Change Your Image
jonrosling
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
The Rise of Skywalker exposes how bare The Last Jedi was - but still manages to do the heavy lifting required.
It's been said in some of the press reviews that the film is stuffed, overloaded and clunky and that it lacks the punch it needs to finish the saga.
IMO this is partly true - the film is jam packed with "things" happening. This is probably because it needs to set up a story that really should have been established in Episode VIII but wasn't. I enjoyed The Last Jedi but this film really does lay bare how little that film progressed the story and how it lacked the scale needed for this stage of the overall saga.
However, Episode IX is definitely not clunky. It breezes along quite smoothly I think; and it certainly delivers an emotional, impactful and thrilling finish to the saga. It is definitely a fan's film and in time I think may be seen as the best in this sequel trilogy.
SPOILERS FOLLOW SO DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET...
.
.
.
.
.
.
The beginning of the film kind of took me by surprise. It's very heavy exposition-wise as it sets up the story for this film. The opening scroll didn't sit well with me - I thought JJ Abrams hit the nail on the head with this in The Force Awakens and Rian Johnson also in The Last Jedi.
But in this episode the film-makers are establishing a story that is quite a left turn from where we finished previously. The audience is straight into the action and straight into what is the essence of this episode - the return of Palpatine. That there was no subtle hinting and then great reveal kind of surprised me. But then, it highlights that this is the kind of thing that should've been set up in the previous film.
There will be inevitable controversy over Rey's origins. A Palpatine she is - his grand-daughter in fact - thus explaining her Force abilities and the reason her parents left her. I thought this was well executed - it dwelt on it only where it was in service to the story and it created a great tension in the character that reflected the wider theme of light versus dark.
Adam Driver was on the ball - as always - and the much vaunted 'Bendemption' was worth the wait. His death and joining with the Force - pulling the well known vanishing trick - showed how strong the character was in the light as well as the dark; and I do wish we could have seen more of Ben Solo towards the end of the whole trilogy. But then his arc was finished at the end of the film so the end for this character made sense.
The filmmaker's dealt with Carrie Fisher's passing admirably. The scenes with her didn't look out of place at all and she retained a central part of the story until the character's death at about the three quarter mark.
Chewie's howl grief suitably demonstrated his pain this time too - a criticism that the filmmakers were stung with after Han Solo's death at the end of The Force Awakens. It was equally touching that Chewie finally received a medal for his services in destroying the original Death Star at the end of this film, something that has rankled Star Wars fans for years.
Action-wise the film is jam packed - it never really stops but as the story moves along breezily, you never really notice. The scope and scale of the action is vast, and we've not really seen world building like this since the prequels and perhaps Rogue One.
The film introduces not only new worldscapes but some great new characters too.
There was no where near enough of Zorri Bliss, which is a real shame as the character's dynamic with Poe was something that would've played well across a number of films and stories. I must confess I am a fan of Babu Frik - there's some good belly laughs there if you catch them in the subtle interactions and dialogue.
Of the new characters, I'm not quite sure what the point of D-O, the new droid, was. The character doesn't actually serve any purpose that couldn't have been fulfilled using existing characters and the cynic in me tends to think it's there as a potential merchandising point. I'm quite certain JJ Abrams himself voiced the droid too - I'll stand corrected if we already know it's someone else.
Cameos from Mark Hamill as a Force ghost and Harrison Ford as a memory of Ben Solo (really touchingly done too) were welcome. I was expecting Lando to be a cameo role too but was really pleased that they made a proper use of the character and the actor. He's central to the second half of the film and isn't pushed on stage and then cast aside in some cheap fan service.
A few other things - the Sith "temple" was interesting, as was the idea of the Sith acolytes chanting the Sanscrit-esque lyrics that were introduced in Episode I. While it helped fill out and broaden the Sith story it really was something that felt a little crammed in and needed to have been introduced earlier in the series to hold any real weight in the overall story-telling.
Ian McDiarmind, though, was fabulously evil and the ending lifted the Emperor to a new level entirely as a character. As I've said before, it was a plot line that really should have come in at the end of act II in this trilogy, the end of The Last Jedi.
Visually the film is what you'd expect from someone of the calibre of JJ Abrams and his team. Cinematographically it was different to Episode 8 (which was visually a masterpiece of cinematography IMO) but that's down to the fast paced nature of the story. The special and visual effects wise were as flawless as one would expect but what really rounds off the film - and the saga - is the outstanding work of John Williams. Echoes of music from the whole saga are sprinkled throughout in a soundtrack that is a fitting end to 42 years worth of work on these films. The music helps round off a film that itself rounds off the saga wonderfully.
My only thought - less than 24 hours after seeing it - is that The Rise of Skywalker really does exposes how bare The Last Jedi really was in terms of progressing the story or adding l much to it (and I reiterate - I am a fan of Episode VIII).
In terms of story telling it would have made more sense to untroduce some of this material and these ideas in Episode VIII, which would have made for a more cohesive trilogy overall and allowed this film to breath a bit more.
As it is Episode IX has a lot of lifting to do - which it manages surprisingly well. It would be sad to see it derided simply for being what it is - part of the sequel trilogy - and there is some intimation of that already online. Because overall, The Rise of Skywalker is an enjoyable, exciting film with an emotional punch, reinforced by its own heritage. It fulfills its aim of delivering answers, action and thrills while managing to bring a definite close to that heritage.
Serbuan maut (2011)
Game of Death meets Jason Bourne
I came to this film with a heavy weight of expectation. Colleagues and friends had been raving about it since release but for some reason I'd never found the window of opportunity to sit down and watch it. The positive reviews and rave comments I'd heard made me more than a little wary but I am pleased to say the film really does live up to the hype I've had poured at me about it.
The story is pretty straight forwards - a team of SWAT police officers raid a no-go tower block in an attempt to take down a drug lord. However, their attempts at a secret and silent entry into the building are blown apart when a look out manages to escape and notify the gang that they are under siege. Thereafter ensues mayhem, blood, violence and general chaos the like of which I've never seen grace a movie screen before.
The fight scenes in The Raid are simply outstanding. In fact, to use such an adjective is really beneath what the film-makers, martial artists and choreographers have put together. Fast, furious and lethal the actors engage almost every conceivable item as a weapon - fists, knifes, guns, machetes, furniture, a door frame, even a fridge! Both the balls-to- the-wall intensity and originality of the action sequences is what makes this film stand out and make other martial arts action movies seem pretty generic fare.
The director and DoP make effective use of steadi- and handy-cam to give the audience a sense that they are not sitting outside of the action but are there, in the room, watching these men fight to the often brutal and vicious deaths. And the fight scenes are never ended with a single crushing blow - a knife to the neck is rendered doubly effective with several additional stabs to the chest.
The Raid is not a deep, meaningful study of violence; nor is it a wordy exposition about the darker side of human nature. It has a basic premise and some efficient and effective characterisation (two subplots about a corrupt member of the team and another who is on board to try and persuade his corrupted brother to return to the fold) and that really is all you need from an all out action movie of this nature.
The Raid is a thoroughly enjoyable watch - and an exhausting one at that! - and I'd go so far as to say that it has set a new bar in terms of martial arts action movies.
The Look of Love (2013)
A Look of the Sixties
Paul Raymond, the Grand Master of 70s pornography and the self proclaimed King of Soho, is the central character in this biopic by Michael Winterbottom, based on Paul Willets book, Men Only - and yet Winterbottom's film is as much about the people around Paul Raymond as it is about the man himself.
The film begins with Paul Raymond - played here by a superb Steve Coogan - mourning the evident loss of his daughter Debbie, reflecting on his life and relationship with her via an old video recording. Hounded by the media outside his Mayfair penthouse he is a shadow of what he once was, grey, tired, backlit. The film then flashes back to the humble almost-beginnings of Paul Raymond, telling in turn each significant phase of his life and success - from the era of the Raymond Revue Bar and the notorious (but unsurprisingly successful) Pyjama Nights theatre show right through to his later success with the Men Only magazine.
Winterbottom and his production designers capture beautifully the design aesthetic of the era - the penthouse flat, which Raymond brags was designed for him by Ringo Starr, is particularly noteworthy - and together with the excellently chosen soundtrack and crisp cinematography capture a real sense of the colour and hedonism at the heart of this man's life in the 1960s, 1970s and beyond. In fact the style, design and structure of the film reminded me very much of both Boogie Nights and Goodfellas.
Coogan is on top form, and while some people many see his performance at Paul Raymond as just a pastiche of Alan Partridge, I for one don't. For in the same way that the well known and well loved radio journalist from Norwich is something of an alter ego for Coogan, the idea of Paul Raymond himself is just an act, a face that the man wears for the public (and often for his private life). From the outset when we discover that his real name is Geoffrey Quinn we see a man who is forever hiding behind something, keen to portray himself as something very different to his real existence. His ignorance of both his legitimate and illegitimate sons; his outwardly normal and happy relationships with women(which both eventually break down); his twisting of words and meaning to justify his business - here is a man who spends his life stripping away the veneer of respectability in public life with exhibitions of voyeurism and pornography and yet one who keeps his own very private and personal existence hidden from view, the only seemingly genuine emotion and touching moment when he watches old video footage of his daughter. Despite the hordes of women, despite the money, despite the power Paul Raymond never seems genuinely happy. Everything is a mask for a hollowness that is only filled ultimately by the presence of his daughter.
Imogen Poots pushes to the fore as Raymond's wayward daughter Debbie. The film is as much about the destructive life she leads than that of her father - in fact you could see her downfall as paying the price for his father's sins. Encouraged into areas where she had no talent (Imogen Poots off-key singing was at the same time humorous and tragic) and tempted by the drugs and easy-to-sleazy lifestyle around her father it is inevitable that it would be she who's fragility and delicacy is torn apart. The only character for whom Paul Raymond feels any lasting emotion is the one character he drives to the edge of destruction, ultimately watching as she crashes and burns over the edge.
The actress plays the part masterfully and I choose the words "fragility" and "delicacy" quite deliberately - she manages to never loose that school girl naivety and innocence, even when playing Debbie at a much older age. It's quite an affecting turn from Imogen Poots, who's talent and beauty will surely mark her out as a very big star in the future.
Other cast members are also effective - Chris Addison as the somewhat slimy Tony Power; Anna Friel as Raymond's first wife Jean; Tamsin Egerton as the club dancer with whom he runs off. There are also a series of cameo performances from familiar faces that give this film a genuinely British feel, of the like normally associated with older, classic British movies. Perhaps it's the accompanying soundtrack and design styles in play but this feels like The Italian Job, or Alfie; or Blow-Up. Simon Dee wouldn't look out of place driving off in his sports car with a blonde in the passenger seat (in fact there is something of a homage to the credits of his 1960s TV show Dee Time in the film).
I was fortunate enough to see this at an advance screening of the film at the Bradford International Film Festival, where the screenwriter Matthew Greenhalgh fielded questions from the audience. Challenged about the sexual politics of both the film and pornography in general Greenhalgh seemed somewhat overwhelmed.
But this isn't a film about feminism, or the rights and wrongs of pornography and its politics. The film-makers are showing us a classical tale of rise and fall, and of how even someone who essentially uses people for the pleasures of others can still have the redeeming feature of love, even if he doesn't realise it until it is far too late. This film is not just about Paul Raymond's life and career but also about his relationship with his daughter and how she was ultimately sacrificed to the lifestyle he chose. I'm sure there is a film about the politics of pornography in this story but to have entertained us with it wouldn't have been half as interesting - or successful as I feel this film ultimately is.
Look Back in Anger (1959)
Time To Look Back In Anger At Recent History
Emerging as one of the first of the British New Wave, Look Back In anger was actually pipped to the cinema screen in 1959 by Room At The Top.But what it loses for tardiness it makes up for in having claim to the original Angry Young Man in the form of Richard Burton, here giving an oft critiqued performance as Jimmy Porter, a working class university graduate who has chosen a life less than one would expect with his education. Working a street stall in the market he lounges the remainder of his days away in dingy digs with his wife, Allison, played here by Mary Ure in a performance that was to somewhat bizarrely reflect her own life in later years.
Burton's Jimmy is certainly angry, and cruel with it, launching it verbal tirade after verbal tirade against his wife, held in check only by market partner and friend Cliff (Gary Raymond). Breaking into their claustrophobic existence come Allison's friend, Helena (Claire Bloom, who urges her to break free from the psychological hammering and return to the middle class comfort of her parents' home. This she eventually does, taking her unborn baby with her - only for Helena and Jimmy to get together and fall in love. You can't help but think throughout that Jimmy is retreading the same path with Helena - that what starts as a lovey-dovey affair will inevitably end up as the dysfunctional melodrama that Allison was made to endure.
Tony Richardson does great work here, exacting the kind of performances that are needed from Ure, Bloom and Raymond. Richard Burton';s performance is often criticized as being too melodramatic, too over the top but I felt that Richardson held back from toning down the actor too allow him to make the broader, thematic point, to demonstrate not only the working class frustration from the era but also the sense of loss of belonging and purpose that was beginning to shine through British society as it's Empire fell away and as British power declined post-Suez.
Indeed the idea of a "Great" Britain fading into history is neatly summed up by Allison's father, a retired Colonel who served his time in India up until independence in 1947, who marks that event as the beginning of the end for his world, for all of their worlds. "We had a good time, living" says Edith Evans character Ma Tanner as she lays flowers on the grave of her dead husband, as if she is remembering not only her long dead love, but also her love for what went before the war, as if that were a time when individuals as well as nations had a purpose that they were true to, however simple that purpose was.
Oswald Morris cinematography deserves credit too, establishing a gritty look and feel that was much mimicked in kitchen-sink dramas in the early 1960s. He sits back from the interior action but not too far, allowing us to feel the cramped, coffin-like feel of Jimmy and Allison's flat; his camera work outside captures the raw feel of 1950s working class streets and industrial cities. The lighting and staging of the final scenes in the railway station is simply beautiful, an interplay of light, shadows and steam that makes even Brief Encounter look tame.
Overall Look Back In Anger captures a snapshot of Britain at the cusp of immense change. The anger of people like Jimmy, fed the cultural and social revolution of the following twenty years and I've read reviews on here that say argue this dates this film beyond any modern relevance. I would disagree - and even argue that what we need is a film like this now (2013) to show the frustration, the pent up anger and the broad social disarray that Britain is falling into in the post-modern era.
Attenberg (2010)
An intriguing, but ultimately unsatisfying study of the human condition
I'd heard nothing about ATTENBERG until I picked up a review booklet in the local indie cinema in my town and was intrigued by the premise. It's difficult to explain the story as such because this isn't really a story piece, but more of a study in character and relationships, and the human condition.
As a character study the film-makers perhaps deliberately draw parallels with nature documentaries which observe animal behaviour without really making any emotional connection between man and beast. The film draws attention to this - as the main character Marina, played here by Ariana Labed, watches Sir David Attenborough on TV describing his experience of coming face to face with a gorilla. He sees it as a connection with nature like no other he has experienced.
Marina herself realises that there is no emotional content in her life, no connection with those around her. Her candid questioning of her father's sexuality and the off-hand conversation about the process of cremation after his death lays bare the emotional desert that she exists in. Her cold relationship with best friend Bella, and Bella's clumsy attempts to set alight the fires of sexual yearning in Marina further show that she (Marina) is spiritually, emotionally empty.
Even her attempts - ultimately successful - to lose her virginity to the nameless engineer she drives to and from work each day in her job as a taxi driver are emotionless, cold, stark. She describes each stage of their tenderness, each aspect of love-making stripping it of any feeling, warmth, humanity.
Marina is played brilliantly by Ariana Labed, who hides behind a stillness in both her face and eyes, barely revealing anything except in the strange dances with Bella. Evangelia Randou succeeds in bringing darkness to Bella. She is unhindered by thoughts of feeling and emotion, tenderness and love and in every respect she plays the darker, animalistic side to Marina. It was easy to think for the first act that Bella was not a real character but a shadow side to Marina, satisfying the hidden fantasises Marina has, about sex and even, in a Freudian twist, about her own father.
Marina almost gets there but the death of her father, the functional process of packing him off to Germany to be cremated (cremation is legal in Greece and has been since 2006, but is still frowned upon by the Orthodox Christian church there) pulls her back into a world that is hard and cold and stark. She stands and watches his coffin packaged, x-rayed for the flight, marked with "THIS WAY UP" stickers like some Amazon or eBay parcel.
There is a moment of feeling as she chases briefly after the pick up that takes him to the plane but in the end the film pulls back from allowing the character the emotional epiphany it has been building to. She scatters his ashes into the sea, driven there by Bella, clothed in a functional visibility jacket and struggling to prise off the lid from the urn. There seems to be no feeling, except maybe disappointment that there is no deeper feeling as the waves wash him away. Marina has not opened the door to love, feeling, loss, emotion.
And it's this that I struggled with in the film. What it said to me was that humans can be really no different from animals, going through the day by day business of survival. It shows people in all their functional purpose - working, eating, dying. It doesn't hold back from showing it's characters naked, like the apes in the jungle.
There is a notion in this that we have a reservoir of compassion and love, and a whole glut of deeper emotions to give but that it remains untapped; and that we are perhaps trapped by our circumstance and surroundings and past and thus prevented from expressing our true selves.
Our characters live in a rundown industrial town, and the story itself was written against the backdrop of riots in Greece at austerity measures and economic crisis. The film-makers and writers are asking: Is this all we are? Industry? Economy? Money? Simple black and white things? Or is there something else.
But they never answer the question for Marina and her plight is left unresolved, unsatisfied.
The cinematography in the film - by Thimios Bakatakis - is beautiful, still. It is a series of tableau into which movement sometimes intrudes, the emotions stirring the mind.
But ultimately it is the failure to resolve Marina's dilemma that leaves the film missing that final piece of the jigsaw that would have made it an art-house classic.