Change Your Image
richard-hodges
Reviews
The Help (2011)
A Story About Black People to Make White People Feel Better
Oddly, I enjoyed the help. it's a strong story well told, beautifully photographed with exceptional period feel, and is sincerely and expertly performed.
Despite is weighty veneer, it's also patronising and manipulative. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing this movie is made by white folk, with the usual feel-better gloss about a terrible subject.
Leonard Maltin wrote that this film's lone failing was its stereotypes. Certainly Bryce Dallas Howard's Hilly is he most obvious example but really the movie is peppered with stereotypes: the shallow housewife; the modern go-girl (who just happens to be an diamond in the rough, just to emphasise that its what's inside that counts, and that white people have real problems too); the bimbo with a heart; the mother who wishes she had the strength; the oppressed but wise housemaid; the bread-winning husbands that look the other way, and so on and so on.
It might be cathartic for white Americans to make and see films like The Help but really they're not fooling anyone. The Help is shiny and clever, but to me and surely many other non-Americans, its shallow, narcissistic and and unfairly self-congratulatory.
Somewhere there must be a filmmaker and studio that has the balls to tell modern audiences the stories of the real struggle of African Americans against their white oppressors; something that contains a stronger resolution that a swell of pride and a cold sore. I'll take that over this sugar coated Oscar bait thanks.
Blue Valentine (2010)
Subtle, Tragic, Brilliant!
All too infrequently, one sees a film that restores faith in the ability of the medium to make a movie for the purest of reasons: to tell a good story and evoke an emotional response. This is one of those movies.
This is not a corporation-driven franchise entry, neither a remake, a sequel nor a vehicle. It's a simple story of a complex relationship, beautifully written, intimately directed and extraordinarily well performed.
Williams and Gosling each has a resume that suggests neither is in it for the money. Thank goodness. Who else could have played these parts with such emotional, tragic passion? Others probably, but who cares. They've nailed it with performances, the calibre of which I can't recall.
Harry Brown (2009)
Caine Barely Saves Melodramatic Mess
Harry Brown has plenty of promise... but little else. The story of a pensioner who, following the death of his wife and best friend (the latter at the hands of a group of nasty hoodlums) exacts revenge on the thugs that rule his council estate is a tale that appeals to most law-abiding citizens. But there are too many shortcomings.
Motivation for such a drastic action is slight and sudden. Subtlety is in painfully short supply. The characters are stereotypes, action is contrived, and the story is disorganised and uncertain. Performances range from one-dimensional (Emily Mortimer frowns - with and without dialogue) to melodramatically over the top. But what else can one do with poor writing? The direction is sharp though, it's beautifully lit and shot and Michael Caine, as Harry, saves this from the scrapheap, but only just.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Better than the average, but not up with the best
Iron Man 2 is a good film. It has two dymanic, beautiful leads at the top of their game. Is has a mean looking, potentially threatening bad guy. It has smart, shiny, clever technology and mercifully, at 124 mins, isn't too long. These are all good qualities and add up to a solid piece of cinematic entertainment.
It is a sequel, and a piece of a greater story, so does it stand alongside it's predecessor. Not particularly well, sadly. It lacks the freshness and revelatory qualities of the original and doesn't provide anything new. This time Iron Man is confronted with more Iron Men. So I guess it's just, literally, more of the same. The relationship between Stark and buddy Rhodes is rehashes rather than built upon, likewise with loyal confidante and friend Pepper Potts, where there is a clearly a spark, but adds no more than a kiss toward the end - an easy cop-out.
Where it's greatest failure lies, is that there isn't really any excitement. The bad guy, Mickey Rourke, confronts Stark/Iron Man during a sensational, thrilling action set-piece in Monaco (with a very cool weapon, by the way), but then virtually disappears for the entire second act, while the less effective (though highly entertaining) "other" bad guy, Hammer takes over. There is no tension building and no real threat to Iron Man (other than a serious butt-kicking). The hero never really seems in any real danger - even when he faces death fron his own life-saving chest thing, he simply invents a new one and the problem is solved.
So, how does it rate overall. A good film, entertaining, clever... better than your average hero movie, but not up with the best. By the time
King Kong (2005)
Too many faults
For a movie that had all the money and all the talent at its disposal, this remake/homage simply isn't satisfying enough to warrant its existence.
It has much to recommend it, not least of all, its director's obvious reverential affection for the subject. Jackson gives his story everything, it has plenty of time to breathe and be realised in all the glory that clearly believes it deserves. Further on the plus side, is the extraordinary creation that is Kong. This creature lives and breathes like er, a real thirty-foot ape. And stunningly was created entirely from talented minds and state-of-the-art computer software.
The films problems though, sadly, outweigh its positives.
As mentioned above, Jackson takes his time, but this the is films most obvious and destructive shortcoming: it's extreme over-length. Like many other blockbusters, King Kong should be an hour shorter.
Why oh why, create a film that runs a full 87 mins (!) longer than the original from which it draws its inspiration. All films have faults (yes, even Gone With the Wind) but few can recover from extreme overlength, regardless of its positive aspects.
The star trio, Watts, Black and Brody all deliver excellent performances. But each is miscast. Watts comes off best in what, frankly, is a can't-win role. Jackson has asked us to take the relationship between girl and Kong serious, but let's be honest... it just ain't right. Kitten, puppy, Hamster? Sure. 30 foot ape..? Hmmm.
CGI these days is a bit like the medical profession. There's so much they can do, but just as much they can't. The rendering of the title character is remarkable, it truly is. But so much of the surrounds, particularly in it's urban climax is comic book stuff. If that's the look Jackson was trying to achieve, then he got it bang on, but in a movie with a semi-serious tone (at the director's insistence), it's out of place.
Furthermore, there's too much that doesn't make sense. I accept that there's a suspension of disbelief in a movie that is set on an island where dinosaurs and giant apes roam free. But once you accept that, there still has to be a sense of realism about the proceedings. For example, once Kong had been chloroformed, how on earth did the remaining few men and women get him onto the boat and back to New York. As well, with a giant ape ripping NYC apart, and sending the general population into a spin, how the Kong and the girl manage to find a quiet street (for several minutes, by the way) to enjoy some alone time.
Finally, the bond (please, let's call it that) between the girl and the ape is cute... at first, but Jackson continually revisits the theme and spends more and more time re-emphasising that these two are BFFs. By the time they went ice skating together, I was like "I get it already, they're close."
Finally, for a movie with everything money can buy, and the advantage of 70 years advanced technology, it still doesn't manage to improve on the marvel that is/was Cooper and Schoedsack's original eighth wonder of the world. Maybe that's the way it should be.
Home by Christmas (2010)
A Lesson in History, Humanity and Perspective
Home by Christmas is the type of story that New Zealanders tell best: Ordinary people being plain ordinary in extraordinary circumstances.
New Zealand is an ordinary country. New Zealanders will tell you that. Occasionally punctuated by remarkable deeds of human strength, stamina and discovery, its history is quite brief and unremarkable. Others perceive Kiwi achievements as extraordinary, and they certainly are, even the ones that don't include scaling peaks, but it's not the New Zealand way to overstate. They don't like to make a fuss.
In 1995, Gaylene Preston shot a beautiful doco "War Stories Our Mothers Never Told us" about a variety of women left at home during the second world war. These weren't tales of struggle, hardship or heroism (though many could qualify). These were the now-elderly women reflecting on how their simple but happy existence was affected by war, change and the American GI. I could almost imagine each subject when asked to tell their story on camera, responding: "What's so special about me?" Each individual though, and her story, was special in its personal insight. Preston's mother Tui was one of those interviewed and fifteen years later, telling her father's story of a man who went to war to "do his bit", Home by Christmas is the director's worthy companion piece. I suspect Preston would've preferred to use her father, the real Eddie Preston, as an interview subject, but he died in 1997, so instead, actor Tony Barry (in a brilliant performance) portrays Eddie being interviewed by the director herself, and his reminiscences are intertwined with archival footage and stills, with dramatic recreations, both home and away, featuring Martin Henderson as his younger self, and Gaylene Preston's daughter Chelsie as Tui.
What makes this film so worthwhile is its subtlety. These are real people. Eddie tells his tales with as much (or little) hyperbole as he might describing his day at work, or a fitting for a new suit: "Then we hopped on the boat; then we were robbed; then we were caught etc etc..." Going to war just didn't seem remarkable to Eddie and his mates, perhaps because it wasn't - it was only 20 years since the last big one after all. So here we had a young Kiwi lad, who traveled to the other side of the world - and let's face it, when you were as far away as New Zealand, it might as well've been the moon - fought in a war that he probably didn't understand and somehow managed to adapt and survive it.
This was and is the Kiwi way: don't complain, it won't do you any good, just get on with it. Don't expect a pat on the back, but if you get one, all well and good, just don't let it go to your head.
And this is the mood, the ethos, the characteristic, the feeling and the flavour of a country, its people and a time that Gaylene Preston captures perfectly.
This is a wonderful movie, a story of a time gone by, and a lesson in history, humanity and perspective for us all.
Avatar (2009)
Pretty pictures a good movie do not make
Avatar is quite the paradox.
On one hand you have a film of such stunning, breathtaking technical skill and imagination, that it should, and almost certainly will, reap several top awards at the Oscars, to go with its $2.5 billion (and counting) worldwide gross.
On the other, you have a unoriginal, almost dull story which has somehow been stretched to a excruciating 3 hours! James Cameron is a visionary. This is not a revelation. 3D is a gimmick. This not a revelation either. But surely he needn't have relied on a fad that has come and gone many times over the years, and will continue to do so til the same effect is achieved without the glasses. Fads have their time in the sun though, and Avatar's position at the top of box office charts attest to this. Here though, it's an unnecessary distraction. Maybe that's it point.
Furthermore, how will Avatar be seen in five or ten years time? When the marvels of its technical achievements become commonplace, Avatar will surely be seen as an overblown, dumb action flick that simply doesn't have enough assets to warrant another viewing. Remember the first time you saw the dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park? Like the characters, i was stunned. It's a goddamn dinosaur! That memory stays with me, and I still enjoy the movie, because it's a thrill ride and a great adventure story, even though CGI is now as common as Windows.
Sadly, Avatar will be recalled for its breakthrough technology, but when that novelty becomes the norm, i doubt much else will raise an eyebrow.
The Lovely Bones (2009)
A success on all fronts
First things first. I haven't read the book, but of course that isn't relevant to a review of a movie. The same way that writers Boyens, Walsh and Jackson haven't filmed a book, they've written a screenplay, based on a book. Furthermore Peter Jackson has taken a screenplay based on a book and interpreted it, in his own way, for the screen. My point is, surely the two mediums aren't connected. To complain that a film adaptation isn't faithful to its source material is about as ridiculous as blaming a hen for not providing the bacon.
On that basis, I enjoyed The Lovely Bones enormously, if it's possible to enjoy a movie with such a dark subject matter. As a story it's moving, upsetting, affecting, involving, tense, engrossing and extraordinarily good to look at.
The performances from all are straight from the top drawer, and support Jackson's visuals at every turn (and vice-versa). For me, top honours go to Weisz and Walhberg as Susie's suffering parents, and of course Ronan as Susie herself. The score by Brian Eno is wonderful, and noticeable without being overbearing.
Jackson's The Lovely Bones is a success, not as an adaptation, though it might well be, but a good story extremely well told.
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
A Minor Success
Anyone that can make a movie warrants a pat on the back. Anyone that makes a movie that people want to see deserves great kudos. Once this is done. of course, everyone has a say on the pros and cons, whys and wherefores. Make you wonder why they bother.
I've seen a few of Danny Boyle's movies: Shallow Grave, Millions, my favourite Trainspotting and now Slumbog Millionaire. The latter with all it's praise and little gold statuettes is not a vast success. Not for me anywhere. It's a curious hydrid of Trainspotting and A Life Less Ordinary. It has a mix of edgy realism and romantic fantasy and suffers because of it.
Perhaps it's me, seeing Danny Boyle's name above the title and creating unreasonable expectations. Boyle is able to make whatever film he likes, and I don't think he'll be fretting over the critical of commercial reaction thus far.
Slumbog works best in the first half hour. It's an intriguing story and kicked off with a bang. Children living, playing, stealing and surviving in the slums of Mumbai. For many of us, I'm sure this is quite an eye-opener. All those people! The child actors, who apparently are amateurs are wonderful. There's something about the emotion in a child's eyes that an adult actor spoilt by complication can't manage.
Valkyrie (2008)
Fine drama
A short time ago, I watched a fine New Zealand made drama called "Until Proved Innocent". A good story, well told, about a man in jail for a crime he didn't commit. It's real potency though, for me, was undone by the fact that I knew the outcome. It was all over the news. Couldn't help it. There's nothing the filmmakers can do about this of course, and not everyone will be bothered about knowing the ending. In this instance, I suppose, it was all about the means, rather than the end.
Many a drama is let down, isn't it, by giving the game away too early and a great movie can fall off the rails in the final twenty minutes. Can I think of a good example. 'course not, but they exist, and the point here is, happily, Valkyrie is not one of them.
It tells the story of an assassination attempt on German leader Adolf Hitler in 1944 bu a group of patriotic nationalists (not Nazis) fearful that their Fuhrer will irrevocably destroy not only their homeland and it's people but Europe as well (if he hadn't already).
Not everyone will know Hitler's eventual fate in a bunker 8 months after the events in Valkyrie took place. and for those, the dramatic effect will be amplified. I knew the end and it didn't matter at all. What I didn't know how we were going to get there. Here, it is all about the journey. The plot, the players, the setbacks, the failure, the fallout and finally the fates of those involved. Like a rail trip through the alps. So much to enjoy en route.
And just where "Until Proved Innocent" lacked real dramatic thwack, Valkyrie has enough tension to press the most relaxed individual into breathing exercises.
Some of the lead performances teeter on the edge of melodrama, but this is a minor quibble at most. Tom Cruise is fine, but he is of course, Tom Cruise. Not his fault, and as usual, he does deliver the goods, but it does make a portrayal of German officer Colonel Stauffenberg more difficult to grab in a film of this dramatic ilk. Wilkinson, Stamp and Branagh do what is required, but the real stars are the supporting cast whose various turns evoke great sympathy of people torn between duty and honour in crazy times.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Bond Never Left...
The James Bond franchise, like the man himself, is a curious animal. The decision to reinvent or redefine (or even perhaps define him as his creator originally intended) has divided fans but will no doubt contribute to the franchise's longevity. The success of 2006's Casino Royale has seen the filmmakers take brave but tentative steps forward, perhaps to see how much the public is really interested in the "real" Bond. Time will tell, but for now, what of Quantum of Solace?
It has everything money can buy, Fist-fights and gunfights, car chases and boat chases, and explosions big and small. The filmmakers have included several high-voltage action set-pieces, probably out of obligation to the old and new Bond viewing public. Gotta have 'em. There are expectations to be met, and Sony probably didn't invest $200m without certain promises being fulfilled.
Quantum of Solace isn't really about action though. It isn't about Quantum organisation either. It isn't about Dominic Greene. Nor is it about oil or water, Bolivia or Britain. The plot, whatever it is, is irrelevant really. It's about Bond, the man, the conundrum, unquestionably the greatest and richest source of "story" in the well.
It's about Bond and his relationships. To varying degrees, those with Camille, Agent Fields, Felix Leiter, Vesper, Mathis and especially M. As Bernard Lee's M used to be Bond's disapproving Father figure, so Dench's portrayal is that of a fearful mother, who doesn't condone her child's actions or methods, but loves him all the same despite the worry and despair he often causes. Her M is played with real feeling. She says she needs Bond, and my word she means it. Bond doesn't return the compliment, but he should because while M would manage without Bond, he most certainly would not without her.
And the brief scene with Bond and Leiter is a subtle gem.
And what of comparisons to Casino Royale? This is as redundant and comparing Dr No with Moonraker, but what the hell. QOS' predecessor is now regarded with an almost peculiar reverence. Could it be that we were all so greatly relieved that it wasn't the turkey that many predicted, that we've all awarded it an additional star or two out of gratitude? Whatever, Casino Royale was a fine film and a huge success. Rewatching it now though, it sits alongside Quantum rather awkwardly (or vice-versa). Craig is far more comfortable now as Bond and the filmmakers have taken the definitive step in their new direction which is clear rather than the old-Bond-new-Bond hybrid that was Casino Royale.
And Marc Forster's interpretation of Bond? This will most likely depend on personal preference. The action sequences are frenetic and chaotic. Extremely quick cuts to the point that rarely, could I tell who was doing what to whom, how or why until one, usually Bond, dusted him/herself off and walked away from the carnage. Martin Campbell knew how to let his action breathe and Casino Royale was better for it. Forster's busy approach didn't work for me, but that's my problem and as I say, that's not what this Bond was about. Every Bond, thank god, is different. And besides, if every misstep spelled disaster for the series, Bond would never have survived A View to a Kill or Timothy Dalton. What the director has delivered in spades, is character, flavour and feeling.
So Quantum of Solace achieves the rarity: an interesting character-driven, evocative action-blockbuster. I like Bond's direction. It means that Bond really is back to stay. In fact, he never left.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Is The Dark Knight that good... really? 'Fraid not.
The Dark Knight is an extraordinary mish-mash lacking logic and cohesion.
Technically, the film is well made. That is, it looks and feels like a blockbuster, though a solid score is sorely lacking.
On the plus side, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman add gravitas to an otherwise ordinary ensemble.
And sadly, a fine actor will be remembered, not for the likes of moving and sensitive performances seen in Brokeback Mountain and Candy, but rather an excellent make-up job, an over-active tongue and a silly voice. As farewell performances rate, Heath Ledger's Joker sits alongside Peter Sellers' Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu.
To remind yourself how super hero movies should be made, dust off your copy of Spiderman II (from which it borrows) or Superman The Movie (from which it should've borrowed).
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
A masterpiece! ...on 2nd viewing.
There is no question that this is a marvelous piece of modern movie-making. It only became clear to me, however, during the 2nd viewing.
Once the evil spectre of expectation and anticipation subsided, I discovered there was far more to enjoy and admire in this film than at first expected. Therefore, I would say that it now sits quite comfortably above Crusade and Doom, but marginally below Raiders (naturally. It's the ConneryisBond theory) on the Indyscale.
Storywise, with reflection, the American 50s, rife with the advent of the Cold War, McCarthyism and alien-invasion paranoia is an inspired choice. Who else, but Indiana Jones could piece together the mysteries of that curiously suspicious decade? Who else but Lucas and Spielberg could fashion a storyline (albeit with numerous scribes) that utilises all of those historical aspects into two hours on screen, and make it exciting too! No wonder Lucas waited.
The strong elements have been oft-praised so there is little need for me to applaud Ford, Blanchett, LeBeouf et al here. Likewise, John Williams, Kaminski, (has a movie ever looked so perfect?) Michael Kahn (wow!) etc. deliver no less than expected from the best in the business. And Spielberg, with his magical camera, reminds us in the first 5 minutes, that he remains at the peak of his powers, and the best there is (or was?).
As a "cynical" sequel, this movie is better than we deserve, as an Indy adventure, it's up there with the seemingly incomparable, and as a stand alone 21st century entertainment, it leaves the rest far in it's wake.
Yay, it!