenes in this film, and frank discussion about prostitution. It is not always easy to watch, and sometimes it is a little drawn out, but it is filmed in a way which blends realism with poetry, and the beautiful moments make the ugly ones bearable. Although perhaps that’s what Candy and Dan think about the drugs, too. 3.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for the great review :yup: It is one of those movies that I have watched and, felt exhausted at the end :yup: it is harrowing in parts :yup: I will watch it again after some time has passed :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by nebbit (Post 406829)
It is one of those movies that I have watched and, felt exhausted at the end :yup: it is harrowing in parts :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by Thursday Next (Post 406940)
I liked that although it was harrowing in parts, it is always believable rather than manipulative.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Just to say I'm enjoying reading your reviews Thurs :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by christine (Post 406959)
Just to say I'm enjoying reading your reviews Thurs :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Scarface (1983)
http://www.horroria.com/i/nstills/06...670-241766.jpg “Nothing exceeds like excess.” Is Scarface the ultimate eighties movie? As trashy and flashy as a Duran Duran video, Brian De Palma’s remake of Howard Hawks’ 1932 gangster classic certainly captures the fabled ‘greed is good’ mantra of the eighties. Following the story of Cuban immigrant Tony Montana as he builds a drugs empire from scratch, we see the lures and the lurid horror of capitalism and the pursuit of the idea ‘the world is yours’. It is this pinpointing of the eighties zeitgeist which makes this remake successful in its own right, even when the ideas, characters and even images are not original; and it is true that in some respects it hasn’t much to add to the 1932 film besides bright red blood, neon lights and a patchy synth soundtrack. While some of the music is quite good, there are excruciating moments in the score where a shooting on screen is accompanied by overly dramatic punctuation from the accompanying synthesizers. But can you accuse Scarface of being overly dramatic? Isn’t that the point? It is a grand operatic, violently melodramatic soap opera. It is supposed to be over the top, in the way that Tony’s hideously vulgar furniture for his empire once he has made it is supposed to be over the top. It is unfailingly enjoyable, but also more knowing than it at first appears. At first I dismissed Scarface as lacking the polish of a Scorsese and the irony of a Tarantino – but it is not without the beginnings of both of these. Hints of self-referential post-modernism creep in when a stoned Tony tells a busy restaurant of aghast diners “You need me, I’m the bad guy!” Pacino puts in a bravura performance as the anti-heroic Montana, although I have to say I was never completely convinced by his Cuban accent. Scarface is the story of one man’s rise and fall, the qualities of ruthlessness and greed which get him to the top become his downfall as he alienates (or kills) those close to him and violates the golden rule ‘don’t get high on your own supply’. 4/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks the review of one of my favourites :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Edge of Heaven (Auf der Anderen Seite)
Last night I saw The Edge of Heaven (Auf der Anderen Seite), from Head-On (Gegen die Wand) director Fatih Akin. As you can see, Gegen die Wand is in my top 10 film list, so comparisons with the earlier film are inevitable. First off, The Edge of Heaven is not as energetic or as focussed as Gegen die Wand. There are rather too many main characters with the focus shifting between them. And while there are some beautifully shot sequences, it is never quite as stunning or as brutal. In many ways, the two films share common themes and ideas - both deal with the tensions between German and Turkish culture and cultural identity; in both, accidental murders are the catalysts for journeys of self-discovery to Turkey; accidental meetings and near misses shape destinies as much as deliberate choices. And, like Gegen die Wand - Head On, the translation of the film's title is irksome. 'The Edge of Heaven' doesn't convey a tenth of the ideas of the film that the German title, literally translated as 'On the Other Side' does. There are lots of different sides here - Germany and Turkey, inside prison and outside in freedom, male and female, parent and child, right and wrong - and some of the sides are blurred at times. What is the film about? Essentially, it is in three parts. The first is about Nejat, who travels to Turkey to look for the daughter of his father's prostitute lover after her death. The second concerns the relationship between two women, Turkish political prisoner Ayten, and German student Charlotte. The third revisits some characters we have seen already in the film. But there are many connections between all the characters, which they themselves do not always realise. The film has been criticised for its reliance on coincidence - but I felt that this was not so much a lazy plot contrivance but more a deliberate mirroring effect
WARNING: "The Edge of Heaven" spoilers below
the Yeter's coffin going to Turkey and later, Lotte's coffin coming back was a poignant image, and even raised a wry laugh in the cinema.
It is a good, absorbing and emotionally affecting drama, well written, acted and directed and well worth seeing if you can catch it. I am certainly going to be looking out for more of Akin's films in the future. 4/5 http://thecliffedge.com/blog/wp-cont.../05/heaven.jpg |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I can't wait to see it. I was afraid my expectations were a little too high to be met so this is slightly encouraging...thanks.:)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Control
http://keepitfresh.files.wordpress.c...ntrol_film.jpg Anton Corbjin's film about Joy Division singer Ian Curtis who killed himself at the age of 23 in 1980 after a brief but brilliant career in the music industry. Gorgeous cinematography, good acting especially from the supporting cast. The first part had a wonderful lightness of touch and humour, the band's manager in particular was hilarious and Tony Wilson was spot on, although this did conjure up shades of 24 Hour Party People at times. And, of course, a great soundtrack. But the film suffers from two fatal flaws. First, the typical problem of making a biopic of an unpleasant or annoying person is that the film is also going to be unpleasant or annoying. With a colourful anti-hero this might not be the case, but Curtis in this film comes across as weak, moody and utterly selfish. By the point that he says to Wilson that everybody hates him, I found myself thinking that yes, I hated him a little bit, too. Second, perhaps inevitable considering it was adapted from a book by Curtis' long suffering wife called 'Touching From a Distance', it was a bit distant. Curtis himself was a bit of a blank. Perhaps this was a problem with the performance. Sam Riley does not look or sing all that much like Ian Curtis, and despite being the main character, doesn’t do much but stare moodily into the distance, which is arty but not particularly illuminating. Not until near the end did we hear anything much from his perspective, so it was difficult to really get any kind of grasp of the inner turmoil that would drive him to suicide. This made it difficult to sympathise much with him, or to engage with the film on a closer level. In the end it was not so much tragic as just grubbily sad...although with the choice of shooting in black and white, perhaps the evocation of 50's kitchen sink dramas about people who marry too young is deliberate. I felt sad that this film made me lose some respect for Curtis whose music I have always admired, but based as it was on facts, this can hardly be held against it. Still trying to decide whether I liked this, so no decisive rating as yet. |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Agreed for the most part, I didn't think it was particularly brilliant either. The one thing I did think was brilliant was the music and performances. I thought Riley did a fantastic job there...everything else seemed rather uninteresting compared to that.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
True, when they were on stage there was a terrific energy that just seeped away all the time he was dithering between his wife and his girlfriend...perhaps I was a bit harsh about his singing...
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I'm not sure we can take this film as "based on facts", it's his wife's story basically, so I wouldn't be surprised if she "exaggerated" her part in it a tad. It also explains the zero input on his inner turmoil, at least none that I found believable, apart from the bit about the stress of performing. :\
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
thanks for the review but will give this a miss :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
your reviews are great, Thursday. i've added a couple to my Netflix. thanks!
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Good reviews, muchos kudos to ya!!!
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by ash_is_the_gal (Post 421897)
your reviews are great, Thursday. i've added a couple to my Netflix. thanks!
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by Thursday Next (Post 416909)
The Edge of Heaven (Auf der Anderen Seite)
P.s. I can't believe what they were thinking with the English title, the German is absolutely essential to the story...:\ |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Vanilla Sky
http://www.filmfortress.com/images/v...sky_review.jpg Vanilla Sky is an exciting, original, intelligent film…oh wait, no, my mistake, that’s Open Your Eyes (Abre los Ojos). Vanilla Sky is a limp remake, like a cover version of a good song by an X-factor contestant. It hits the right notes, in more or less the right order, but there’s no soul and no subtlety. In case you’ve never seen Vanilla Sky or the original, the film concerns a playboy millionaire, David Aames ( Tom Cruise) who is disfigured in a car crash caused by his jealous ex-lover (Cameron Diaz) and in future is trying to work out why he is in prison through discussions with a psychologist (Kurt Russell). Mystery, confusion and dream sequences abound. Vanilla Sky is Tom Cruise’s fault. Apparently he was on the phone buying the rights for the remake before the credits had rolled when he watched Open Your Eyes. But is Vanilla Sky any more than a vanity vehicle for Cruise himself? His chance to cash in on someone else’s good idea, with himself in the starring role. He spends much of the film disfigured or behind a mask. The chance to do some ‘real acting’ he probably thought to himself. The trouble is, while Cruise does a fine job as the all-American hero in films like Mission Impossible and Minority Report, someone should tell him wearing a mask, laughing and SHOUTING A LOT does not make for ‘real acting’. The direction is adequate. I’ve never been a big fan of Cameron Crowe, I’ll admit, and his ‘written for the screen and directed by’ credit annoyed me (how did he write it? I doubt he even translated it). Penelope Cruz somehow manages to play the exact same part, worse, and this sums up the film, really; it’s exactly the same, but not as good. The over-explanation ruins the ending. Some of the dialogue is excruciating, especially between Cruise and Cruz, in its attempts to be playful. Kurt Russell’s character, McCabe never rings true, either, but that is more excusable since
WARNING: "Vanilla Sky" spoilers below
he is an imaginary construct of Cruise’s character’s subconscious
In the end it is the pointlessness of the film which irks me. Why does the world need an English language remake of Open Your Eyes? Why does it need an English language remake of every half decent non-English film (or not-at-all-decent horror film)? The American film industry is one of the biggest in the world, with tons of good films from Casablanca to There Will Be Blood, it doesn’t need to poach from Spain or anywhere else, so why does it? I realise I’m about seven years too late with this little rant as it relates to Vanilla Sky, and the utter pointlessness of the remake was why I’d never seen it before, and I kind of wish I hadn’t bothered now. 2/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Very much agree with you Thursday. I saw VS at the cinema when it came out, a few years after a Spanish friend had lend me the dvd of Open Your Eyes. The thing that struck me the most was that Penelope Cruz had gone from being beautiful natural looking girl in OYE, to being this glossy creature of a slightly unfocussed lens in VS - that is really annoying.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I actually enjoyed Vanilla Sky. Didn't love it, but enjoyed it enough to give it a positive rating.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks Wednesday, I didn't know it is a remake :nope: Must try and track down the original :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by christine (Post 474610)
Very much agree with you Thursday. I saw VS at the cinema when it came out, a few years after a Spanish friend had lend me the dvd of Open Your Eyes. The thing that struck me the most was that Penelope Cruz had gone from being beautiful natural looking girl in OYE, to being this glossy creature of a slightly unfocussed lens in VS - that is really annoying.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 477154)
. Nice hair though. :D
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Damn right! The more of mine I lose, the more I lust after it on women.
Somebody call Freud! :D |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Just popping in to tell you good job on your reviews. I have three of the movies that you reviewed here at home to watch someday. Downfall, The Counterfitters and Taboo. One of these days I'll get to them and try to pop in and chat you up about them.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
A Ma Soeur!
http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/dat/pic/M0000037.jpg A Ma Souer! is one of those films that is better when you are thinking about it afterwards than it was at the time. It is quite difficult to rate because while I found it tedious and unpleasant almost to the point of being unwatchable, it is at the same time undeniably thought provoking. I believe that this film is known in the US as Fat Girl, so you won’t be surprised to find that it is about a fat girl, Anais, who is a spectator to her prettier, older (but still underage) sister’s holiday romance with a smooth-talking creep. Cue enough teenage nudity to make it very uncomfortable to watch. It’s all very French (perhaps I have been watching the wrong films, but it does seem to me that an unusually high proportion of French films feature underage sex, incest or rape. Or a combination of the three). The biggest problem with A Ma Soeur is that despite being only 82 minutes long, it is quite boring. There are lots of very long takes of nothing much happening – Anais swimming, someone eating a sandwich, the sisters watching television – which become grating. Perhaps the intention is to convey Anais’s own boredom, perhaps a drive for realism. One (uncharacteristically symbolic) scene features Anais stood on a beach next to a particularly phallic looking lighthouse while her sister and her boyfriend canoodle in the sand. Subtle. The seduction of the older sister is excruciating to watch, partly because of how uncomfortable the whole situation is, partly because of how clichéd and obvious everything he says is. I don’t know how she falls for it – has she never read a teen magazine? It is the banality of the dialogue, the look of the film and (until the ending) the events which I didn’t like. And yet, if the film is looking to be an exploration of boredom and sexual thoughts of a teenage girl, if it is looking to disturb you and make you feel uncomfortable, it succeeds. And the characters, from the unfulfilled fat girl to the distant, chain smoking mother are believable, if not people you would want to spend much time with. It is not a badly made film in that respect. And then, of course, there is the ending. Which is a complete departure from and yet at the same time absolutely connected to all that has gone before. It is either an extreme illustration of ‘be careful what you wish for’
WARNING: "A Ma Soeur" spoilers below
The sister wishes she would die and her mother would die and they are killed, while Anais wants to lose her virginity to a stranger and not to die, and she is raped and left alive
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Hmm, I had a similar experience a while ago with Jacques Nolot's Avant que j'oublie, I thought it was a dreadful film because I had a dreadful time while watching it (I actually gave up on it half way through, but it just wouldn't leave me alone so I finished it a few days later). But the more I thought about it the more credit I gave it for producing such a reaction from me. Curious effect I think. I'm still gonna skip that one though...;)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Reading this review reminded me to go out and rent A Ma Soeur. Thanks, I guess.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Australia
http://www.rowthree.com/wp-content/u...raliaphoto.jpg Let’s get one thing straight right from the start. Australia is a very silly film. If you don’t mind that, though, you may well enjoy it. Just don’t go in expecting anything insightful or profound. Take some popcorn. This is an old fashioned epic (note: for ‘epic’ read ‘three hour long’) romantic drama complete with sweeping score and moustache twirling bad guys. Realism and historical accuracy take a back seat to engineered situations to create drama for the main characters. But then who goes to see a Baz Luhrmann film expecting realism? This is very much Baz Luhrmann’s Australia, just as William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was really Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet. While marking a departure from his red curtain trilogy, the Luhrmann trademarks are visible throughout. The Australia of the film is a colourful, not-quite-real world where magic is possible and love makes all things possible. The names – The Drover, ‘King’ Carney (carne) the meat company owner, ‘Poor Fella’ whisky – are suggestive of a fairytale. The image of a Nicole Kidman in a red dress kissing a floppy-haired Hugh Jackman in the rain is reminiscent of Luhrmann’s earlier work – including that perfume ad. It has the recycling of old songs to new effect of Moulin Rouge in its use of Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Australia lacks the pace of Luhrmann’s previous films. He was notoriously still editing the film hours before its premiere. Perhaps he should have given himself more time, because it is still about an hour too long. Nicole Kidman plays Lady Sarah Ashley, who arrives at the Australian ranch owned by her husband determined to sell up and get out quick, until an encounter with a mixed race child who reveals how her manager has been cheating her changes her mind. She determines to drive the cattle to town with an assorted bunch of characters including Hugh Jackman’s Drover. They initially don’t get on at all, but it’s hardly spoiling the surprise to say they soon change their minds. In the meantime, Sarah Ashley bonds with the orphaned boy and hopes to stop him being taken away to the mission. Kidman handles the later drama much better than the earlier comedy. Jackman is suitably laid back and rugged. And Brandon Walters as the boy Nullah is good enough to keep the sentimental drama from becoming too mawkish. If you want a more genuine account of the tragedy of Australia’s ‘stolen generation, watch Rabbit Proof Fence. If you want an entertaining adventure/romance/drama, you could do worse than watch Australia. 3/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks For the interesting review :yup: I haven't seen it yet :nope: I have a lot of friends who have and their comments are varied :yup: some loved it :yup: some didn't like it at all :yup: and some felt it just so so :) so will have to make time so I can decide what I think of it :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
In My Father’s Den (2004)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/ukmovies/...rs_den_top.jpg Adapted from a book by Maurice Gee, In My Father’s Den is about a war journalist who returns to his native New Zealand after seventeen years for the funeral of his father. As he stays on to sort out his father’s property family tensions flare and there are awkward reunions with past acquaintances. He befriends a local teenage girl and then finds himself under suspicion when she subsequently disappears. Matthew MacFadyen plays the main character, Paul, a ‘lone wolf’ who is haunted by his experiences as a war photographer and his past in the small town he returns to. MacFadyen has been accused of being dull in some of his roles, but I didn’t find that to be the case here. He is well cast as Paul, who is successful but lonely, trying to recreate happier times through his relationship with the girl who may or may not be his daughter. The film explores the flawed relationships between parents and children and siblings. This is a quietly thoughtful drama which builds up the tension and mystery really quite successfully. There is an underlying sense of unease running throughout the film. Key facts are only gradually revealed and the use of flashbacks and the implication that some of the characters have repressed memories adds to the suspense. Small town New Zealand is shown to be as fraught and dangerous as a war zone. The soundtrack, including opera and Patti Smith, is very good, and essential to the atmosphere of the film. I find it quite difficult to review this film, but would like to recommend it. 4/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I saw it a while back and liked it. Shame about the director dying...:(
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks Thursday, I have added it to my Bigpond list :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thursday, I watched In My Father's Den on your recommendation and very good it was too. Full of brooding and foreboding. Recommended by me too :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Boat That Rocked
http://www.peliculas.info/wp-content...ubierta-s4.jpg The Boat that Rocked I feel slightly bad for not liking this film, considering that it is essentially a good-humoured and affectionate British comedy about pirate radio stations in the 1960s, but I’m afraid the best that can be said for it is that it is intermittently amusing. Although there is an interesting ensemble cast, with Philip Seymour Hoffman the stand-out as an irreverent die-hard rocker, there are simply too many characters to keep track of, especially since some are so similar. There are at least two inexplicably-attractive-to-the-opposite-sex middle aged men, both of whom sleep with the girls that the younger men who look up to them have their eye on in remarkably similar plotlines. There are at least three ‘lovable loser’ types. None of the characters gets quite enough screen time to make us really care about their storylines and the dramatic moments feel manufactured. The central character Carl, as played by Tom Sturridge, is far too pretty and modern looking to be convincing as an unpopular virgin. Kenneth Branagh is clearly filling in time until he is old enough to play Lear by hamming it up as snooty villains (see also Rabbit Proof Fence, Conspiracy). In the film’s least convincing subplot (and it is a hotly contested title) he plays a politician trying to shut down the pirate radio stations. Jack Davenport should sack his agent, as he appears here as Branagh’s slightly put-upon snooty villain sidekick, a role that is virtually indistinguishable from the one he plays in Pirates of the Caribbean. Oh, and his character is named Twatt. Subtle comedy indeed. I bet he wishes he was still in This Life. The sixties music was better than I had expected, not generally being a fan of anything pre-1977, but there were a few prominent soundtrack choices here that would put Watchmen to shame with their blatant obviousness. Songs about a girl’s name were particularly silly choices, especially when it is quite clear that the characters’ names have been chosen as an excuse to use the songs. And Father and Son during a dramatic scene between a father and son? Please. If it was meant to be a joke, it wasn’t funny. If it was meant to be poignant, it wasn’t. The whole predictable and mawkish ‘who’s the daddy’ plotline made me yawn; although I didn’t know who the father was until about ten minutes before it was revealed to the character, I really didn’t care that much. It was like watching Mamma Mia again with slightly better music. If I was feeling particularly uncharitable, I could call the film misogynistic. Apart from the token shipboard lesbian, all that the female characters do is to sleep with one or several of the dj crew with very little encouragement. Unlike previous Curtis hits, it is not romantic at all. The teenaged Carl losing his virginity to the girl who previously left him to sleep with another dj while he was looking for a condom is presented as some kind of victory, although it is hard to see why. Perhaps this was a deliberate choice by Curtis to distance this film from slushy romantic ensemble Love Actually. But sentimental as that film was, it managed to handle the multiple characters and plots with more skill and heart than The Boat that Rocked which ultimately drifts along like a boat with nowhere particular to go. And finally, I rather think the djs of Radio Rock would be shaking their heads to learn that their legacy is that we can now listen to Scouting for Girls and The Saturdays all day on bbc radio 1… 2.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I liked your review , but I love this cast and the idea so much I still got to check it out.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by meatwadsprite (Post 528305)
I liked your review , but I love this cast and the idea so much I still got to check it out.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Originally Posted by christine (Post 526734)
Thursday, I watched In My Father's Den on your recommendation and very good it was too. Full of brooding and foreboding. Recommended by me too :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
The Boat that Rocked is the sort of film to be avoided like the plague. I can't stand Richard Curtis's cringeworthy version of England, thank god we don't live there ;)
Can't stand Rhys Ifans either. |
Originally Posted by christine (Post 528856)
The Boat that Rocked is the sort of film to be avoided like the plague. I can't stand Richard Curtis's cringeworthy version of England, thank god we don't live there ;)
Can't stand Rhys Ifans either. Nice review, Thursday. :up: |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
what a great review! :rotfl: (not) to be completely irreverent, i now want to see the movie, just to watch for your observations. :D
|
Its a good revies of a great film. Glad you started a review thread.I'd efinitly by checking back for new ones. Its a good and favourable movie.I like this very much.its a fully entertainment and mind blowing.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Magicians (2007)
http://tf.org/images/covers/Magicians-tf.org-2007.JPG Watched Magicians, because at £3 it was actually cheaper to buy this than rent something new and as a fan of Peep Show I'd been meaning to get around to this for a while. Starring Mitchell and Webb as Magicians who fall out after Mitchell's character, Harry, discovers his wife in a compromising position with Webb's character, Karl, and subsequently - accidentally - chops her head off in a guillotine trick gone wrong. Fast forward a couple of years and they both attempt to regain their former glory in the magic world by entering a magic competition. Mitchell has a new assistant in the lovely form of Jessica Hynes (Spaced) and Karl has become the psychic ‘Mind Monger’. It doesn't look like a good film. I hadn't heard good things about it. But it was better than I expected it to be. Not brilliant. Considering the brilliance of Peep Show, the writers had a lot to live up to and fell disappointingly short, as all the reviews indicated. They seem to think a lot of swearing will do in the place of subtlety and wit, when they should know better. It doesn't look like a film. It's hopelessly un-cinematic and there's no excuse for that. Especially when they make use of cheesily clichéd endings to their various subplots. It is Andrew O’Connor’s first outing as a director and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was his last. But it's not all bad. It is, despite all this, funny. Not hilarious. Not clever. But it is a bit funny. Compared to Peep Show, or Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead it may look drab, but compare it to Brit-com dross like Confetti and Blackball and it doesn't look too shabby after all. It managed to entertain us for an hour and a half. Most of the best bits in the film come from the always excellent Peter Capaldi (As seen in The Thick of it and recently Torchwood) as the organiser and of the magic competition, and Darren Boyd as Karl’s hopeless manager who has a crush on him. (Insert witty closing line with pun about magic here… failing that, maybe I could just swear and hope for the best…) 3/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Nice review Thursday :yup: thanks :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
http://www.westwoodpres.org/students...9/04/lars2.jpg So much of how we perceive a film comes down to expectation. If a film is average, yet we have expected it to be poor, it has exceeded our expectations and we therefore feel more positively about it. If we are expecting something dazzling and find it is merely average, we are probably disposed to feel less kindly towards it than towards the ‘better than expected’ film, even where they are of equal quality. It all comes down to the gap between expectation and the actual experience. Perhaps the best policy is to avoid all reviews and prejudgements. But if you were going to do that you wouldn’t be here reading my reviews thread. I’ll start by quoting some dialogue: Gus: What are we doing? Why are we doing this for him? Karin: Oh, come on. It's funny! Gus: Is it? Karin: I don't know. I don't know, maybe not. Good understated dialogue, which sums up the movie quite accurately. It’s funny. But is it really funny? Lars (Ryan Gosling) is mentally ill. Largely as a result of his mother dying in childbirth and being shut out by his grieving father and self-absorbed brother. His father now also dead, he lives in the garage of his parents’ house, now occupied by his brother, Gus (Paul Schneider) and his pregnant sister-in-law (Emily Mortimer). He suffers from social anxiety and doesn’t really know how to communicate with people. One day, his workmate shows him an online site where you can buy life size dolls. A little while later, Lars buys one and introduces it to the community as his girlfriend, Bianca. I have seen this described as a feelgood film. I can see why, it’s kind of sweet how everyone rallies round and helps Lars, pretending to believe his delusion that Bianca is real, and how through this experience Lars learns how to connect with the people around him and how to speak to girls, eventually forming the beginnings of a relationship with another co-worker. But it didn’t make me feel good. It was just too sad. There were a few other reasons I didn’t like this film as much as I thought I would. There are the little things – why is Margot, Lars’ co-worker, so besotted with him in the first place? The way that Lars’ fears about his sister-in-law dying in childbirth like his mother are never really resolved. That Lars and Margot get together at Bianca’s funeral struck me as slightly distasteful, even though she wasn’t real, she seemed real to Lars. It was overall (and I hate saying this because it’s the kind of thing that people who only like comic-book action movies say about anything slower paced), a little bit dull. On top of that, I found it a little too self-consciously quirky. That said, it did have its share of comic and touching moments. The acting was all very good, it would be difficult to pick a stand-out performance although I like Patricia Clarkson as the doctor who counsels Lars under the pretence of giving treatments to Bianca. None of the characters is a cliché or stereotype. I liked the way Lars’ unconventional dependence on his doll was subtly contrasted with the more acceptable attachments his co-workers had to their action figures and teddy bears without this ever being made explicit in the dialogue. It was unusual and, I suppose, thought-provoking. I know I'm being unduly harsh because I expected to like it more than I did. But I wonder if some of the reviews I read were unduly charitable because they expected from the 'small town man gets sex-doll girlfriend' premise that it would be much worse. 3 and a bit/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Good review Thursday, I kind of liked this movie :yup: then i didn't think to deeply while I was watching it :nope:
|
Nice reviews...
Thanks for sharing.. |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
28 Weeks Later(2007)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-CzbdnUql3...eeks_later.jpg So I thought I'd watch 28 Weeks Later. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, bloody awful. I liked 28 Days Later, I really did. I was sceptical about a sequel with none of the same actors or characters and with a different director. Turns out I was right to be sceptical. The meetings for this film must have gone something along the lines of: "Danny Boyle doesn't want to make a sequel." "That's ok, Aliens wasn't directed by the same person as Alien. Just get the director to copy Danny Boyle's style a bit, nobody will notice." "Copy Aliens, ok, got it." Because seriously, how do you do a sequel to an 'ordinary people caught up in horror' film? Yes, you bring in the wise cracking US military. And a couple of kids in danger. Just like Aliens. Except that despite this ripping-off-Aliens thing, none of the people involved in the film (characters and/or writers) has ever seen a horror film, clearly, because they think that it’s a good idea to open doors when somebody knocks even though they know full well it could be a zombie, say ‘I’ll be back in a moment’ (yeah, you or your bloody corpse), and approach family members who are clearly infected with the Rage Zombie plague. The military are so wholly incompetent you wonder how they ever made it through basic training. The whole thing is full of logical problems that make Cillian Murphy’s fantastical transformation from ordinary Joe to skinny Rambo in the first film seem perfectly plausible. Why are there no rats in the underground? Why is it pitch black one minute and then light? Do they really expect us to suspend our disbelief enough to accept that if you fly a helicopter low enough you can cut the heads off an army of zombies and not crash, and still have enough fuel to cross the Channel? If the film was any good, if the story, characters or acting swept you away then perhaps these small points wouldn’t matter. But sadly the story is lame, the two children at the centre of the story are incredibly annoying. The boy wanders around with apparently no fear of anything, the girl wears far too much make-up, even when she’s in bed or has been on the run from zombies across London. The zombie outbreak is entirely their fault for deciding implausibly to go exploring in un-quarantined areas of the city and you really don’t care if they survive. There are a couple of good points. It’s not badly filmed, in places. There are a couple of haunting images, such as the grass having overgrown on the pitch at Wembley. The opening sequence isn’t all bad. But having it retold and shown again in flashbacks is overkill. The music is good. But I’ve heard it somewhere before, possibly in the first film. And it’s overused. The ending isn’t syrupy, at least. The moral of the film is: in the event of a zombie plague, make sure your family members are dead. 1.5/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Well that was a fun read...frustrated reviews are the best. :laugh: I'm trying to remember if I saw this one or not...:|
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I like the review - could argue for one issue which you consider implausible (the issue of kids exploring I put down to a naturally childish curiosity, not to mention the boy's wish to find a photo of his mum), but won't bother. Can hardly wait to see what they come up with for the inevitable 28 Months Later...
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Yeah, but they go exploring the very next day after they are reunited with their father? The girl goes into the pizza place and steals keys from a rotting corpse not because she has to, but just to go for a little scooter ride? They're having fun? They're not scared at all, despite the recent death of their mother and 99% of the rest of the population, to go exploring in an area they have been told is infected? And the trained soldiers on guard duty don't notice them creeping across the bridge...?
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I think other than the fact that the infected guy got into the one area with all the humans, this movie was good.
I kind of liked it better than 28 Days Later. :eek: |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Bunny and the Bull (2009)
http://trailertracker.files.wordpres...he-bull-01.jpg You are spared the rant I was going to go on about the impossibility of finding a cinema that bothers to show smaller/independent films by the discovery made by one of my friends on Sunday afternoon that the charming Prince Charles cinema off Leicester Square was showing the film we wanted to see, Bunny and the Bull. Downstairs screen, £5. Bargain, I must say. Bunny and the Bull, written and directed by Paul King, is a delightfully odd road trip comedy which opens with Stephen Turnbull (Edward Hogg, endearing in the lead role) attempting to leave the flat he hasn’t left for a year after his carefully stock piled freeze dried vegetarian lasagnes unexpectedly go off. Leaving the flat is difficult for Stephen and we find out why in a series of flashbacks to a disastrous road trip round Europe Stephen undertook with his friend Bunny (Simon Farnaby) the year before. Stephen is a nervous, organised vegetarian who enjoys visiting shoe museums, at odds with the bon vivant Bunny, a self-centred gambler who likes to take the bull by the horns. Literally. Stephen falls for a spiky Spanish beauty (Veronica Echegui) he meets in a Captain Crab restaurant in Poland – but does he have the balls to go after what he wants, or will Bunny get there first? This is a very funny film, full of surreal details. Along the way Stephen and Bunny encounter a succession of oddball characters including a dog-bothering tramp played by Julian Barratt (who has worked with King on cult TV comedy series The Mighty Boosh). The tramp scene was a little too gross-out for me, I have to say, it wouldn’t have been out of place in Borat. There is also an appearance by the other half of the Boosh, Noel Fielding, as a deluded Matador who, in possibly the film’s funniest sequence, attempts to train Bunny as a bullfighter in a car park using a shopping trolley with horns. Funny as it is, though, there are also some quite poignant moments. Stephen’s obvious mental illness, the reasons for it and the way he attempts to overcome his fears and compulsions are really quite touching and lend an extra depth to the film. The look of the film is the real highlight. Wonderfully quirky there is a mix of home-made seeming sets, animation and more traditional scenery. All the flashbacks are triggered by household objects – postcards, a takeaway box – and these objects form the sets for the scenes on the road trip – newspaper trees, bottle crate walls, even a fairground made from clock parts in one gorgeous sequence. I think Paul King has done a really good job on his first feature film, it’s good-looking, it’s quirky, it’s thoughtful and it’s still funny. I only wish there were more films like this, and more cinemas which would show them. 4/5 |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for the great review Wednesday :yup: It sounds like a movie i would like :yup: added it to my list of must see :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Good review... I think I won't watch that movie.
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Bunny and the Bull sounds great Thurs, I must try and find it :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
It's being released on dvd and blu-ray on 29th March. Well worth watching :)
|
Originally Posted by Red Ribbon (Post 598774)
Good review... I think I won't watch that movie.
|
I believe you've nailed it there, TN. :yup:
|
Originally Posted by Thursday Next (Post 600870)
It's being released on dvd and blu-ray on 29th March. Well worth watching :)
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
http://edwinalexanderfrancis.files.w...ds-poster1.jpg Once upon a time in (an alternative version of) Nazi-occupied France, Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), a young Jewish woman who runs a cinema, attracts the attention of a celebrated young Nazi and spots an opportunity for revenge, while a band of Jewish-American soldiers known as the Basterds led by Brad Pitt roam around the continent scalping Nazis. The two plotlines converge in an orgy of violent revenge of Shakespearian proportions (if Shakespeare had had more stuff being blown up) at the premiere of a German propoganda film at Shosanna's cinema. This film enthralled and irritated me in equal measure. The music, a lot of it by Ennio Morricone, was excellent, very atmospheric. There were some beautiful shots and some wonderfully tense, well scripted scenes – the opening scene in which Christoph Waltz's amoral Nazi Col. Landa interrogates a French farmer suspected of sheltering a Jewish family is a stand out. I loved that the French characters spoke French and the German characters spoke German – none of your 'Allo Allo' style Germans speaking English to each other in bad German accents. And it had August Diehl (The Counterfeiters). It didn't bother me at all that the film changed history, films always do. Although I think I'd have preferred it if I hadn't known beforehand that it did. But on the other hand, there were a few things that bothered me. Mike Myers, for one, in his Austin Powers English accent cameo. When the unplaceable German accent of the English spy in another scene is a plot point, it seems ill judged. Although perhaps it was deliberate. The whole film, frankly, could have been done as well (maybe better) without the eponymous basterds; Shosanna's side of the story is much more interesting. I wasn't keen on Brad Pitt in this at all, although I know others have praised him. Adopting a Tennessee drawl and a constipated squint doesn't quite cut it as an acting performance for me. And the style of the film wasn't quite as consistent as it could have been. Some of it was quite restrained by Tarantino standards, but then a burst of voiceover and little cartoon arrows pointing out who everyone is would happen, which was a little jarring – I think it needed either more of that, earlier on, or none at all. It lacked the kinetic style of Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill but failed to quite replace it with anything solid and the odd bursts of grim humour didn't quite gel, for me. There's no subtlety to it. Although perhaps I shouldn't be looking for subtlety in a Tarantino movie. The whole concept of the film bothered me. It's like fanfiction for history. Inglourious Basterds is not so much a revenge movie as a revenge fantasy. It's not characters taking revenge on characters - the characters of the Basterds are never developed beyond "we're gonna be doin' one thing and one thing only... killin' Nazis."
WARNING: "Inglorious Basterds" spoilers below
It's like a ten year old first hearing about the holocaust and saying 'yeah, well if I'd been there we'd have had this whole secret army of Jews and we'd have gone round scalping Nazis and we'd have trapped Hitler and a bunch of Nazis in a cinema and we'd have pumped them full of bullets and set fire to them and then blown them up.'
(Sections of this review previously posted in the Inglourious Basterds review thread) |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for the great review, i loved this movie :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Avatar
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...r_1546201c.jpg Disabled marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) takes his dead twin brother's place on a specialised mission which involves him taking control of a giant blue 'avatar' body in order to negotiate with the indigenous population of the planet Pandora for mining access on behalf of a big and typically evil corporation. Soon Jake is torn between his loyalty to his military superiors and the corporation, and his growing respect for the Na'avi culture and love for the chieftan's daughter, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Lang and Michelle Rodriguez play stock supporting characters to mediocre effect. I don't know if Avatar is the most expensive film ever made but it's almost certainly the most expensive film in terms of how much it cost me to see it. The extra price for £D is a rip-off, imo. I try not to let that influence my opinion of the film, though. The £d itself has its pros and cons. Some parts of it look absolutely stunning, while at other points I got a headache from my eyes not focussing on the right part of the screen quickly enough. I have to wonder how well this film will work on the small screen, or whether it's all spectacle and no substance (*cough*Titanic*cough*). Oh, and they decided the best use of the £D technology is to make Michelle Rodriguez's cleavage £D. Sort of shows you what sort of level this film is on. It looks thoroughly brilliant. It's just breathtaking in places. I did get swept up in the story, especially the first half. The Na'avi don't look like cgi. I won't say they look real, because they're giant blue aliens, but they look effective. The special effects in this are top quality (unless you subscribe to the view that cgi doesn't count as special effects in which case, the cgi is top quality). It looks like James Cameron kicking Peter Jackson's arse in the effects department (Na'avi 1 – Hopelessly unrealistic dinosaurs on skull island 0). I watched this film with Mr. Next who said afterwards he was enjoying it up until the alien sex. The alien sex didn't bother me. The lack of chemistry or interest in the romance did. I don't know whether that was down to the cgi or the dialogue. I didn't like the too-obvious eco-friendly anti-war love-the-earth-and-respect-the-native-people message; it was neither subtle nor clever nor particularly new. More Ferngully than Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, sadly. Where were the interesting moral grey areas, the conflicted loyalties, the difficult choices of a grown up film? It seemed to promise some of these but never quite delivered. Overall, Avatar is a bum-numbing 2 and a half hour-plus disappointment. And I'm not even talking about all the hype, or the fact that it's really really not the new Star Wars or the new Aliens after all. The worst thing about this film is that it doesn't live up to itself. The first bit, with the disabled soldier arriving on another world after the death of his twin where he can control an avatar body - it's a brilliant set up. The way Jake has to deal with increasingly conflicted loyalties is good. But by the end we've got sledge-hammer subtle goodie vs. baddie in hand-to-hand combat and
WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
they set up this really rather good irreconcilable situation where he has a happier life in his avatar body but it can never be real, setting everything up for tragedy even in victory and then... oh yeah, a magic tree saves the day
(Parts of this review previously posted on the Avatar review thread) |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
A Single Man (2009)
"It takes time in the morning for me to become George, time to adjust to what is expected of George and how he is to behave. By the time I have dressed and put the final layer of polish on the now slightly stiff but quite perfect George I know fully what part I'm suppose to play." Colin Firth plays George Falconer, a middle-aged English college professor living in America in the 1960s. To his neighbours, colleagues and students George is an ordinary, somewhat ineffectual single man. What they don't see is the depths beneath the surface - George is suffering from a broken heart, his partner of 16 years, Jim (Matthew Goode), having died recently in a car crash. The film follows George through one day in his life, a day he decides will be different as he makes preparations for his suicide. Throughout the day his interactions with other people, particularly his best friend Charley (Julianne Moore) and a curious student (Nicholas Hoult) test or strengthen his suicidal resolve. Directed by fashion designer Tom Ford, A Single Man is, as you'd expect, stylish and stylised. But it's far from vapid, there are subtle emotional nuances and hidden depths within the film, just as there are behind George's facade. It looks exquisite, the 1960s rendered in convincing detail. The use of colour is very deliberate, in some scenes the colours grow warmer as George receives some kindness from another human being, almost glowing. It sounds gimmicky, perhaps, but it works perfectly. It's a beautiful film, in the way it looks and in the emotions it reveals. Colin Firth's performance is excellent, the anguish at the start of the film as he relives his discovery of his partner's death is quite heartbreaking. The flashbacks to George and Jim when Jim was alive are warm and convincing. The supporting performances from Juliane Moore and Nicholas Hoult are also very good, their characters ambiguous in their intentions and seeming very real. The music, too, deserves a mention, a beautiful score. It's not a fast-paced film and it might frustrate some, at time it seems to drift, but that you don't know quite what will happen isn't really a bad thing. The ending, which I won't spoil, I wasn't at first sure was quite right, was maybe a little too neat. There were maybe a couple of scenes which were awkwardly unsubtle in comparison to the rest of the film; the owl for one and the lecture George gives on fear of minorities for another. This really is is an exquisite film, with genuine sadness, humour in the midst of tragedy, hope and beauty. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzd9HIsRWe...le+Man+DVD.jpg "If it's going to be a world with no time for sentiment, Grant, it's not a world that I want to live in." |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Thanks for great reviews :yup: looking forward to seeing A Single Man :yup:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Burke and Hare (2010)
http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/burke-and-hare.jpg John Landis takes on the infamous tale of the West Port murderers Burke and Hare – and loses. Burke (Simon Pegg) and Hare (Andy Serkis) are down-on-their-luck Irish conmen living in Edinburgh who strike it rich when an elderly tenant dies and they discover his cadaver is worth five pounds when sold to an Edinburgh doctor (Tom Wilkinson) who needs dead bodies for his anatomy lectures. From there they quickly descend into murder, and the film quickly descends into farce. There is no reason why a serial killer cannot make a perfectly convincing anti-hero of a comic film – just look at Kind Hearts and Coronets. Actually, the scriptwriters would have done well to take a look themselves. Here, we feel no sympathy with the protagonists, their descent into murder is quick and accompanied by no sense of moral questioning, beyond Pegg's character looking a bit gormless and unsure. Worse, it isn't funny. The subject matter seems to demand black humour, but all we get here are pratfalls. People fall over, people get food on their face, or excrement dumped on their heads, they chase after a dead body in a barrel down a hill. Any pretence at historical accuracy is abandoned with the introduction of Burke's love interest, Ginny (Isla Fisher), a former hooker who aims (in a ridiculous, tedious and horribly tacked-on subplot) to put on the first all-female production of Macbeth. It would be unfair to criticise Fisher's wobbly accent, since it seems apparent that nobody in the film is taking accents or accuracy of any kind seriously. It's quite clear about that from the start, and it would be fair enough, if only it was funny. But it isn't. The film plods along made up mostly of a string of one-joke scenes and celebrity cameos including Bill Bailey, Michael Winner and Paul Whitehouse. Tom Wilkinson is in the unusual position of falsely taking credit for the invention of the photograph again (as he did in the 1998 movie The Governess) which is an oddly specific sort of type casting. Or coincidence. Why, given the slapdash attitude towards facts, it was felt necessary to have a closing sequence saying what happened to the characters after the events of the film I don't know. The music is dire. There is a good deal of over-acting, perhaps in an attempt to make up for the under-writing which really only makes it worse. The biggest oddity is not how bad the script is, but why, having read the script, any of the people in the film decided to get involved with it at all. I can only imagine the majority of them are feeling thoroughly embarrassed. (Interestingly, David Tennant dropped out before filming. Sensible choice on his part.) The whole thing is a wasted opportunity. |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I can't say I'm surprised. The moment you see this is a comedy, you can be fairly certain it'll be crap. My own bias against Serkis and Pegg was enough to put me off.
|
Yeah i'm not a fan of either Pegg or Serkis myself.
|
a Michael Winner cameo too. Oh how hilarious that must've been :sick:
|
Re: Thursday's Reviews
I like Michael Winner. :D
|
Originally Posted by christine (Post 689857)
a Michael Winner cameo too. Oh how hilarious that must've been :sick:
|
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 689913)
I like Michael Winner. :D
and TN - I'm glad to hear it ! |
Re: Thursday's Reviews
Will give that movie a miss :yup: thanks for the review :)
|
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 02:38 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums