dudelebowskii Reviews

The 'Socalled' Movie (2010)

Refreshingly upbeat philosophy on life by excellent musician

[9/10 · 18 September 2010]

Preparing to go to Hillside Festival on Guelph Island this summer my girlfriend and I did some internet research on some of the artists to check out. So-called was amongst the artists playing and upon hearing such marvellous tracks as 'These are the Good Old Days' and 'Ricce Dicca' were excited to see him live. The show was no let down, as he really got the tent jiveing and even threw some nifty magic tricks into the bargain.

A few months later and my girlfriend and I are travelling through Canada from Toronto (we're English on a year's working holiday) and last night, whilst in Winnipeg, chanced upon the poster for 'The So-called Movie' at a local cinema. Needless to say, we zoomed straight in.

This documentary-style film is a joy to watch and reveals much about the carefree, fun-loving and infectious nature of his "cut and paste", multi-generic music. Josh Dobin is revealed as a modest, very down to earth, but slightly eccentric character who knows what he finds meaningful in life and, effortlessly it seems, sets out to fulfil it. He is obviously a passionate and talented musician, without ever taking it too seriously, and he is not shy to approach his "heroes" in helping him achieve his goals. It says a lot about his talent, his versatility but also his likable nature, that such apparently estranged artists as old funk legends, Jewish clarinet virtuosos, gay porn directors and classic 1950s piano maestros all find common ground with him, as he provides a musical realm for their various creative talents to flourish.

There are some hilarious sequences (including the skim of some of his supremely punning teenage cartoon sketches, some bizarre short films he directed featuring some of his heroes but especially the Youtube tune he persuades the 50s piano star to write) but also some poignant and touching moments too (most notable being the epic boat trip he organised with his parents to provide a more joyful experience for Jewish Holocaust rememberers).

All in all, he comes across as a very happy man, with a more unusual talent for musical creation than most. He, quite simply, knows what is meaningful to him and endeavours (very successfully) to provide a space where others can come together and celebrate what is meaningful to them.

Very uplifting attitude and a lesson to all. Don't take life too seriously and pursue your dreams! (Wow, I ended that in rather a corny fashion but it's too late to change it now, I'm about to press submit...

Snatch (2000)

Lock, Stock... is a classic. Snatch certainly is not.

[8/10 · 5 December 2004]

Lock, Stock was an instant classic. It was so refreshingly clever in it's style, dialogue, characters and narrative. It was such a fun watch, the film was the very definition of cool. It oozed energy and ideas, and Guy Ritchie worked the humour into the film through the dialogue and the variety of fantastic characters absolutely perfectly.

I do not usually encourage comparisons with a director's previous good work. It makes it far too easy to criticise. But Ritchie leaves one no choice with Snatch. It conveys too much cockiness, it shows too much awareness of his Lock, Stock success. Ritchie is showing off about his talents that brought the deserved recognition and success of his first work and it comes across as just big-headed.

This is disappointing because Snatch also has many very good ideas but they are not realized anywhere near as well as in Lock, Stock. It is a pity. The two central reasons for Lock, Stock working so well was the characters and the script. The characters were marvelous creations and made great use of the crackling dialogue. Snatch does have a couple of great characters (notably Brad Pitt's humorous Pikey and Dennis Farina's wonderful Cousin Avi) but there are two many characters that lack character or are just very annoying. Brick Top made me grind my teeth every time he spoke, which was not the case with the powerful gangster type in Lock, Stock. The script in Snatch is at times on a par with Lock, Stock, but then the cockiness comes through, and it gets ridculous. Vinnie Jones' character seems to be the main culprit (this is not Vinnie's fault, it's just what he got pitted with).

It appears to me that Ritchie was so desperate to give Snatch its own identity separate from Lock, Stock (by trying to be more clever and more funny) that it just comes across as a more far-fetched and less genuine accompaniment. It even includes a moment deliberately there to get the audience remembering their enjoyment of Lock, Stock (Vinnie Jones slamming someones head in a car door). This inclusion is a perfect demonstration of Snatch not being able to become its own film, it needs the audience to acknowledge the better previous film to generate positive emotions when watching this one.

This film is at its best when watching it with your mates and after a few beers, the moments of less than subtle humour becomes almost acceptable then, and the soundtrack is once again superb. Like I said it is a pity, because Snatch could have been so much more. It has many very good moments, but there are others that just aren't effective because they're too ridiculous or said by characters that are not very substantial. Enjoyable yet frustrating. The film is nothing more than that.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Stop the tape once they leave the island

[7/10 · 30 October 2004]

SPOILERS The original 'Jurassic Park' film was released whilst I was in my final year of primary school (age 11-12). It was my favourite film for ages. And now at 19 years of age, although it may have been replaced at the top of my film list, I love it just as much. It is an epic film and the T-Rex breakout scene is one of the best of all time.

So when I was sat in the cinema screen awaiting the start of this sequel I was, naturally, extremely excited. It was never going to be as effective as the classic first film (and it certainly isn't) but for 2 thirds it is entertaining and engaging action fare.

It was a clever idea to upgrade Goldblum's Ian Malcolm from bit part player to central protagonist. He was easily the best character in the first, possibly the only person with character in the first, excluding the dinosaurs. His witty dialogue was a joy ('It's an impact tremor is what it is, I'm fairly alarmed here!) and here we are given the opportunity for plenty more humorous lines. Actually, the human characters in this film do, in general, have more personality. The one true flaw you can accuse the original of is the dullness and lack of development of the characters. Laura Dern is replaced by the much more capable Julianne Moore as the leading lady in this sequel, and the under-developed Sam Neill character was rightly left out.

The result is a much more light-hearted perspective of events on this new island, as Goldblum's witty repartee illuminates the dangerous dinosaur scenes. And it becomes a very good action film. The stars of the first, the Rapters, take a back seat for the T-Rex and the small but deadly little green ones to steal the limelight. However the rapters in the long grass sequence is probably the best scene in the film.

But as soon as they manage to escape the island this film franchise lost all it's appeal. The T-Rex in the big city ending is atrocious. It makes a mockery of the dinosaur as we see him chasing buses, drinking from swimming pools and chewing on dog kennels! After one and a half films of gripping, edge of the seat dino action this ending is a total joke. I still don't know what happened to the crew on that ship. I just sat there shaking my head at this typical Hollywood over-the-top scenario.

And then there is the third film. Possibly the worst film of all time. Spinosaurus! Swallows a mobile phone! Rapters talking to each other! Oh please! Spielberg didn't direct it and you can tell. Something tells me he was regretting that abysmal ending to 'The Lost World' (an apt title, as the climax to this film marks the end of a geniusly created dinosaur world). And that is so frustrating.

The King of Comedy (1982)

A homage to the greatest actor of all: De Niro

[9/10 · 28 October 2004]

This is a film that would not be half as effective as it is, if it were not for the unbelievable performance by Robert De Niro. He is, without question the best actor to have graced our screens, and though I love the so many other varied genius performances he has become more famous for, I think this to be his finest work.

The character he plays draws inevitable comparisons with Travis in 'Taxi Driver', as in both roles he plays individuals so detached from reality, they feel the need to commit criminal acts in order to expel the frustrations they have at their lowly position in society, and how little they can do about it. Travis's frustrations are centered more on the decaying state of society and the streets he drives around, whereas Rupert is simply trying to achieve his life-long ambition of fame and fortune that celebrities on television enjoy. But Rupert is such a clever creation by de Niro. He is detached in a very different way to Travis. Whilst Travis is only too aware of what is going on in society, Rupert has his own little view of how the world works. He fantasises being a celebrated comic to such a degree he convinces himself of events that haven't actually happened (most notably when he starts believing his own lie, that he's been invited to Jerry Lewis' summerhouse, is actually true!) It is a magnificently subtle take on the insane and is the De Niro performance I enjoyed the most.

I felt compelled to offer my opinion on De Niro's 10 best roles, so here they are: 10-The Untouchables, 9-Heat, 8-The Godfather Part 2, 7-Midnight Run, 6-Awakenings, 5-Taxi Driver, 4-The Deer Hunter, 3-Raging Bull, 2-Mean Streets, 1-The King Of Comedy

It (1990)

My first horror film

[8/10 · 2 October 2004]

POSSIBLE SPOILER

You know how it is when you're child. You have a sleepover at a mates house and you collectively agree to rent a film. And in an attempt to impress and not seem like a wimp, you eagerly decide to get a scary film. So my chums and I spent nearly an hour raiding the video shop shelves searching for the film with the scariest looking cover. We decided on IT, with it's evil clown tearing out of the cover with it's claw. We must have only been 8 or 9 years old at the time. When I look back I think IT was a decent introduction to the realms of the horror movie. And the fact the film is about a monster that slaughters kids made it all the more effective at that age. We loved it and were genuinely terrified throughout. The bathtub suicide, with IT scrawled on the walls in blood was a legendary image in my school after that.

However, watching IT again as an adult who possesses a far wider experience of films and has read the original novel, I found the film tame, very repetitive and excruciatingly long. The book, though over 1000 pages, is one of the best I have ever read and I realize it is a tough one to do justice to on screen because there is simply so much happening in it. I don't think it's possible to convey on the big screen the effect the book achieves and some of the ideas and creations it has in it. So baring that in mind I suppose this is about as good an adaptation as you could get.

Pennywise the clown is still a chilling presence in the scenes he is in (and should be a more famous horror icon), but the spider monster (IT's true form) at the end is very poorly created. The acting by the child actors is very good, it's just a pity about some of the adult actors.

So, whilst most adult viewers will be fidgeting in their seats as the film drags on, if you are looking for a film to introduce the horror genre to your little nipper this as good a place as any to start. This or 'Childs Play' (the film with the killer doll), which was our next selection. Certainly don't choose the utterly dire 'Creepshow' or 'Cujo' which even as kids we laughed at just how bad they were.

Mystic River (2003)

Exudes quality

[8/10 · 1 October 2004]

SPOILERS

Having slated murder mystery 'Gosford Park' in an earlier comment I am now about to lavishly praise what Clint and his crew have achieved with this one. Where 'Mystic River' is similar to 'Gosford Park' is that it is more than just a murder mystery film but it does not get to big-headed or distracted by what it is trying to do, as Altman's film does.

I was instantly gripped by this, from the first frame to the last, and think that it is now about time Clint's directorial talents start to be mentioned ahead of his stereotyped acting roles. When directing is totally immersed in his characters, which is a breath of fresh air in these modern blockbuster times, but does not get too obsessed to allow the audience to lose focus on the plot. And this film has a seriously good plot.

Although you always kind of knew the killer would not be Dave (Tim Robbins giving the insecure performance he has excelled with in the past, but this time with a psychotic edge) it was much harder to predict just who else it could have been. This is due to the wonderful subtlety of Clint's direction combined with a clever screenplay adaptation by Helgeland. In the thrilling parallel narrative climax you become so involved, as you urge Robbins to somehow convince Sean Penn's Jimmy that he did not do it, that when the gunshot hits home, and that flash of light explodes onto screen, it is literally like snapping suddenly out of a nightmare.

The performances clearly warrant special praise. Penn was terrific, Robbins was almost as good, whilst Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne, although with less challenging roles were still convincing in portraying their cop partner relationship. The actress who played Robbin's wife and the lad who played Brendan were also on a par with the big Hollywood players.

I did not think there was much need for the final ten minutes. It should have finished with Penn walking away up that road, mirroring the opening act. The sub-plot of Kevin Bacon's wife not speaking on the phone was necessary to give him more personality as one of the three kids grown up, but was dealt with all wrong and lead to an overly sappy ending. However this is the only major flaw in Clint's near masterpiece.

Dogma (1999)

Will this film never end?!

[3/10 · 1 October 2004]

Funny in parts, utterly cringe-worthy in most parts and sleep-inducing for the rest. This film is a load of rubbish. Only Rickman and Jay & Silent Bob prevent this movie from getting a disastrous 1/10. How did this ever get green-lit to be made? The plot is so overly complicated that most of the time it is just ever-lasting explanations from characters and when it isn't it is just ridiculous effects and dismal acting. God only knows how Ben Affleck keeps managing to get big roles in films. Sooner or later somebody up there in Hollywood has got to realize that this guy can't act. Meanwhile Matt Damon is a very good actor but criminally wasted in this film. The light relief from the utter garbage that this film is, is the comedy of Jay and Silent Bob. They are like a breath of fresh air in this intoxicating stench. Not only that but it is over two hours long! I suppose it does take some courage to mess around with religion the way they have here but all it has resulted in is a mess of a movie. Take this advice very seriously. Stay away, or reap the consequences!

Lost in Translation (2003)

Two stunning performances, one intriguing relationship

[5/10 · 29 September 2004]

When you sit down to watch a film with Bill Murray in you can expect 90% of the time there will be at least a smile on your lips. The guy was just born to make you laugh. He can make you laugh in the most subtle ways. His best characters are usually judgmental and cynical who slyly poke fun at others and use very sly wit (see Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters). His character here is again this way (as he mocks the how annoying his hosts are) but unlike his other films 'Lost in Translation' is not mostly devoted to his humour and this time he is playing alongside a young actress who is every bit as eye-catching. Whereas previously Murray has stolen scenes and is clearly the class act, here Scarlet Johansson puts in a performance that demands just as much attention.

There are still many occasions where you will find yourself grinning at Murray but this film is not a simple comedy. Far from it. This is more a character examination than a film. Here we have two characters, at different stages in their lives and yet with identical personal issues. Both are in marriages that aren't working for them, both suffer from insomnia at night and of course both are a little lost in the foreign culture they find themselves in.

Filmed with extreme deliberation by Coppolla, sometimes too much so, we get a real insight into human relationships and communication. The setting of Tokyo provides the film with jaw-dropping visuals and makes for easy viewing when this portrait of two complicated characters lives might veer towards depressing. But Coppolla does not allow that to happen because with the right injection of humour and wondrous cinematography you remain light-hearted about the whole thing.

Some may find the negative representation of the Japanese offensive but it serves up some humorous moments and the film would not have worked without it. And thank you Coppolla for not making the ending overly sentimental, as at one point I feared it would. Because lets face it a romantic relationship would never have worked out between them. Would it?

Magnolia (1999)

A difficult watch

[7/10 · 28 September 2004]

SPOILERS This film does have many good things going for it and some genuinely touching moments but it overdoes it just a tad. The characterization is first rate, due to the decent script and top notch performances and at times you do really get involved. However at other times you feel that one scene or one character's monologue is never going to end, and eventually you start thinking that about the film itself.

The most gripping scenario in Magnolia (how random is that title!) was the nervous cop and druggy woman relationship. Every scene with those two characters was exceptional, and her performance is the most impressive in the film. Tom Cruise is very good, but many will disagree when I say that I think his roles in 'Jerry Maguire' and 'A Few Good Men' were his best. Of course Julianne Moore's performance was great because, basically, it always is.

The torrential storm of frogs was totally unexpected but thoroughly intriguing and manages to break the aura of depression quite nicely. But I just do not get this whole coincidence premise. The pre-title coincidences sequence was good but does not really tie in with the rest of the film. I presume the coincidences were supposed to be that all the characters the film focuses on are very loosely interlinked, and there is more than one person in the city with cancer. But these are hardly coincidences are they. You might as well go around spotting coincidences all over the place. For instance, two total strangers broke their legs on exactly the same day and they live in the same city. Wow! Not a particularly effective example but I hope you catch my drift.

You really do have to be in the right mood to watch this as it is way long and way depressing but is still fine example of film-making done right. It will probably be a long while before view this again.

Event Horizon (1997)

Effective shocker

[8/10 · 28 September 2004]

SPOILERS Yeah, yeah, yeah, so this film is a total rip-off of 'Alien'. I would usually care, but not this time. I really like this film. Clearly not in the class of Alien but it does manage to create suspense as well as deliver some genuinely shocking moments. The premise of a haunted spaceship from hell is not exactly original but it takes this very simple set-up and effectively explores the realms of horror and sci-fi. The gore is plentiful, but not too much, and the jump out of your seat moments hit home too. Add to that a cast who are not stretching themselves but putting in solid enough performances of stereotypical genre characters (like a very welcome appearance by Sean Pertwee as the gruff pilot) and you've got yourself a neat little horror/sci-fi hybrid!

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Best Film Ever, Am I wrong?!

[10/10 · 28 September 2004]

That's right. 'The Big Lebowski' is the best film ever and by reading many of the other IMDb comments I can see I am certainly not alone in that opinion. There are a few reasons why I happen to believe this to be numero uno. The dialogue in this film surpasses even that of 'Pulp Fiction'. Almost every line of the script is pure gold and if it does not bring the merest chuckle out of you then you are rolling around on the floor in fits of laughter.

Obviously the 'Dude' is a legendary creation, played to perfection by Bridges, but just outshining him is Goodman as Walter. He is quite possibly the funniest character to be portrayed on screen. You only have to go to the memorable quotes tab on the column to the left to experience just how funny this guy is. His constant bringing up of the Vietnam war into literally any topic of conversation never ceases to be funny and the scene he smashes up that blokes car shouting 'You see what happens when you f*** a stranger in the ass!' is the best of all the classic scenes that make up this masterpiece.

This is the one film I don't think I will ever get tired of watching. And if for some bizarre reason you don't like it, check your pulse you may very well not be alive.

The Shining (1980)

Finest Horror film around

[10/10 · 27 September 2004]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS When it comes to the horror genre the viewer has to be careful. There are some truly dire horror films out there, particularly in the last three or four years. Yet horror, when done effectively, is the most powerful genre there is and 'The Shining' is without doubt the best of the bunch.

There are contenders for it's horror crown, with such varying classics like 'The Thing', 'Scream', 'The Evil Dead' and the original 'Dawn of the Dead', but 'The Shining' just has that little something else that sets it apart.

This is an immaculately constructed film, from the escalating tension in the narrative, the ominous ear-deafening sounds (both diegetic and non-diegetic) to the remarkable visuals that come from paying such intricate detail to every shot. Just one obvious example is the torrents of blood that come gushing from the lifts that visually represent the horrors that the hotel has contained within it's walls for so long.

As well as scaring the life out of you with the sights and sounds this is that rarity, a horror film that really makes you think. There is an ambiguity created that you can never quite fathom out, and leaves you immensely intrigued each time. Was Nicholson already insane before he arrived (I believe so)and the hotel's isolation or it's inherited evil simply tipped him over the brink? Or does simply anyone who spends any fair amount of time in that hotel go mad due it's being haunted. Then there is the final twist of Nicholson being in the photo from about 50 years before in the final frame. Either he found a great anti-aging cream or there is something seriously spooky going on.

I haven't even mentioned the legendary performance by Nicholson or indeed by Duvall yet, or the iconic axe to the door, 'Heeeeeeeeeres Johnny' scene. That's how good this film is.

Of course everyone knows Stephen King's (who wrote the original novel) opinion on this. He hates it. Well, Stephen you may well be an exceptional author but your taste in films suck big time!