Change Your Image
Tenate9
Reviews
The Homesman (2014)
The sound of Oscar's clinking in Mr.Jones ears.
Spoilers!
Started off well, then the central focus of the film shifted and it lost me. If, in telling an authentic western, the director has to make the story meander a little
OK. But to lose it's way and end up making an egotistical, self satisfying, self indulgent eulogy to himself? If this is what it takes
then, this director has made a classic of the western genre. ( If Mr.Eastwood can do it
then why can't Mr.Jones? )
The films 'hanging the protagonist' at the half way point, and continuing the film
essentially and implicitly 'for and about' Mr.Jones - leaves you perplexed and disappointed in Mr.Jones decision making. Possibly it worked in the novel. But the way it's portrayed on film, it just seems odd?
Was Mr.Jones relishing the movie goers tears, at the sudden loss of Ms.Swanks character? Was her death, supposed to be the sound of Oscar's clinking in his ears?
To centre so strongly on her, before killing her off. It just didn't fit the tale being spun. Made the rest of the movie uneven and strangely off kilter from then onwards. The sudden focus on Mr.Jones ( near characterless up to that moment ) felt ill fitting and credulous.
Suddenly on his own, we are shown the 'redemption' scene
where Mr.Jones and his chaperon's aren't allowed food and rest. How he deals with that... is indicative of the movie's problems. Why was that scene there?
and why did the heroine hang herself? Where did that come from? Why did three women in such a small town all lose their sanity - at the same time? Everything within the story, felt fabricated and fanciful.
The script should probably have been about her, her journey and completing it. Without her, the film seems misogynistic. All the female characters that we see for ninety percent of the movie
irrevocably lose their sanity? The outward signs of the 'madness' of each of the women
was cinematically vivid and startlingly detailed. But what was the point to it? That the 'old west' was harsh on women?
but fine for men, as long as they're unfeeling simpletons?
Leaving the story chopped in two, killing off the heroine and making Mr.Jones
a little cinematic swan song. Didn't work for me and ruined
what was potentially an interesting production up to that point. No wonder Hollywood wouldn't back this films making
and Luc Bessons ( ill-advised ) French company stepped in to fund it. It's not all bad, but as a whole
it falls apart and should never have been made. Possibly a more experienced director, and not so egotistical... would have known this?
Space Station 76 (2014)
Ron Burgundy in space
What a waste of a production! Of all concerned... time, energy and resources.
Even Anchorman (Ron Burgundy) needed an anchor! Some kind of a story arc to strap the 'funnies' onto. This film felt like a drawn out sketch, a ten minute comedy routine, stretched to it's very suffocation point.
It ran it's length, with no sense of urgency or that the story or it's characters were going anywhere. Just one unfunny and stilted scene after another. The film, like the interiors of the station, all felt cheap, non atmospheric and anti-cinematic. Yes, the CGI was well... CGI, and the sets, a cross between Space 1999 and Red Dwarf - were, if somehow lifeless... were still of their period. But the acting, was... directionless. You really can tell, that no one had any fun whilst making this movie.
And talking of laughs? ...were there any?
I don't know, if from seeing the poster... anyone is expecting 'Guardians of the Galaxy' type mayhem? But a very stilted and unfunny 'Ron Burgundy in space' impersonation... is what you'll feel you got.
The Longest Week (2014)
Vin ordinaire pour la semaine
Within the hundred and twenty minutes of this film, I felt like nothing happened. Nothing memorable or of value to 'me as a viewer' had transpired. I ran through any possible recollected scenes or images, looking for anything to stand out. But was left with nothing... though, a small desire to write this.
I have always been appalled that 'Whit Stillman' has ever gifted us with his talents. His pretentious films ( ...and now television ) hail as shallow, as the artifice that he envisions for his characters to prance about in. Couple this, with a hatful of 'Wes Anderson' nobs and shouts... his own ( inimitable? ) fetishes, anxiety disorders and stilted filmic-stylings, and you are left with a view of the world that nobody can recognise. You are left with an impenetrable wall of unknowable characters, doing unimaginably odd things, for no apparent reason? Now wash this down, with a little light sprinkling of Woody Allen ...and the film drifts from likable, off and away into the rain clouds of despair.
The film does self-referentially ( in a sort of metafictional way ) allude to these shortcomings... in the scene where the 'now redeemed hero' reads from his novel. And explains that this, is his sophomore effort and will be meet with mixed reviews ( that it's derivative of Fitzgerald and Edith Wharton ) That it was 'just' ...a 'homage' of styles.
The director/writer is obviously telling us, that this movie is derivative of those filmmakers he loves and sort to imitate - These being Stillman, Anderson and Allen. ...and that to be held akin to them, is all that he was after. And we will all probably agree... he has definitely achieved this? But a film bogged down, being inspired by three such virtuoso talents, should at least bring something new for us to see? Not just the Dudley Moore, (1981) film 'Arthur' with unapologetically unlikeable WASP actors. Why couldn't it have had the frenetic energy of say, the cult classic 'A New Leaf' (1971) Elaine May/Matthau film? So, if you want to see an unmemorable, unoriginal, homage to Mr.Stillman, Mr.Anderson and Mr.Allen... then you're in luck.
But remember, that this movie supposedly sat on a shelf for two years... is understandable.
The One I Love (2014)
Solaris without the sci-fi
Starts off well
and then dips it's toes straight into complete 'pedestrian' nonsense. It feels like a play, adapted or 'expanded' for cinema. With only two protagonists, the actors have to be good - or at least convincing?
Miss.Moss, I like her, can relate to her, imagine her to be sparky and interesting off screen. She's not the greatest actress, but I'm sold on her.
Mr.Dull, sorry, Mr.Dulpass on the other hand
well, what kind of actor is he? A comedian, an anti-hero, an everyman or a leading man. Is he a good actor, is he even likable? My opinion, for what it's worth
is that maybe he should stay behind the camera, or well away from cinema altogether? There are two of him in this film and that's 'two' too many.
The film is pleasantly shot, it feels like a sophomore effort, or a clichéd film school... "got to have a twist"project. If you can't fathom the ending, by half an hour in mark... you've probably had a recent lobotomy.
In conclusion
yes, the person we might 'magically' want our partners to be, isn't actually who they really are. So, if they were suddenly our 'idolised image of perfection'
they wouldn't be, who they once were. In fact, our loved one... would now be a stranger to us. But I don't think you need this film and especially the presence of Mr.Dull, to tell us this.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Double Affair (1964)
Assaulted from beyond the stars!
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode - 'The Double Affair' unwinds slowly to reveal a ludicrous plot. (But I suppose it kept the kiddies amused in the mid-sixties) This first series episode, with all of it's B&W monochromatic charm. Is not meant to be taken seriously, and that was probably for the best.
The story revolves around the 'otherworldly' idea that a 'power source' has been discovered, ( that makes nuclear weapons obsolete ) and that the only way to utilise this enormous power, is to build a bomb? Why? Well kiddies, so that our beloved Earth is not to be
"Assaulted from beyond the stars" as Mr.Solo, so wryly points out.
This intimating of an imminent Alien attack
to which a pithy, matriarchal female scientist says
"It is more than a theory, but less than a proved fact" (I could of easily of told her as much) Leads to a secret 'code' being sent half way around the world. This deadly 'code' unleashes the terrifying bomb. The code has to be carried of course, on a commercial jet? ( An incredibly bizarre 'switching' of brief cases is made on board - which has to be seen to be believed ) Once the code is safely in the vault, the Aliens are done for. ( Then all we have to do
is get those pesky aliens down into the vault )
We see Mr.Solo's cosmetically altered doppelgänger ( As seen in so many other 'special agent' related series - including a couple of times in the Bond series of films ) take centre stage for most of the episode. Brought into being by U.N.C.L.E's arch-nemesis 'Thrush' ( Which I can tell you is nasty, but not deadly ) They want the code and the bomb ( but not the Aliens obviously ) This leaves us strangely, seeing most of this episode through the doppelgänger's viewpoint and it's confusing
should we really be rooting for him, or the original? Or is there any difference between the two of them?
As for Mr.Kuryakin, he's a walking mannequin throughout. ( Revealing how excruciatingly boring this job must actually be - if it weren't for Mr.Solo's coquettishness intonations ) Mr.Kuryakin supposedly relentless intellect
couldn't even fathom the real from the simulacrum, given their special relationship and working camaraderie? Again, is he permanently comatose from the prosaic nature of the job? And apart from his 'surreal 'early run-in with a couple of 'crazy-eyes' toy robots, he's just blond scenery. So it's up to Mr.Solo, to go completely solo, on this particular show.
But never fear, all of your questions will be answered
Will Mr.Solo be destroyed by the auto- destructing 'astro observatory'? Will he deactivate the Austrian bombshell that was Senta Berger? How many deadly 'karate chops' can one episode harness?
by the episode's end.
And finally, as this weapon is kept safe in a vault deep underground. Our austere female scientist warns
"a word of extreme caution, you must remain at a safe distance from the vault. The electro- magnetic-gamma-rays, create a kind of rapture and an hypnotic effect
that causes anyone that looks directly into it, to throw themselves into the vault"
So, stay away Aliens
You have been warned!
The Signal (2014)
You're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy
This definitely contains spoilers baby!
Take the supposedly 'Internet obsessed' (Now dated and long dead) phenomenon of alien abductions, area fifty-one and add in, the 'know it all' 'super-computer-literate'
to make an hour and half's entertainment. I think that this movie tries taking the 'hokum modern myth' of 'Alien Abduction' and has some fun with it. Aiming it at the computer literate and hoping that they identify with the protagonists, rather than with those middle-America Munchkins. I unfortunately started viewing, already knowing too much about it.
( Don't you feel that all movies should be seen
without the aid of trailers or pre-reading professional or amateur reviews 'Like this one' - period. )
For knowing too much in advance - spoiled the ending and most of the journey getting there. I had a list of questions steadily accumulating, as the movie went on... like, what accident exactly befell our hero? Why was the female protagonist just a MacGuffin. Why did she seem to serve no purpose, but to further the plot and have no intrinsic value in and of herself? Why were these advanced alien cyborgs retrofitting bionic limbs onto dangerous humans? - yet somehow forget to add this same advancements onto their own forms?
and, what possibly useful observations could they make, by adding these enhancements in the first place? ( Mars Attacks! - anyone? ) Why did these same aliens ( with at least thirty years worth of experience of adduction and torture) on finding relatively smart humans, let them so clumsily escape?
and what causes them to suddenly decide to kill off... the rest of the parochial humans ( Hicks ) in their game reserve? How does our sneakily slow moving head scientist alien 'Damon' catch up with our 'road runner' fast human at the end? etc, etc... But I don't think any of this really matters.
Though, after seeing a film like Duncan Jones' 'Moon' - my main problem with the film is
that it's an adrenaline rush movie and therefore has no 'after' appeal. Unlike say Moon, I wouldn't watch this again. It you were to go back and then think it through, it would surely seem formulaic and fall apart. But as a sort of 'The Wizard of Oz' film, seen in reverse
and as an hour and half of 'brain freeze' entertainment, it's OK and probably worth seeing the first time around.
Ironside: The Deadly Gamesmen (1972)
It's all about the scenery
On first viewing this episode, I was taken by the main protagonists home. About which, I later found out was... 'The Ennis House' designed by Frank Lloyd Wright (Los Feliz, CA) It's been used in countless films, before and since ( Most notedly Bladerunner ) It's a star in it's own right, and makes for an unusually 'chunky' backdrop to any scene. With it's ancient Mayan temple themed, forbidding blocks and palatial size. Oh yes, the episode... Noel Harrison ( Famous for singing 'Windmills of the mind' and son of Rex Harrison - whom each won an Oscar for 'best song' - one after the other, Noel in '68 and Rex in '67) plays a deadly game of cryptic chess across San Francisco. Great, if you like that kind of thing... but especially worth watching for the 'Ennis House' location scenes.
Fixation (2012)
A short film with no brakes
This isn't really a documentary about bikes. This is a brief and insular look at those various individuals, that prefer to ride fixed wheeled bicycles in California. A documentary about personalities by definition, should probably have some interesting personalities to cover. This is where the film fails. We glimpse some of the dealers and then
ultimately those addicted, the users. It skims over the history and delivers us directly into the hands of each individual rider. It is a well-made, technically proficient forty minute film. But those chosen to feature in it, are so laid back
as to be comatose. This leaves the film empty. We witness a posse of riders that like to cycle around getting drunk. We meet Martin, Marino and Gabriel, who like to anger drivers by 'snaking' around them on busy roads. Possibly because, they ache the big city messenger scene from twenty years ago. But there is no 'up' in this film, no message. Just a look at uninteresting individuals, doing something inanely physical with little or no genuine pathos or poetry. Like a BMX stunt video or some surfers
you know, just surfing. As Martin says ( and I'm paraphrasing ) "There's a divide between going fast or doing tricks, it's cool to jump off of things, but let's get back to going fast" It's not a protest film for clean, efficient transportation or the like
Just a very short film about 'NorCal/SoCal' youth getting into a fix... about the 'gnarly' side of being brake-less on a bicycle in California.
Heart String Marionette (2012)
Mentally, a juvenile film - adults should avoid.
Two hours of the worst kind of computer animation imaginable. Bad story, terrible animation, awful models and annoying sound and effects.
The story is one dimensional and juvenile, the animation is way behind rudimentary. The models are just stick figures and the characters just nod their heads back and forth... instead of lip syncing. Generally, the animation style is laughable.
This wasn't made by an artist or a poet. It isn't a brand new Brothers Quay or Tim Burton'esque. It was made by a warped individual spending far too long in front of his PC. Truly a dire experience with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Give it a miss, unless you like gawking into the darker 'rancid' recesses of the human psyche.
Columbus Circle (2012)
A cab ride to nowhere *Spoilers*
*Spoilers* One of the most bizarre main stream movies ever made. Cops letting suspects go, forensic evidence plot holes, Voodoo computer wizardry by novices, Women who dye their hair perfectly in minutes... the silliness of this movie just doesn't end. If you can actually struggle through this... entire 'MacGuffin' of an ethereally plotted movie. If you can cope with the incredible and not too subtle changes in character psychology. So blatantly written, in order to move to the films inexplicable denouement. Then someone please tell me, how does the main protagonist, whom we are told has no personal identification whatsoever... expect to board a plane?
Elokuu (2011)
A midsummer dream
Elokuu, meaning 'August'... Is an engaging, gentle coming of age film. A lot of thought must have gone into the atmospheric cinematography ( From Mr.Joonas Pulkkanen ) of a blissful, near magical Scandinavian summer. As the fairly naive, contemplative middle class protagonist school leaver, 'Aku' explores his existential, more rebellious romantic self. The film begins with his long term girlfriend and family leaving him to his own devices - and after a friend tells him... 'that life is fleeting' And from the stresses of final exams - the City teenager starts to question his own choices and future career path and seemingly affluent parental lifestyle, that he will eventually mirror. On a road journey through the remote Finnish countryside with a mysterious, free spirited chance encounter. The film probably ends realistically, but fails to excite or escape it's bourgeois underpinnings or stereotypes - on either side of the camera. The films story arch becomes problematic and for me at least... far too melodramatic and drawn out in the final third. But still, Elokuu is an interesting and entertaining little film, from writer/director Mr.Oskari Sipola. Well worth a viewing.
I Am Legend (2007)
Robinson Crusoe amongst the Vampires
This is a bad film on so many levels. What was so shocking about the authors original idea which evolved into his so-so book ( Robinson Crusoe with vampires) and then a series of movies ( Apart from loneliness and isolation - turning that idea around and instead of us/Crusoe disappearing from society, society disappearing from under us ) is how do we feel about our societies history and it's sudden total elimination. That the creative team behind this remake went back to the original Vampire scenario - appeals only to escapists and kids with little or no thought of anyone else but themselves and so turns the movie into a fantasy whereas the last outing ( The omega Man 1971 ) of this story was a thoughtful play on modern man and his superstitious dark side. which when things turn ugly always resurfaces. Science and modernity in the backlash are seen as evil. (Maybe we are, This movie may make 500 million plus profit which will be divided to fit snugly into less than twenty pockets.)
No more triple heart bypass's, no more rockets to the moon, no more great Art, literature or music and no more Hollywood blockbusters and nothing or no one to remember or record it all. If our hero gets a toothache let alone needs an operational procedure he is done for. In this retelling there is no time to linger on what has been lost. Man's last 10-40 thousand years of history swept away. The chances of a plague making this happen are low yet a fundamentalist revolution is far more likely. In the next fifty to a hundred years the history that we know may well be destroyed and replaced by fundamentalist doctrine.This was the intellectual element to the Heston film ( The Omega Man 1971 ) The idea that the virus infested were intent on destroying everything that mankind had made and returning to a superstitious pre-modern state. That is truly scary stuff, Vampires are just silly.
To scare kids you need visually scary monsters but these CGI creatures were awful. To make an 'animal out of man' takes an off-centre genius like the ( Alien 1979 ) designer H.R. Giger. Not a bunch of CGI hacks and this is what we are given. Look at the directors last fantasy film (Constantine 2005) it has the same uninspired creatures running through it. Men in latex would have been scarier and more convincing. Three years is a short amount of time for virus infected humans to mutate into super-agile monsters. The movie (Twenty eight days later 2002 ) had a far more plausible scenario for a virus epidemic than to turn humans into vampires ( In 28 days... the infected become ferocious and dehumanised like wild dogs but wore themselves out after 28 days ). This movie felt like a continuation of the Resident Evil movies. They just stole the plot from 'I am Legend' and Mr.Smith continues where Ms.Milla Jovovich left off. A very far fetched and silly, ignorantly supernatural adrenaline fuelled feast and not much else.
Plot holes that jumped out were... An out of towner is able to find her way 30 blocks or so from Grand Central to Washington square at night ( With the New Yorker in-tow out cold ) with probably well over a million creatures roaming the streets ( remember some roads are completely blocked with abandoned traffic and tanks etc..) Plus how was she able or even willing to follow him around at night in order to save him ?
Sanctuary is a sort of white picket fenced idyllic farm community. This commune is surrounded by a 5 and half billion creatures who will live and continue to breed and multiply. How are the survivors going to use the antidote ? It seems they would have to take the infected one by one and do a complete dialysis to remove the infected blood - How long is that going to take - to do a hundred let alone a million or a billion ?
A creature that is able to set up an elaborate trap ( having an understanding of physics in order to set up the pulley system trap) and having the nuance to delicately move a mannequin many blocks and know to place it on a section of road he uses. Then when this smart contemplative creature finally confronts his prey he can only resort to banging his head up against a glass wall ? Are we to put this down to excitement or an enormous plot/ character hole ?
Finally the biggest hole - about a world without men constantly looking after it - A single small fire with no one to stop it would have raged and destroyed the whole of Manhattan years ago. But the scariest idea - Imagine the amount of nuclear power stations ( 438 operational nuclear power stations as of 2001 ), and other hazardous facilities, military etc.. that would blow up if not attended world wide. There would be a thousand year nuclear winter and every living thing, the creatures, Smith and any other survivors, even the gazelles would be dead.
What will keep people wanting to see this awful movie is Will Smith who it seems is genuinely loved by one and all. Unless he is a moron he should show more conscientiousness about the movies he makes. For a man with this much power could change attitudes around the world with the projects he chooses or make bad Vampire movies and line his pockets.
With the world in such a mess why are movies like this still being made ? This film doesn't bare thinking about during or after viewing - for we humans like to get in the dark, alone amongst the flickering lights, to just relish the moment without thought - How much different than the fictional vampires in this movie are we ?
Lost in Translation (2003)
...Like taking pictures of your feet.
The story of two American ciphers ( At the time of filming - The most irreverent, ironic and untimely stoic comic actor and the quintessential vacant ingénue actress ) with no reason for continuing to live, struggle with their life's meaninglessness whilst in the west's ultimate antithesis, Japan. A vacuous narcissistic film star with no interest in anybody or anything but himself and a recent Western Philosophy major also vacuously narcissistic - have either a father/daughter relationship or an unrequited sexual relationship whilst in Tokyo. It ends as abruptly as it began - When we are suddenly told that it's been a love story and these two narcissist's were actually in love with each other ? My problem with the movie is the Japanese setting and the film makers use of it as somehow indicative of how absurd human life and relationships are to those stuck up westerners with an existential funk. If this is deliberate or not - most of the movie makes fun of or caricatures Japanese people and culture. This for many westerners is very reasonable and in their clichéd understanding all perfectively true - this is why they defend the film and equally why it perpetuates stereotypical clichés. It perpetuates Japan and it's people as completely alien and incomprehensible to myopic westerners whatever their faith, Religious, Nihilist or American.
Pulp (1972)
Epitome of vacuous 70's cinema
What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.
The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...
Ying xiong (2002)
Beguilingly beautiful brainwashing
If beauty is only skin deep - what good is there in it ? - This movie is a communist subtext/ historical revisionist's justification for well over two thousand years of totalitarianism. In showing a brutal tyrant ( Qin Shi Huang or replace that with Mao Zedong ) is actually a good thing for 'our land' is blatant People's Republic of China apologists propaganda. So thinly veiled, it makes this movie unbearable and tasteless. The country in which this 'cartoon' was made doesn't even have basic human rights and this film advocates that system. That people give this propagandist diatribe so high a rating shows how truly thick and sickly decadent IMDb users are. Love your freedom those that have it, as if it were beauty personified. Don't mock it by giving trash like this a platform.
Slipp Jimmy Fri (2006)
Uglymation
This film should be getting far more attention, as a warning to all who take an idea for a 10 minute short and stretch it until it snaps, leaving the original idea lifelessly limp. It's truly the Heavens gate of animation - A movie so loathsome it has coined it's own genre 'Uglymation'. There is not one frame that can be considered as anything other than repugnant. The characters, the plot and the direction, all repulsive. If it had either polarity of an underlying relentless nihilism peppered with humour or under the dirt a little bit of uplifting sentimentalism and a 'film with a big heart' approach, having either would have salvaged it. Unfortunately it's just inane drivel. Simple 'off-the-shelf' style models animated by hacks with no feeling for animation or talent for bringing life to vector graphics. The rot is indicative as with rest of the team - the texture mappers seem obsessed by scatology and grime.
It is telling that as a cliché, Norway is seen as a mostly dark, cold and bleak country and if true that clichés have a glimmer of veracity about them then maybe it is a very informative film about living in Norway. As a nation Norway has the highest literacy, educational average per capita, income per capita etc, etc... in the world and their major animation achievement is this movie ? The peak of European artistry makes this ? Nine years in the making - must have felt like being imprisoned for a whole decade while working on this 'Uglymation' epic. Imagine the money wasted that could have driven other artistic projects.
It's not funny, It's not been art directed and it is obvious that it was made by a group of mostly untalented nine to five artisans. Fine in a short, but as a cinematic statement of national identity or artistic expression - shameful. If you have a team of beginners 'don't start by making a feature' should be the only reason why this film is remembered.
The Quiller Memorandum (1966)
We got all of them, well most of them.
I don't know what it is exactly but I have a sweet spot for late 1960's cold war films and The Quiller Memorandum is a particularly good tale of this type. I'm drawn to it's stark story line and the open yet unanswered questions of morality, duty and love. It might have something to do with the 'Absurdist playwright' Harold Pinters screen play. While the plot deals with Neo-Fascism and is strictly speaking not about the Capitalists war with Socialism. It somehow fits easily into the canon.
It has a very close similarity with the second Harry Palmer film Funeral in Berlin (1966) - the same dirty unglamourous espionage, post war Berlin and of course Caine and Segal's very laid back and world weary performances. Both have the enemy use sex as a weapon against them and walk a seemingly dangerous alien world where no one can be trusted and all have their own hidden agendas whether monetary or philosophical.
All the acting is understated, I am not a fan of Segal's later work but he fits this well ( he had a good year in '66 - he also appeared in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ). Max Von Sydows 'I'm not a barmen Mr.Quiller I'm a German gentleman' is menacing without being overly dramatic or cartoony. The asinine old world attitudes as portrayed by Alec Guinness and a small cameo by George Sanders are slight but add to the flavour of the period.
Maybe slightly too dark and pessimistic for an optimist to enjoy but as a portrait of the period and the uneven boundaries of right and wrong and the duplicitous nature of nationalism - it is an unsung classic.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
Souless period piece
Bored decadent rich man plays games with ordinary peoples lives for no other reason than he can. A not very likable premise for a movie but it is very popular. Used as an epitome of coolness - with laddish aspirations of greatness gleamed from it for a couple of generations of bored not-so-bright 'Man-children'. I know that many males identify with Steve McQueen maybe because he is your average joe in looks ( verging on ugly ) and his diminutive size ( 5'9 ) is very appealing and non-threatening. His characters drive fast and don't give a damn about anybody - anti-hero pinup boy - an adolescents wet dream. Beneath his supposedly cool laconic exterior, this actor seems to hide a blank interior rather like the character he plays in this film. He is the ultimate lad. Listen to him chortle to himself on his prowess when he returns to his mansion after the heist- some of the saddest acting I have seen in awhile. In fact right up there with his performance in the chess scene - which is laughably bad - but then maybe thats the point ? From the frame within a frame nonsense to that farcical theme tune, it's lame entertainment. The female protagonist/foil is either a sexual object to be won or a non-ethical money scheming femme fatale who is bright but obviously confused by his big kid magnetism. The film ups and turns with a very predictable and ludicrous plot, the film makers made every character one dimensional and dislikable, again maybe on purpose - something for the Lads, budding crooks and capitalists to 'empathise with' ( or is that an oxymoron ? ) In the end the Bored decadent rich man leaves to sunnier climes with all the cash - ( He is bored with everything, cares for nothing and nobody cares for him. ) As the girl cries, caught between an ethical dilemma, her lust and the reward she's lost - he smirks in his getaway plane.
The Prestige (2006)
Monothematic delusion
A provocative movie that leaves you with some sociological afterthoughts about illusion, the art of magic and science but as a movie ( I have not read the book on which this adaptation is based ) it is ultimately just too flawed with so many plot holes and an ending/plot twist that is laughable. Its a film about identity and personal obsessions mixed with the archaic art form of theatrical style illusionist's at the turn of the century. Biological, yet diabolical made twins versus sci-fi cloned twins - The mysteries of Gothic age science fiction inspired novels and all it's possibilities ( from Well's The Time Machine to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein ) and even earlier morality tales like Faustus and Prometheus. It has the same 'melting-pot' styling as the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - Try stuffing everything but the kitchen sink from Gothic novels and see what you get. What you get is ludicrous. Countless plot holes - Why would a couple of electricity buff cronies build a machine that could duplicate hats, cats and men, just hand it over rather than immediately start gold production/cloning ? Why does the Michael Caine character change sides ? One characters motivation at the denouement is committing suicide nightly as part of a stage show ? Clones having all the cloned persons memories/motivations immediately on being materialised ? And so on and on...
Simon Schama's Power of Art (2006)
Sexing up the historian
I have only watched Simon Schama's diatribe on Bernini and this 'review' is only on that one episode but I tend to think it's indicative of the whole series or even of his TV work in general. The write up in my local online listing said : Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Theresa shows a nun in the state of orgasmic bliss. How was it ever allowed? Simon Schama tells a story of sex and the sacred in Seventeenth Century Rome. The ultimate premise of the show is that after a rise and fall style career Bernini ( whilst not so favoured - 'POPEular' - as when at his summit ) Made the 'Ecstasy of Saint Theresa' sculptural masterpiece - which again thrust him into the limelight. Schama's thesis is that this 17 Century Baroque tour de force or gaudy, kitsch ode to the farrago that is superstition - viewed from a non-observable angle ( false from the perspective of an observer ) can be seen that the angelic spear holder is about to 'shove' the spears 'head' up her in a very sexually provocative manner - her face in a climactic climax at this 'Charismatic' event. This is bizarre and if you see this work as it's meant to be seen, the angle of the 'thrust' is into her heart ( As the original mythic story suggests - the divine joy/sleep of God etc... ). That the face, in a state of orgasmic delight or the last moments of death, tortuous pain or just dozing off are all same is very well known and doesn't add anything to his platitudes on Art, sex or Bernini. It seems to be just a fantasy of, or a cheap trick to put some sex appeal into this, not even slightly charismatic TV historian.
Happy Hour (2006)
It ain't smarter than the average comedy!
Happy hour - Is the time when a Bar sells cheap liqueur and this is like it's namesake, very inexpensive comedy. It's a live action version of the late 50's Yogi bear cartoon. Lex Medlin who looks and acts like a pint-sized John Goodman -The know-it-all-Yogi and John Sloan who is playing the innocent big-eyed Booboo. Both are boring stereotypical characters in the Friends mode of big city comedy of manners torture that is the lame - hit all the 'demographics' comedy being written today. It has an nostalgic 1950's 'men in a bachelor pad' swinging style to it that unfortunately falls flat with all the extras set as one-dimensional 'dumb' characters that populate these two go-lucky-bachelors lives. Beth Lacke the central female protagonist between the two male Martini-drinkers is so badly written it's 'cringingly' bad and again is in the one-dimensional rabbit hole of characterization that is the epitome that is 'Friends' the stock 'dumb but fun' character writing - she is a heart-of-gold-idiot. Why couldn't any of the female characters have been sassy or bright ? There is even the park ranger out of Yogi played by Jamie Denbo again as a token bitter character that plagues the two 50's brat packers wannabes. The tips of the hat, the four o'clock martinis, the intro music, all whisper sophisticated 50's easy comedy yet this never gets close to the laid back charm/polish necessary to obtain it. Could have been more, so much more - it maybe has too much vermouth or not enough gin, or both. It is very dry and not in a good way, it leaves you feeling thirsty for some real edgy comedy.
Brick (2005)
Bar****d child of a 1940's detective flick and a 1980's teen angst movie.
Anyone for some hard boiled kid, private dick style ? - "With Specs peeled, eyes like daggers, I'm 9 of ten sure"... The movie feels like an average third rate noir movie made by a bunch of middle class kids. The problem is that kids can never have the worldly-wise experience to express the lines with any conviction. If the camera lingers a tad too long on any of the actors eyes you will immediately know what I mean. The language and therefore the script is straight out of the Chandler and Hammett lexicon but spoken by bunch of school play ingenue's reiterates the discord between genres and youth. The film views like a Lynch 'homage' wrapped around the 1970's Altman chandler remake. It's an OK experiment but only worth watching if you have plenty of time to spare or are a teenager who enjoys the odd school play. "you are going to make me curious by being so curious" - well not that curious -The film looks like it was a lot of fun for the film makers to make and they probably really enjoyed the 'neat' idea but they seemed to have had too much fun - two hours of this is just too long and convoluted for that 'neat' idea to last and still stay fresh. The film viewed as a ploy to see how 'overly serious fictional characters' act in the mostly dated noir movies this smacks as a comic masterpiece - but I doubt that is the intention of the film makers. 'Rian' with the 'I' in the wrong place might now be feeling he should have gone for an out- and-out comedy in hindsight. Its reminiscent of the movies Hal Hartley makes - interesting yet ultimately heartless and devoid of life. Not about the life you and I know and live, just the introverted biocosm of 'film making film'. The main protagonists acting is like watching teen versions of Audrey Tautou and Keanu Reeves and their neighbourhood 'gang' in a home movie. It's also strange how the 'third rock from the son kid' ( Joseph Gordon-Levitt) sounds like a 'Jay' Jason Mewes ( Clerks ) impersonation throughout the movie. But this is only a few of the many puddles you will have to waddle while watching this film. As a piece of cinematic experimentation for proponents of cinematic experimentation it's OK, or for teens who will never find the time to watch the originals, finding them inaccessible and irrelevant - but as entertainment for the seasoned film goer or those that expect film as 'entertainment escapism' - it's pretty lame.
It's Bugsy Malone done medium rare and without the songs. Lord of the flies without the island set in a boring suburb. A school play version of Lady in the lake etc, etc...