silverocelot2001 Reviews

King Kong (2005)

Gorilla in the Mist

[8/10 · 17 December 2005]

Peter Jackson has created a masterpiece once again and deservedly warrants a Golden Globe nomination. The film is well-crafted and develops over its three hour lifespan into a true epic. The setting of early 20th Century Manhattan is brilliantly created. Skull Island is incredibly real also. However, the CGI highlight is, of course, King Kong. This is the best creature animation I have yet seen in a film. Andy Serkis outdoes his Gollum portrayal 10-fold. His conveyance of emotion in Kong is outstanding. That which helps to make this so is Jackson's use of minatures in many scenes with Kong.

Thev acting is a little shaky, however, which is why this film doesn't score a 9 out of 10. Naomi Watts isn't believable enough. She plays the classic 'struggling actress with stars in her eyes' well but never establishes a proper, honest love for Kong. Granted the task is a mammoth one, pun intended, but I feel she could have done a better job. Adrien Brody is better as writer-turned-hero as clichéd as that may sound. The supporting cast is generally solid, with an impressive if at times 1-dimensional performance by Bell, but Jack Black steals the film. he gives the best performance of his career and still maintains his comic-self.

The film does drag a bit but it concludes well and the Empire State Scene is much fun - I enjoyed the destruction of the 'copters- coupled with sadness. Unfortunately, Watts doesn't quite carry-through her Sigourney Weaver antics from earlier in the film.

Overall, this is one of the best-ever remakes and easily the best choice 'for the family' this holiday season.

8

Closer (I) (2004)

One of the most relevant films of 2004

[21 January 2005]

Closer is brilliant because it challenges people to question the current state of love and fidelity in the world.

Many people will be shocked and perhaps disgusted at how liberal this film is but Nichol's "open dialogue" has been one of his best qualities for many years, in my opinion. He could have very easily resorted to Natalie Portman ultimately using solely her physical appearance to seduce Clive Owen's Larry and the audience but instead, she is granted dialogue, which captures her character, Owen's character and the key interplay between the two perfectly. In fact, the scene in the night-club may be the most skilfully realised scene of the entire film. It is a very "sordid" scene in comparison to the majority of the others in the film. Nichols could have used her "stripper career" as a backdrop for the study of the futility or supposed futility of relationships and true love but instead he stages most of the film in apartments, allowing the actors to act, which they do so superbly.

Yes, I am an huge Portman fan but all four actors were great. Still, I believe that her and Owen upstaged Law and Roberts and were very deserving of their Golden Globes. Also, note that Owen had starred in a stage version of the film prior to doing the film, thus he was able really to understand his character and Jude Law's (Dan), seeing that he was Dan in the stage production. The nuances of his portrayal in this film are exceptional as are Portman's, Law's and Roberts'. The use of a camera (Roberts' character is a photographer) is also a clever move by Nichols/ the scriptwriter as he "captures" each character but only for a second with each shot, much like how long "true love" lasts when it does in the film but, at least that's my interpretation of this theme of the film.

The cinematography is excellent; often decadent in order to portray how love or at least security through love is a drug or aspiration for the characters; another one of my interpretations.

The script is not faultless. It does drag in places but the characters keep the viewer interested. Also, the ending may leave a sick taste in your mouth, depending on who your favourite characters are. That Damien Rice track is beautiful and haunting like much of his music.

As I have said, the direction of Nichols is masterful , as always, but, for me, Owen and Portman make this film-Expect them to take two Oscars later this year. Yes, the film is perhaps not totally clear in its answers but it does force the viewers to assess their positions on real love.

Lastly, make a point of seeing Owen in "Greenfingers," a cute Brit film about gardening criminals and the "Hire" BMW commercials, where his intelligence as an actor shines through in the company of some of the best action directors of recent years. Oh, and don't forget "V for Vendetta" with Miss Portman. It has to be a winner. She's really going from strength to strength.

My rating for "Closer": 9/10

24 Hour Party People (2002)

Wonderful if you are/were a fan of the bands and/or the era

[16 December 2004]

Being a fan of many bands who thrived during the Manchnunian music scene, I feel that this film granted me a brilliant visual representation, if you will, of some people whom, I deem: "some of the greatest musicians of recent times." For example, for me, Joy Division's original singer, Ian Curtis is portrayed in a brilliant and fascinating way. (Spoiler Alert): The sadness but also awe evoked in me after witnessing his suicide scene was immense. (end of spoiler) Well done to the director on understanding the characters so well and, more importantly, on portraying them in such original, intelligent ways. This film could have been very boring and "sickly-cliched" but, instead it comes as a "breath of fresh air" to me; the paragliding and pigeon scenes are enough to justify such a comment. Many of the actors were specifically chosen to play musical figures with whom they shared resemblances. Even some "famous" musicians themselves appeared in the film. Yes, this movie is designed to appeal to the cult fan of Indie and original punk music. Don't expect to be able to enjoy the film, really, without a prior knowledge of the musical movements of the 70s, 80s and 90s. This is an homage to an uncanny era defined by artistic mastery, yet marred by excess.

The music is cleverly chosen; being a mix of hit songs, classics and unknown tunes, some of which are brilliant (anything by Joy Division) and others of which are awful, in my opinion, that jazz song by "...Ratio," a band even I had not yet heard of prior to viewing the film. In fact, if you would like to "brush up" on your British musical knowledge but also of how to create a good documentary, watch this film- at least to experience the brilliance of Steve Coogan mixed with some of the best popular music ever written! Also, download "Love Will Tear US Apart" by "Joy Division," it may change your life.

My rating: 9/10

Shattered Glass (2003)

Definitely worth your time, especially if you are a writer

[14 December 2004]

This movie is superbly made. The acting is exceptional, the script, unpredictable, the directing, skilful and the message, unforgettable. I recently saw "Garden State" and am becoming a fan of Sarsgaard. What an actor ! I feel that his acting with his face is deserving of awards itself. Christensen was nauseating for me in Star Wars episode 2 but this film displays true talent. I did not like his accent very much, though, he sounded a bit like Woody Allen to me- maybe that was just a "New Yorkian" accent? I was thrilled with the script; I suppose for someone with little knowledge of Glass' life, the script seemed to be ingeniously unpredictable, although those who have followed the story in the News may have different opinions. Well done to Ray on making a potentially dead-boring story, into a "thrilling ride." I'd like to write professionally one day, and thus found it easy to relate to such an emotional, relevant story that deals with the eternal futility of cheating and lying in journalism and life in general. It also grants one an impressive look into the world of high-power journalism.

Garden State (2004)

Zach Braff's directorial debut is a masterpiece!

[12 December 2004]

This film is brilliant. The acting is splendid. Braff conveys exceptional talent through acting so well, writing a screenplay worthy of an Academy Award and a Golden Globe. Sarsgaard and Portman match him "line for line." It is unlikely that Portman will win a major acting award for this film as most judges would probably rather favour her performance in "Closer." Still, she shows that she is capable of undertaking multi-layered acting roles and I am glad that she has not left her career to "teen sex-romp comedies." Sarsgaard ability to act through body language deserves an award of its own. Also every other character brings an element of twenty-something teenage generation X angst to the film.

The script is very well-crafted as Braff uses each nuance of character and plot detail in order to convey his message and say, social commentary on how commercialism has affected the lives of American Generation- Xers, which lie somewhere "left" of Bohemianism, amongst a sub-culture, that has been a part of my life too for many years. In fact, I was able to relate to the "Klingon" issue; my friend speaks "Klingon." I also used to collect trading cards and remember having friends who often preached as to the potential value of their collections. The dialogue is ingenious and the characters execute comic timing to perfection. Rarely do I deem a film hilarious but Garden State deserves such a title because of Braff's ability to merge original comedic moments with universal dramatic irritations seamlessly.

The cinematography is terrific. This is evident in the scene where Braff is on a couch amongst his "repetitive" drug-induced friends, where the "passing of time effect," while he remains static is established beautifully. The soundtrack is also excellent and it is deserved of its proposed Grammy and Oscar nominations. Well done to Zach Braff, who at 26 has created a life-changing gem. Cheers. I need to catch-up on my Scrubs viewing and that film, "The Broken Hearts' Club."

The Story of an African Farm (2004)

My review

[28 November 2004]

Having studied this film in my Grade 12 year, I was sad to find what an inaccurate depiction of a novel it is.

For one thing, the film only portrays the first half of the book. This half merely serves as an introduction, which develops the lead characters as children; however, it only makes a few suggestions to the key themes of the book. The second develops these themes greatly. The two main themes are the facets of indoctrinated religion and feminism, both of which were disregarded by the film. What's more, Bonaparte Blenkins is a minor character in the book. I'm not that shocked that his character was seen as being so important in the film though as he is, arguably, played by the 'biggest' actor in the cast, Richard E. Grant. Still, Grant does portray his role excellently. The problem is that his "Dickenson-type" performance over-stages all the other actors' performances, with the exception of Armin Mueller-Stahl, whose depiction of Otto is impressive. Karin van der Laag's performance is awfully 'cardboard-like,' and I was not convinced by her attempted Afrikaans accent.

Just the character of Waldo is evidence enough for me to deem the film inaccurate. He is supposed to be an emotionally disturbed child, who is deeply obsessed with religious gratification, yet this is poorly conveyed as many of the plot details pertaining to his character in the book have been removed, or fabricated to make the film more family-orientated. Also, another fabrication is that Lyndall is supposed to be vastly prettier than Em, yet in the book, there is no clear distinction in the two characters' depictions. Never before have I witnessed such an altered ending in a book being transformed into a film.

What's more, one of the most acclaimed sections of the book, 'the hunter short story,' which was actually published as a separate work, is not at all established in the film.

I wonder whether or not the filmmakers and/or actors had the 'chops' to perform the second half of the book successfully. I highly doubt it, as the second part is dramatically complicated and I do not believe that such an inexperienced crew would have been able to make an attempt at realising it. Such a film is a poor depiction of one the most important books in South African literary history and this saddens me. Not to mention, the cinematography is not particularly effective, either. Yes, the book may have been altered to widen its audience to one involving "the whole family" but I feel this was a mistake and that if the filmmakers wanted to portray a South African family-film, they should have chosen a different novel.