Royale with Cheese

A nineties thriller from 2005

2009-05-27T17:36:00.003+10:00

'The Interpreter' (2005) feels like it was made in the nineties.

- This is partly due to the way the opening credits come on while the first scene is playing. This seems like a pretty nineties thing to me. Films don't bother so much with opening credits these days.

- The music doesn't sound like it's of this decade. It reminded me of films like 'The Fugitive' and 'The Firm' (another very nineties Sydney Pollack film. At least that one was actually made in the nineties).

- The two main actors, Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn were big in the nineties (not to say that they aren't big now) which makes this film stand out a bit because there are no up and coming, flavour of the month young actors in it. It could have been released in the nineties.

- There's something about the camera work, and the production (I can't quite put my finger on it) that makes this film seem dated. I think it's just the way that Sydney Pollack directs (I know he's dead but I'll still use the present tense); he doesn't seem to put many artistic flourishes into his work, he favours a more workman like approach to film-making.

- The thriller is very nineties. Especially the vaguely political thriller. They are still made today of course, but they were especially popular in the nineties. Think of all those nineties Harrison Ford films, for example.

I'm not saying that any of this is a bad thing. It was kind of refreshing to see an old school thriller.

Raging Bull

2009-04-28T23:07:00.002+10:00

This Thursday, TBT is launching 'Block Cinema', a monthly community screening of some great films. The first film in the line up is Martin Scorsese's classic 'Raging Bull'. This is a tremendous movie that anyone with an interest in cinema should see.

You should go along to 'Block Cinema' because:

- The idea of a community cinema is very cool. It's a fun way to be a part of something Hobarty.

- 'Raging Bull' features (or perhaps, stands on the shoulders of) one of the greatest acting performances of all time by Robert De Niro. The way he gets into this character is quite frightening. He trained as a boxer and became mega-buff, then he ate like Elvis and became a total chubster for the later scenes. And that's only the physical stuff. It's such a complex and emotional performance, one that leaves barely any trace of the actor Robert De Niro behind.

- This film might be about a boxer but it's not really about boxing. It's about obsession, jealousy, masculinity, aggression, violence, relationships, trust. The themes are important and dealt with in a confronting manner through this horrible character that you can't help but despise for most of the film.

- Cinematically, the film is packed with great stuff. The editing is awesome, the camera is used perfectly, the placement and choice of music is very clever, and the decision to film in black and white was a risk that paid off. The boxing scenes are brutal and actually make you feel like you've been punched in the head a few times; they give what I can only guess would be a realistic view of being in the ring of a boxing tournament.

- This film unearthed Joe Pesci as an actor worth watching. He was excellent in this, and went on to star in other Scorsese classics like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino'. He was also in the 'Home Alone' films. I'm not sure what to feel about them.

- There are many cool stories about the making of this film. Robert De Niro actually competed officially, as a boxer, during his training, and won a couple of matches! Martin Scorsese has said that De Niro's insistence on him directing this film, saved his life as it distracted him from drugs. Scorsese told De Niro to alter the script in order to get a more surprised reaction from Joe Pesci in one particular scene ("you f***ed my wife?!"). They used chocolate for blood.

'Block Cinema'
Thursday 30th April
South Hobart Community Centre
8pm
and it's FREE

Inexplicable Oscars

2009-04-28T13:02:00.004+10:00

1997 Best Supporting Actress - Kim Basinger (L.A. Confidential)

'L.A. Confidential' is a fantastic, near perfect film but I can't understand how Kim Basinger's portrayal of Lynn Bracken was considered worthy of an Oscar. It's certainly not a bad performance; Basinger is convincing enough, looking and sounding the part, but was she that good? I have a soft spot for the Academy Awards, I like knowing who wins and trying to work out why. Sometimes there are awards given for seemingly inexplicable reasons, and I'm going to do my best to work out these reasons.

So, who were the nominees for this award in 1997?

Kim Basinger - L.A. Confidential
Joan Cusack - In & Out
Minnie Driver - Good Will Hunting
Julianne Moore - Boogie Nights
Gloria Stuart - Titanic

I wouldn't say it was the strongest group of contenders so maybe it's not so surprising that Basinger won. However, I think Julianne Moore was much more impressive with her role in 'Boogie Nights'.

Maybe I missed some subtleties in her acting. Perhaps I should give her more credit when I say she was convincing in this role because, maybe it was not such an easy character to play. In the hands of someone like Sharon Stone, for example, this character probably wouldn't have had the depth that Kim gave her; it would probably have been a one-dimensional femme fatale stereotype (although I could be completely wrong there, because Kim Basinger has never been considered one of the great actresses). But I don't think she should have won an Oscar just because someone else could have done a worse job; I hope that's not how they decide these things.

A somewhat cynical theory as to why she was considered the best supporting actress, is that because 'Titanic' swept up most of the awards, this award was handed to 'L.A. Confidential' as a consolation prize. As if to say "look it's a great film guys, too bad 'Titanic' had to come out... here, have this actress award". I really hope that's not what happened. I like to think that the Academy make these decisions based on what was the best in each category.

Has anyone else wondered why she won this award? Or have any other inexplicable Oscar beefs?

Dances with Woolworths

2009-04-28T00:27:00.003+10:00

Wouldn't this be a great film? Kevin Costner stars as a supermarket manager that employs Sioux Indians on night-fill. Tension arises when Kevin refuses some of his employees the right to have their real names on their name badges (Swooping Eagle, Chief Kicking Bear etc). He soon realises he was wrong to do that and they find a respect for one another. There is a very moving scene where Kev helps the Sioux stack shelves for about three and a half hours (which is also the length of the film).

The Pursuit of Happyness

2009-04-02T00:33:00.003+11:00

Just watched the Will Smith film The Pursuit of Happyness at Bible Study. It was the victor of four other contending films in a potentially flawed electoral system (pair and elimination). It's probably the easiest way to select a film to please a large group of people.

Will Smith was very good; he plays a serious part with excellence. I can't really remember any standout moments, and the film kept up the same pace throughout. My biggest problem with it was the music and production; it just made it seem too slick, too polished, and too cheesy. I felt the story (quite a powerful tale) would have been better served by a more gritty style.

It's not a bad movie though. Worth a watch. Much better than Boondock Saints.

Just a quickie

2009-03-29T01:27:00.001+11:00

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is really weird. That is all.

Body of Lies

2009-03-25T00:41:00.003+11:00

An above average thriller about the US involvement in the Middle East. Not quite as awesome as I hoped it would be, but well worth watching. Good acting, especially from DiCap and Crowe. The message of this film bows down to political correctness but, because it's a thriller, and not a serious topical drama, it gets let off the hook. The Middle East is a very exciting setting and the political climate make for a pretty gripping film. Russell Crowe plays a family man whose indifference to the life and death situations of others is pretty vile. DiCaprio plays a similar role to his in The Departed. He's good at playing these stressed out, well intentioned guys. My favourite character was Hani Salaam (pictured). He wore some awesome suits and was basically 'Captain Meaty' in every scene.

It's better than The Boondock Saints.

The Boondock Saints

2009-03-21T16:27:00.003+11:00

This movie is a huge heap of rubbish. For some reason, it has a cult following, and from that following I had heard many recommendations to watch it. Normally, I think even a fairly bad film is worth watching once, but this is beyond bad. The characters are as thin as anorexic paper, the script is embarrassingly corny and unrealistic, the violence is gratuitous, the acting is laughably over the top, the editing is a mess, and the story is completely stupid.

The Boondock Saints follows the story of two Irish brothers (played unconvincingly by two annoying B-list actors) in Boston, that have been assigned by God to eliminate all the criminals in the city by mercilessly killing them. An outrageous gay FBI detective is leading the investigation into the killings (a cringe worthy performance by Willem Dafoe). That's pretty much the plot. One of the film's many problems is that it has no suspense or mystery because you already know who the killers are, so watching the lengthy crime scene investigations is utterly pointless. Speaking of which, Willem Dafoe was even worse than David Caruso in CSI: Miami, with his cheesy dialogue delivery. There are quite a few moments where this film attempts humour and fails miserably. The funniest thing about it was watching Dafoe doing a little Irish jig.

The writer and director Troy Duffy was clearly desperate for his film to be a Reservoir Dogs or a Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It was definitely meant to draw adjectives like "cool", "slick", "badass", and "edgy". It doesn't come close to any of those things though. It's stylised but in a Chickenfeed sort of way. Troy Duffy is not Quentin Tarantino and this film will look quite dated in the future, if it doesn't already, 10 years on.

The Boondock Saints has the nerve to end with a blatant attempt at a serious moral dilemma (is it wrong to kill bad people?). A question that doesn't deserve to be answered in the context of this film. Duffy doesn't take his film seriously for the the first 90 minutes and then, all of a sudden he changes the film's tone. That's an awful lot to ask of an audience.

I haven't disliked a film this much for a long time. It was a struggle getting to the end of this one. I can't understand why it has such a large legion of fans. It's just a terrible, terrible film. Stay away from it.

Top 10 Nicolas Cage Films

2009-01-08T23:26:00.004+11:00

It's Nicolas Cage's birthday today. A lot of people underrate him as an actor, but I think he's pretty good. Here are some of the best films he's been in:

10. 8mm - Creepy and seedy detective thriller, in the same mould as 'Se7en'.

9. The Weather Man - Very funny and under appreciated black comedy.

8. Wild At Heart - Weird and, at times, disturbing David Lynch film... wait that's all of them.

7. Raising Arizona - An 80s classic from the Coen brothers.

6. National Treasure - A very fun adventure, and a great role for Cage.

5. Leaving Las Vegas - Harsh, depressing, bleak film that won Cage an Oscar for playing a suicidal alcoholic.

4. Matchstick Men - A very slick Ridley Scott tale about con artists.

3. The Rock - An action classic. Cage plays the nerdy chemical weapons specialist really well.

2. Bringing Out The Dead - Another wrist-slitter, this has Cage, directed by Martin Scorsese, as an ambulance officer. It's very grim but I consider it a hugely underrated film. Watch it when you can't sleep.

1. Adaptation - One of my favourites. I love the multi-layered realities, and the characters. This is Nicolas Cage's finest acting performance. He plays two characters; twins that are almost opposites in personality. Somehow he pulls it off so well that you forget it's the same actor playing both!

Some Recent Viewings

2008-12-22T16:52:00.002+11:00

Into The Wild (2007) - Very enjoyable, beautifully filmed true story about a man that abandons society in order to live in the wild. It has a lot to say about finding genuine happiness and meaning in life. Directed by Sean Penn who's proving to be quite good behind the camera. I heartily recommend this one.

Silent Hill (2006) - Based on a computer game... not usually a good idea. A film that begins as a noble attempt at horror but gets worse and worse as it progresses. By the film's end, it becomes an over the top, B-grade, gore fest. There are too many stupid looking monsters in this movie for it to be in any way scary, and the script and music don't help either.

Rear Window (1954) - I watched this after watching 'Silent Hill' and it was already a better film after the first 10 minutes. Really cool story about a man, confined to his house, spying on his neighbours, and becomes convinced one of them has murdered his wife. The suspense is as well executed as anything made today. Scratch that - it's better than most films made today. Hitchcock always impresses me and this is surely one of his best. A real classic.

The Orphanage

2008-12-13T22:06:00.004+11:00

The Spanish film 'El Orfanato' (The Orphanage) is a really good horror film. Some people will watch a horror film, fail to become frightened, then decide that the movie wasn't very good. I think that's a silly approach - a film can be good regardless of how scary it is, even if it's marketed as a horror. You're going to dismiss so many decent films if you rate them by your level of terror. 'The Devil's Backbone' (directed by Guillermo del Toro - producer of 'The Orphanage') is a really well made ghost story that just isn't that scary - but there is still a lot to appreciate in it. 'The Orphanage' is beautifully filmed, has good acting, and an intriguing story. I also found it to be very scary!

It's a ghost story that takes place in a creepy old house, formally an orphanage - the type of place you'd never go into, let alone live in, if you were sane. There are some intense scenes which made me jump (2mm into the air), and there are some interesting, freaky characters. The film borrows a few classic horror techniques, but puts them to good use. I was totally sucked into this movie.

'The Orphanage' treads a fine line between supernatural horror and psychological thriller and it never descends into b grade gore-fest action. Another thing that added to the suspense, was the depth of the characters - I actually cared about them, so I was drawn into the tense moments of the film, much more than I would have been had there been cardboard characters involved. Also, it's in Spanish, which can be quite a scary language.

A couple of modern classics...

2008-12-06T14:13:00.002+11:00

Last night, I revisited 'Ocean's Eleven' (the modern version). It has got to be one of the coolest films of all time; the suits, the soundtrack, Vegas, the dialogue, George Clooney... it's all cool. But the best thing about it is the detail of the plot - it's so meticulously put together. Even though I'd seen it a couple of times before, I was totally hooked on the suspense. That's why 'Collateral' was so average; there was no attention to detail given to the script or reasons why the characters even existed. 'Collateral' took itself too seriously, when it really wasn't much more than a popcorn flick. 'Ocean's' knew exactly what type of film it was, and played to that strength.

Another film I re-watched recently was 'The Prestige'. This is another example of a totally gripping, twist 'n' turn, modern classic. You just can't fault the writing. I love watching movies that are made by people that so obviously care about their film and have managed to get the best out of everyone involved. One of the great things these two gems have in common, is that they take a particular topic (casinos and magicians) and brilliantly summarise the vibe, adding elements of mystery. The themes that are explored in these movies seem totally appropriate to their subject matter. A story about magicians and magic will conjure up (if you'll forgive me) thoughts of obsession and deception. Casinos and gambling - the same things.
I reckon these two films could go the distance and remain popular after several decades have past.

Collateral

2008-12-01T17:30:00.003+11:00

I watched the much-hyped Michael Mann film 'Collateral' on the weekend. I've been meaning to see it for a while and was looking forward to doing so because it's in a genre that I have a soft spot for - the Thriller. I love these kind of films.

I was a bit disappointed with 'Collateral' though. I still enjoyed it, and there's a lot about it that's impressive - Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxxxxx are both excellent, and Michael Mannnn's treatment of Los Angeles as a setting is really cool. There are a lot of shots from unusual angles to bring out the city's skyline... LA was basically as good as a supporting actor in this film - much like New York is in Lumet's and some of Scorsese's work (gee, how much of a wanker do I sound like?!)
However, I was unmoved by the attempt at profound dialogue between Cruise and Foxxxxxxxxx. Also, the story was quite empty; I really wanted to know more about the characters and why Tom Cruise was killing them all - apart from just (POSSIBLE SPOILER) "they're all involved in some court case". Maybe I missed some key explanation due to the terrible sound quality on the TV I was watching.

In my opinion, a more intricate back story would've elevated this film from OK to excellent. The ending was an anticlimax too. But there was a cool, slightly surreal, vaguely symbolic scene with a wolf (or maybe a coyote?). I really liked that scene.

Am I the only one...

2008-11-07T14:25:00.003+11:00

...that can't stand this movie?

It seems inexplicably popular to me. I love a good adventure and fantasy story as much as the next bloke, but this one is just annoying. The thing I hate most about it, is the part when the grandpa is telling the Fred Savage kid the story. Not only is this cheesy and dated (talk about 80s!), it is completely pointless. Why does it have to be a story about a story? Why can't the story about Westly and Butterhead be enough for the film? It devalues the fantasy and makes people cringe.

Also, the quotes. People quote this film to death. And they aren't even good quotes! "As you wiiiiiiiiish", "inconceivable" - inconceivable is a common English word and somehow people think you're referring to this film if you use it... and the worst one: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." Now, in what situation can this quote possibly be of any relevance? That's right, none. It's so specific to the context of the movie that it doesn't even make sense to quote it in real life. But people do. Inconceivable.

I don't think 'The Princess Bride' is a bad film at all, just a reasonable one that's been overrated by people that go on about it. There are other good movies out there you know...

Old People II

2008-10-27T13:43:00.002+11:00

Old people often can't tell you if they've seen a film before, until they are 3/4 of the way through it. The name of the film, actors that are in it, or the story's synopsis are not enough to trigger any remembrance.

If they do remember a film, they will usually get the title slightly wrong. For example: my dad referred to 'Being John Malkovich' as "Inside Mr Malkovich". So close but so far!

Nice, slow, entrancing films

2008-10-13T23:11:00.003+11:00

Sometimes, if I'm in the right mood, I like to watch slow-moving, visually mesmerising films - a bit like the visual equivalent of a Sigur Ros album.

Examples:

Lost in Translation
Marie Antoinette
(Sofia Coppola)
I do like The Virgin Suicides but it's too depressing for this list

The New World
The Thin Red Line
(Terence Malick)

Heaven (Tom Tykwer)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

You know, that sort of thing.

Action

2008-10-08T15:24:00.004+11:00

The other day I watched The Rock again for the millionth time (but I hadn't seen it for a couple of years). It is one of the best action movies ever and there have been very few decent ones since it came out. The mid eighties to late nineties seemed to be the golden age of action movies. This perception can be partly attributed to my age - I was a teenager in the nineties and teenage boys love action movies, but I think it's still fair to say that the standard of action film making has dropped in the last decade.

Part of the reason why The Rock is so good is the actors. It has a great cast of "proper" actors. Ed Harris plays an excellent morally compromised villain, Sean Connery plays his best character since Indiana Jones' dad, and Nicolas Cage is great as the reluctant hero. A lot of action movies feel the need to use an "action star" in the lead role and this is often to the detriment of the film. Vin Diesel cannot act. The Rock (not the film, the wrestler) cannot and should not be allowed to act. The only reason these people are in films is down to an incorrect assumption that if Arnold Schwarzenegger can do it, then these guys can. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one minute suggesting that Arnold was ever a good actor, but his meat-headedness was used to great effect by the people that casted him in a lot of action films. This idea was poorly replicated by a lot of other action stars like Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme, Wesley Snipes and worst of all - Steven Seagal.
Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford can all act reasonable well, and they've been in some classic action movies - I don't think that's a coincidence.

Here are some must-see action classics:

The Rock
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Predator
True Lies
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon
The Bourne trilogy
Aliens (not as good as Ridley Scott's 'Alien' but it is more of an action film)
Léon
Patriot Games (perhaps more of a thriller but who cares)
Mad Max

The Deer Hunter

2008-09-29T16:31:00.002+10:00

I watched this 3 hour classic on the weekend. Didn't start it until 11pm, which was ambitious. Anyway, it's meant to be one of the best films ever made - very highly acclaimed as a cinematic high point, but (and I feel a little bit ashamed as I write this)... I didn't like it. It was an absolute battle getting through to the half-time cup of tea, let alone the end credits. I was surprised that I had such a dry response to it because I can normally find some enjoyment out of just about any movie, and I love 70s American cinema. Myself and the others that watched this were wondering if we'd been oblivious to moments of sheer brilliance. The only thing that kept me watching was the hope that something would happen, but it never gripped me.

To briefly summarise, the movie is about a bunch of working class buddies that go off to 'Nam, have an horrific time there and return to Pennsylvania, forever changed by the torment of what they (barely) endured. That doesn't do it justice - there's a lot more to it than that, and there are some memorable scenes in the movie (several intense Russian Roulette games). But the whole thing is so slow moving it was almost funny... It begins with a Russian Orthodox wedding scene that lasts for 45 minutes! That's like watching a complete stranger's wedding video. I'm sure the reason behind such a loooooong scene was to create some kind of familiarity with the characters involved but that didn't work for me; I couldn't engage with any of the characters and I seriously felt that some drastic editing was required.

At some stage, I plan to watch 'The Deer Hunter' again - give it another chance when I'm feeling more awake. Has anyone seen it? If so, can you explain what I missed?

The Motorcycle Diaries

2008-09-18T00:58:00.003+10:00

I watched this for the third time the other day. I actually enjoyed it more than I did the first time. When I first saw it, I went in with the assumption that it was a movie about Che Guevara in his younger days and it would foreshadow what happened with the Cuban revolution. That's not really what it is. When I re-watched it recently, I didn't really think about it historically; I didn't even think about who the character of 'Ernesto' would later become - and I enjoyed it more. It's basically a cool road-trip movie about humanity and the awakening of a social conscience. There are a lot of subtle moments in the movie that are actually quite moving, and I missed these on my first viewing. Oh and it made me pumped to go to South America - the scenery is spectacular and mysterious.

The Godfather part III

2008-09-11T23:49:00.004+10:00

I recently watched the much maligned third installment of the Godfather trilogy. It was made some fifteen years after part II and set about 20 years after it. The Godfather part I and II are considered as two of the best films ever made, and they really are awesome, possibly even perfect films. While the first two parts were soaking into our culture, becoming 'classics', the time in which part III was to be made and be well received was slipping away, as was the chance that it would be any good compared to the other films.

I really enjoyed the film. It's not as good as the other two but as far as films go, I think it's a very good one. I really like that the story focuses on the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church - it adds a weird romantic, mysterious edge and gives the corruption a new flavour. The final 3/4 of an hour of this film (the opera scene to the end credits) is one of the most exciting and memorable scenes in the entire trilogy.

Some letdowns:

- Michael Corleone's character. I know he was meant to be older and more reflective, and tormented by his past sins but there was barely any recognisable trace of the Michael from the first two films. Al Pacino acted well in this, but I couldn't help but feel he'd forgotten what Michael was like. He really does seem like a completely different person - literally.

- Sofia Coppola's acting. It was very bad - she actually made her character seem 'special' and I don't think that was the intention.

- The script. It's not as well written as the others. This film is not actually adapted from Mario Puzo's novel - the screenplay was written from scratch by Puzo and Coppola and was perhaps a little rushed. It doesn't have the poetic brilliance of the first Godfather film, where every line spoken seems perfectly natural and tantalisingly profound at the same time.

- Vincent. I didn't think this character had any depth. It was hard to believe that Michael would put him in charge of the family. This film really missed Robert Duvall.

Some let-ups:

- As mentioned earlier, the opera scene was fantastic.

- I liked what they tried to do with Vincent's character. It seemed like he was meant to be the reverse of Michael in part I - going from ruthless villain to respectable family man. I like that idea, it just didn't quite work because of Andy Garcia's acting and the script. Or maybe I'm just seeing things that weren't there.

- I liked the brief flashbacks to all the women that Michael had lost. They gave a lot of strength to the emotional punch of this film.

Not a perfect film but a nice way to end the trilogy, nonetheless.

Old People...

2008-09-10T16:17:00.000+10:00

If you watch a video with old people, when it's finished they always feel the need to make some sort of concluding remark like "there we go then", or "hmmm", or "well...".

Childhood Classics

2008-09-09T16:07:00.000+10:00

Partly to prove that I'm not against children's films, here's a list of movies that I used to watch repeatedly as a child. My family used to tape a lot of films from TV onto VHS, so we'd end up having heaps of sub-quality recordings of sub-quality productions, with the quality diminishing each time the tape was re-watched.

King Solomon's Mines

The 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. Although it's an adaptation of H Rider Haggard's book, I reckon this film was made to cash in on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm sure that didn't occur to me when I was 7 though. I watched this countless times and not once did it cross my mind that I might be watching a B-Grade flop and holder of two razzie awards ('Worst Musical Score' Jerry Goldsmith - I remember even liking the music! 'Worst Supporting Actor' Herbert Lom). I didn't notice the over-the-top acting or the corny script, I only noticed the excitement that came from watching an adventure like this. Funnily enough, a straight-to-TV version of King Solomon's Mines with Patrick Swayze came out not so long ago, and from what I saw of that, it seemed even worse than this one, and it probably had twice the budget, not to mention the hindsight of the 1985 version's failure. It would be good to watch it again for a nostalgic laugh.

BBC Narnia series

Particularly The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Silver Chair. I haven't seen these for a long time and would love to watch them all again. Because of my bias, the BBC Lion, Witch, Wardrobe will always have a bigger place in my heart than the recent film. But I won't stop there - I'm going to go as far as to say that the BBC is *better* than the new one. Particularly the white witch. I prefer the older one to Tilda Swinton's Jadis. I used to be terrified of her as a child (I guess that's the point - "as a child") Also, Maugrim was much more intimidating as a wolf-man type than as a talking wolf (regardless of what CS Lewis thinks). I haven't seen the new Prince Caspian but I always thought the BBC version of that was a bit crusty, so maybe the new one will surpass it in my mind. The Silver Chair was just awesome, and Tom Baker was a better Puddleglum than he was a Dr Who. Everything about it was magical, not least the fact that they made it on such a limited budget (they re-used the actress that played Jadis, to play the Lady of the Green Kirtle). The new film will have to be pretty special to come close to that.

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase

This was quite brutal for a kid's film. The whole thing had a very sinister mood to it. The villain, Miss Slighcarp, a witch-type character, was extremely frightening. There are a lot of witches and wolves in children's fiction. I think this film in particular typifies what most kids are afraid of... which I might explore in a later post. Mind you, I'm sure The Exorcist would typify every child's deepest fear had it not been rated R.

The Water Babies

This was a great fantasy. I remember the first part of the film was live action and set in Dickensian London. Then the protagonist (Tom) jumps into a lake and discovers an underwater kingdom and gets captured by sharks and eels. It sounds like an acid trip, but I remember it being a really exciting film. The image above, is not from the movie; it's an illustration from an edition of the novel, which, incidentally, I'd like to read if I can find a copy.

All 3 Indiana Jones films

I imagine most kids would've watched these to death. I certainly did. I was particularly fond of The Temple of Doom. In fact, I still really like the Indy films. They capture 'adventure' so well. I remember trying to replicate Indiana Jones' adventures (and invent some new ones) by skillfully climbing up the balcony, then precariously balancing on the railing, before rolling through the sliding door -pretending it was something more dangerous than glass. I also remember wishing I had a whip... something I certainly haven't dared to wish for as an adult.

All 3 Star Wars films

I've been on the Internet for too long tonight as it is. So I'm not going to write about Star Wars. I just couldn't live with myself. Needless to say I loved all three original films as a child/teen and have seen them so many times that I haven't had the desire to watch them again since.

Disney

We had quite a large collection of Disney cartoon films on video. My favourites were Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I used to think it was called 'Disnep', because of the logo. How dumb!

A few other films I used to watch as a youngin': The Wizard of Oz, Superman: The Movie, The Dark Crystal, The Karate Kid, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Pixar and such

2008-09-08T15:19:00.000+10:00

Wall-E is the latest Pixar animation. I haven't seen it so I shouldn't really comment on it, although it's meant to be very good; potential "best picture" nomination. What I will comment on though: computer animated films. I'm getting a bit sick of them. They just seem really gimmicky, and the stories more and more preposterous with each film that comes out.
It's like they think:

"OK, we're raking it in with these CGI kids movies... what can we do next?"
"Oh we haven't had one about cars yet..."
"Yeah, that'll do. What should we call it?"
"Uuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm... Oh F--k it, let's just call it 'Cars'."

Apply the same logic to robots, monsters, penguins, superheroes, fish... rats! Obviously, I'm not in the ideal age demographic to appreciate these films, but it's not as though I'm against cartoons - I have fond memories of the old Disney feature films.

Another thing: What's with the way people look in these latest ones?

Surely they don't have to look THAT mutated?

Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the first Toy Story, Shrek, and I didn't mind Finding Nemo. But Robots, Ice Age (can you believe there's an Ice Age 2 for goodness sake!), Madagascar, Ratatouille, Happy Feet, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars? Please make them stop.

This does NOT look awesome...

2008-09-04T16:05:00.000+10:00

Righteous Kill. Robert De Niro and Al Pacino - potentially a recipe for the best movie ever... but watch the trailer. It looks simply awful; the type of film that will go straight to the cheap DVD bin. I cannot fathom why these two actors would sign up for something like this. Their characters' names are 'Turk' and 'Rooster'. They may as well have named them 'Robert' and 'Al', as it looks like they're practically playing themselves. And Fiddy Cent is in it... purely for marketing reasons, I'd imagine. I can only hope that the trailer is nothing like the final product.

This looks awesome...

2008-08-28T22:12:00.000+10:00

Body of Lies. It's Ridley Scott's latest film, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. Watch the trailer here.

DiCap (if I may call him that) is one of the best screen actors around at the moment. He's been awesome in everything since Catch Me If You Can, particularly awesome in Blood Diamond. Russell Crowe is always good value so it looks promising, based on the casting alone.

Ridley Scott is one of my favourite directors. He seems quite happy to try his hand at any genre - he's made great sci-fi (Blade Runner, Alien), 'historical fiction' shall we say (Gladiator, The Duellists, Kingdom of Heaven. Actually that last one wasn't so great), gritty, true-story dramas (Black Hawk Down, American Gangster), even a romantic comedy (A Good Year, which I haven't seen yet but I've heard it's a bit crap).

Body of Lies is a 'relevant' political thriller, based on a novel by David Ignatius. DiCaprio plays a former journalist, hired by the CIA (Big Russ pops up here, I'm guessing) to track down an Al Qaeda leader in the Middle East. It looks super exciting.

The people involved in this film are certainly capable of great things, so I hope they deliver the goods!

It's scheduled to be released on the 9th of October.

American Gangster

2008-08-22T14:55:00.000+10:00

I just love films about crime/gangsters. I guess it's an ingredient for instant drama and mystery. Also, there's so much to explore in the criminal world, it's almost impossible to make a dry gangster film. I also love Ridley Scott (well I love his style of film making and I like most of his films), so I was pretty excited to watch American Gangster.

Set in late 60s/early 70s New York, it's an epic film that explores the ambiguity of good vs bad. Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas; a smooth, drug smuggling, Tony Montana-esque ganster that has built an empire on cocaine, partly so that he can share his wealth with his mother and to overcompensate for his poor Southern upbringing. Det. Ritchie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a devoted, honest cop whose followed around by his reputation for turning in a million dollars instead of pocketing it. Crowe's character follows a very tried and tested formula - policeman that's ostracised by his corrupt colleagues and divorced by his wife for being "married to the job". It is a true story, so I guess this can be overlooked.

The story follows Ritchie Roberts' attempts to clean up the city and bring down the people responsible for its mess (including Frank Lucas). It is very compelling and the sets are convincing and gritty, but I don't think it will ever be seen as a classic. It just has a few too many flaws. I wasn't totally convinced by Denzel's gangster. I know it's based on true events and the point is that he's not completely evil, but I still felt he had too many contradictions. He didn't seem ruthless enough to have built such a fortune for himself, nor intimidating enough to be a feared gangster. Another problem I had - although it's a powerful film, for some reason it isn't a memorable film. There weren't any scenes that stayed with me, and I think that's an important aspect of this of this type of film. Despite this, it still manages to be very exciting and it does suck you into its world. It's a very worthy addition to the crime genre.

4 Stars

Death at a Funeral

2008-08-21T18:30:00.000+10:00

A pretty funny, farcical British comedy. Some of it I found hilarious, some of it didn't quite hit the mark. I reckon this type of comedy would be quite hard to write; you need to give the audience the impression that "anything that can go wrong will go wrong" without being too obvious in setting up these scenes. It worked really well in Meet The Parents and it's effortlessly pulled off in Clockwise (and of course, Fawlty Towers), but in Death at a Funeral, there were scenes that just seemed to try a bit too hard. Having said that, I laughed a lot during it, particularly any scene involving Uncle Alfie or the midget. One of this film's strengths is its characters; they're believable enough to make me laugh, even if the scenario they're involved in is totally absurd.

3 Stars

The Dark Knight

2008-08-01T18:38:00.000+10:00

This was incredibly gripping. It had me hooked for the full 2.5 hours. The story is very well crafted, with so many twists and turns; I completely bought into it. Relentless intensity.

Heath Ledger's joker is brilliant; easily his best performance. He's one of the most chilling villains to be filmed in a long time, not just a comic book bad guy but a true, multi layered psychopath. I love that they made the Joker genuinely clever; he totally outwitted Batman and the police (the escape from prison was ingenious and the magic trick with the pen... how cool was that?!). What's more, I liked it that Batman did not understand the Joker, that he underestimated him. There was no sense of inevitability that Batman was going to come out on top; this was never the case in Tim Burton's Batman (which I also like).

The corruption and general seediness of Gotham adds a really interesting dimension to these new Batman films (obviously it's in all the films but explored much further in the latest ones). It really feels like a crime drama/thriller more than a superhero movie. It actually reminded me a lot of Heat.

One thing that wasn't so good: Batman takes a back seat in this one. They undid a lot of the really interesting character development that occurred in Batman Begins, by having him seemingly go through the motions. Another mild criticism I had was that the fall of Harvey Dent/Two-Face into evil seemed very rushed. I found it hard to believe that would happen so suddenly. Perhaps they could have extended it into the next film? Aaron Eckhart was very good though, and I was glad to see Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman get more screen time in this one. I think Christopher Nolan is the perfect director for these films; he's such an enigmatic storyteller and he handles action sequences so well. Can't wait for the next one!

4 stars

Children of Men

2008-08-01T14:11:00.000+10:00

I enjoyed this. Most futuristic, sci-fi (I'm not sure if Children of Men is sci-fi... don't think so), apocalyptic thrillers are fine with me. There are some quite intense scenes that are really well filmed. Alfonso Cuarón is an impressive filmmaker, at least, from what I've seen of his films so far (his Harry Potter film is the best in that series by a long way, I think). Clive Owen is pretty good in this, in fact all of the acting is top-notch.

It all seems a bit hollow though. We have Clive's character trying to get a pregnant woman to a mysterious scientific project ship, because the world is in complete disarray, due to the inability of having children. And there is a freedom fighting/terrorist organisation that have rather vague motives. Not much is really explained at all, and this means the film is just 110 minutes of action with a couple of forced philosophical moments that miss the mark. I don't mind ambiguity as a storytelling method, if it actually works, but I don't think it does here. Maybe I just need to watch it again.

That said, it is a really exciting, visually stunning film and a lot of people seem to like it.

3 Stars.

New Blog

2008-08-01T00:06:00.000+10:00

I'm pretty pumped for movies at the moment so I decided to start a movie blog. Expect to find reviews, lists and rants.