Change Your Image
VaticanAssassinWarlock
Reviews
The Pillars of the Earth (2010)
Thrilling historical drama with great performances, slightly let down by a clichéd finale
I really enjoyed the first 6 episodes of this mini series but found the last two very weak. Overall I thought it was one of the better historical dramas I have seen. The series has a very book-like pacing and even though a lot of it is understated, the show always gives you enough to fill in the blanks. It has excellent performances, all the main cast are superb. I was hoping for something a bit more historical (like I, Claudius) but by the second episode I had become invested in the characters and the motif of the growing cathedral was very effective. The battles were well executed and mostly existed to service the plot, the costumes and the use of SFX were all very high quality. I liked that it didn't rely on moralising or pandering to 21st Century mindset. It's true that Aleina was too much of a modern 'girl power' archetype, but her suffering and situation were sympathetic and interesting enough to negate this in my opinion. A modern series would have been all about (spoiler) her rape; in this series, though it did play a major part in forming her character, in terms of her actions she pretty much just accepted it and instead focused on something far more meaningful to somebody of that time: her sense of duty to her family and the restoration of her brothers title. The series didn't divide characters into heroes and villains, most of the characters had elements of both and all of their actions can be interpreted in relation to the show's broader themes. Although the villains are a bit two-dimensional, the heroes are all very flawed and the show does not rely on poetic justice to dumb things down for us. This is a terrible world in which awful people (i.e. people) do terrible things to each other. The show is more interested in how the characters deal with this than it is in punishing or rewarding them so that the simpletons in the audience can boo or cheer appropriately.
These are my feelings up to episode six anyway. While the last two episodes weren't terrible, I think the show undid a lot of the above. It becomes less interested in looking at how the numerous characters react to complex historical events, instead it begins to appeal to the lowest common demonstrators. The villains motivation becomes even less clear, while we are encouraged to cheer for the heroes doing heroic things without asking us to think about why. The fact that Jack is able to build a wall and hold off the roaming bandits for a few minutes solves absolutely nothing, but we are told to cheer because yay victory music. Why would this make any difference to William? Oh but now he's *spoilered* his *spoiler* so that whole subplot is apparently wrapped up. The 'mystery' elements of the show were always its weakest so when the White Ship and Jack's ring become the focus, the whole show suffers. That the final trial becomes all about Jack's father and resolving the uninteresting and contrived mysteries of the show is such a cliché and it just doesn't work her because they were never what the show was about. A much better ending would have been to return the focus to the historical framing of the series. Show what happened to the king, to Maud's invasion, to the world they were living in, because these are far grander and more interesting than seeing a bad guy fall off a building or the love interests getting married (in a more character-based show then yes, a character based climax is more rewarding, but this show was always about the world and how our characters relate to it than merely about the characters in themselves!).
Overall I would rate the series 8/10. It's a shame it didn't finish what it started, but I still think it's one of the best historical dramas in a long time for all the reasons listed in my first paragraph. Better than the silly The Borgias or The Viking, obviously not as good as Game of Thrones.
Possible Worlds (2000)
One of the best philosophy films ever made...
Possible Worlds is a low budget independent film by French director Robert Lepage, it is a surreal murder mystery which appears to have been made primarily to explore several different philosophical notions. It begins with two detectives arriving at the scene of a crime, the victim George Barber (Tom McCamus) has been murdered and his brain removed from his body. We then meet George Barber, alive and well. Since he was a boy, it turns out, George has had the ability to switch between different Possible Worlds at will. The love of his life is played by Tilda Swinton and we follow George in several different worlds meet the different versions of her and try to woo them all. In one world she is a shy scientist, in another she is a confident business woman. What makes these very different women the same person? Well, thats partially what the film is about. Simultaniously we follow the detectives as they hunt down George's missing brain and meet a mad scientist who experiments with extracted animal brains (Gabriel Gascon).
The 'Possible Worlds' from which this film takes its name is a concept of contemporary philosophy, it is a method of discussing the nature of possibility and necessity. Instead of saying "I might have gone to the shops", one says "there is a possible world in which I went to the shops". This allows for greater clarity of discussion about the nature of possibility. One of the more eccentric lines of thought in philosophy is idea that Possible Worlds actually exist (technically they only possibly exist, but every possibility is an actuality for that possibility... yes, this is the simplified way of discussing it!). The concept is very similar to the quantum mechanics notion of multiple/parallel dimensions, as explored in a great deal of science fiction, and is the central premise of this film.
The film can be best described as a cross between Darren Arranofsky's Pi and the cult sci-fi Primer. In places it is distinctly Lynchian, such as this dream sequence (which is the only part of the film available on youtube, there isn't even a trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7odlad7TOc Although the film isn't particularly complex (and it isn't as deliberately convoluted as Primer which, although enjoyable, tries too hard to make its dialogue impenetrable) following George through the various worlds and tying the different plot strands together does require the audience to concentrate.
For a student of modern philosophy or a person fairly well read in the subject, this film will be highly enjoyable. While it contains slightly heavy handed brain-in-a-vat allusions, the film primarily focuses on discussions of identity and possibility. Many different ideas are brought in regarding the nature of consciousness, evolutionary development of the mind, and physical embodiment and the film makes no attempt to give simple or easy answers to these. However, for somebody not read in such areas, the film is likely to be frustratingly dull and pointless. The film does not try to overly explain or reduce these notions: such an attempt would be pointless anyway, it is dealing with some of the most difficult material ever written, 5 minutes of exposition isn't going to benefit anyone. But all of the films dialogue is very clear and simple and it never throws in unnecessary technical terms (like Primer) or tries to fool its audience. In spite of this, I do fear its subject matter will alienate many viewers.
This dichotomy is perhaps best seen in the film's ending (which I wont reveal here). The film has a sad, melancholic ending, in which the story's plots come together and the characters journeys receive closure. This is good, and it does mean even somebody unfamiliar with the concepts it is exploring can still enjoy the film. But at the same time, it could appear to be wrapping up profound questions with an overly simplistic conclusion. The ending of the film is good, but I think to truly appreciate the film is to realise that (as with many great films) its conclusion is in fact the least important aspect of it.
Possible Worlds is an excellent film with a very niche audience; it is to philosophy as Primer is to science. It contains enough surreal imagery and dark, dry humour for any audience member to enjoy, and I should of course point out that reading philosophy is by no means necessary for somebody to understand or engage with philosophical concepts, any more than one needs to be an art scholar to enjoy good art. But its target audience, as the name suggests, is those who are directly familiar with the material that this film is exploring, and if you are a fan of David Lewis, Wittgenstein, Kant or Descartes then this film really is essential viewing.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Initial reaction: surprise, pleasure and disappointment.
I just got back from watching the uk preview. It is certainly a very interesting film, and absolutely nothing like the trailer suggested. I'll avoider spoilers, but it is worth pointing out that the eponymous 'basterds' are hardly in the film, and it doesn't really follow their exploits. In fact the bulk of the film is based around a revenge story for a female jew who's family has been massacred by the nazi's.
Tarantino displays several styles. The much-emphasized contemporary-western style all but disappears after the first, brief chapter. His nouvelle vague influences return with full force, as do his 70s-inspired ott gimmicks, and their are traces to all his previous films here. Personally I'm not sure they all fit, and I didn't feel the film always knew where it was going.
The pro's. The film has two utterly excellent scenes, the first is the opening 20 minute scene of the film involving a french farmer and a nazi commander, the second involving a secret meeting between allies in a tavern basement. Both are tense, thrilling, and beautifully shot and acted. Another brief standout scene is the introduction of the Basterds as a tale retold be a survivor. Also, Mélanie Laurent gives a brilliant performance throughout, with only a bit of corny dialogue later on as she transforms into 'the bride' character, stilted dialogue and all. Secondly, Christoph Waltz is very good as the films central antagonist, and who you get the feeling Tarantino is rooting for all along.
The con's. Firstly, Tarantino has replaced his own inappropriate cameos with a new one, Eli Roth's poor acting stands out throughout the movie and really serves as an unnecessary distraction. Secondly, the film has no real focus, it is a collection of quite-long scenes, held together entirely by coincidence, which seem to come and go with no real connection to those before or after. Perhaps this is due to the third problem, the film seems to have a LOT missing. Only two of the Basterds get any development, and this is minimal. We don't know where any of the films character come from or what motivated them, even those who the film highlights. The film's two main plots never really come together, and the films climax is explosive, but not particularly gratifying (although others may disagree with this).
As much as I enjoyed Kill Bill, Tarantino seems unwilling to return to the kind of easy naturalism and character development that made his first two films so exceptional. His style is very deliberate, but for me it often seems like he's trying too hard. More akin to Jackie Brown (as I remember it at least) this film is uneven, with some incredible scenes and some great characters, but a lot of inappropriate gimicky cheese and underdeveloped ideas too.
I'm sure many will love this film, and given times and multiple viewings, I may do too. But initial reactions on first viewing are certainly uneven.
Outlaw (2007)
A Very Good Contemporary British Western
I saw this film a few days ago and it blew me away. The majority on this board have laid much criticism on it, and in a way they have some validation. Yes, the camera work is annoying (at first, on a forty foot screen), the dialogue is a little contrived at times and there are a few 'plot holes', but i think you're are approaching it the wrong way.
This film was made as a modern day take on the revisionist western, that is the westerns made in the sixties onwards which took slightly darker look at the American west. In mixing this genre with gritty British gangster film, Nick Love has created something quite unique.
***plot details***
The story is of a loner returning from war (a war he lost) to find his town in ruins, overrun by a corrupt sheriff and hoards of bandits while the citizens live in fear for their lives. The loner, with the help of a gun crazy lunatic and an honest lawman (one of the last) creates a posse of outlaws: a man who's lost everything, a victim trying to piece his life together, the gun crazy nutter and a man who lives in fear, and then proceeds to go around robbing the bad and spreading their own justice in a town which has none. As the stakes rise the posse tears itself apart and soon they are no longer fighting the bandits but the corrupt lawmen and even themselves. The film climaxes in a big shootout between the lawmen and the outlaws and ends in a Young Guns/ Butch Cassidy esq massacre.
***end of plot details***
From this point of view, the film is fantastic. It contains many in-jokes and just spotting the plot devises and stock-characters provides half the fun. (I'm not even a particularly big fan of Westerns!) This is where the film's magic lies, and watching in from the point of view of simply a gritty gangster film might indeed provide plot holes and unlikely motivation (although personally i thought the genres blended well).
Perhaps viewing the film this way will result in more people appreciating a well crafted piece of work and one of the best films i have seen in a very long time.
Casino Royale (2006)
Fantastic, shame about the last act
Casino Royale is, on the whole, a fantastic film. It contains breath-taking set pieces, a thrilling plot, and well developed characters. By going back to the start they are returning to Sean Connery's Bond, the charming psychopath, and Craig certainly gets the latter right. He is a smart, resourceful monster, lacking in conscience and with little morality. Any fans of Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley series will see distinct similarities between the cold, calculating killers. As for the charm, the film implies it more than it actually comes out. Everywhere Bond goes girls pass second glances and fall at his feet, despite his often abrasive and slightly wooden lines. He's built like a monster of a man, and he acts it too. At the start of the film while chasing a free-runner, the limber antagonist flies up through a small gap in a wall and glides down the other side (it's truly impressive, as most free-running is)... Bond, chasing him, plows straight through the plaster wall and out the other side. A brilliant scene which perfectly defines his character at that point of the film.
As the film goes on, we are lead (often blindly... As part of the raw feel of the film we are hidden from any mission objectives) from scene to scene, all which perfectly build the story and the characters. The second act, centred around a game of poker, is truly thrilling whether you know the rules or not, and everything is going perfectly. And then, bang, we hit the third act and the film starts to fall apart.
Plot strands which were running separately start to flail wildly, people are disposed of with no real explanation why, and we are given half an hour of bad dialogue, followed by a spectacularly pointless finale where the audience are introduced to an Italian villa, and then are supposed to feel a sense of excitement as it begins to fall down. A last minute twist adds little, and a truly pointless martyrdom lead you to begin questioning where this film is going.
But worst of all, the film develops a totally different agenda. They might as well have held up a big banner saying "looky, we're relaunching the Bond series", and rather than give us a satisfactory ending, they simply hint towards a follow up. The worst victim of this is the brand spanking new Bond theme, played on every trailer and merchandising cash in for miles around, is totally dropped from the film, only making an appearance for the end credits. The fact that they took one of the single greatest aspects of the Bond franchise and left it out of every key scene in the film, and then used it for the "To be continued"-esq ending speaks volumes.
This is a great film, but the last act angered me so much that it dropped it from a 10 to an 7, and then once i had a little time to cool down, back up to an 8. When asked what i thought of the film during the closing credits, just three words sprang to mind... Mission Impossible Three. The director has taken an amazing concept, turned it int a great film, and then messed up at the very last minute. Maybe, given time, I will be able to forgive this (the same hope i have for X-Men 3), but for now the last act seriously effects the feel of the entire film. And until such time, this remains a spectacular, but flawed, movie. They have made such an effort to demonstrate that this is the first of a new series... lets just hope they can follow it through.
The Whole Wide World (1996)
Sensitively acted and beautifully directed
One of the best films I have seen.Renee Zellweger and Vincent D'Onofrio are perfectly ast asNovalyne Price and Robert E Howard.The acting was pitched perfectly, no over the top dramatics. I really cared about these people.The film was based on a true story .Robert E. Howard was the pulp fiction writer of Conan the Barbarian, Red Sonja, and several other works. He was an intelligent, child-man who lived a fantasy life. He had very little experience where girls were concerned and the love of his life was his ailing mother, whom he idiolized.Novelyne Price was ayoung,pretty, feisty ,ThShe wanted twoman who taught at a nearbye school.She wanted to be a writerThey became friends and this is the story of their time together