Year: 2008
Director: The Wachowski Brothers
Screenplay: The Wachowski Brothers
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Fox
If Micheal Bay ate nothing but sugar coated cartridges of Super Mario Kart (SNES) while watching Anime non-stop for five years, this is what would be puked up. Dazzling yet ridiculous, Stunning but stupid. Speed Racer is a beautiful mess, constantly innovate and yet surprisingly derivative. The Wachowski brothers have created something that has taken digital film making to the extreme but at a loss of good storytelling which in turn takes away much of the thrill of the movie.
The basic tone of the movie is inconsistent and the story unimportant and stale. Pretty colours are fine but at certain times the movie makes a shift that would feel more at home in a 12a movie as opposed to squeezing it into a movie such as this one for the sake of it.
To add to this as this movie tries to make out it's a family film but it's lack of a strong lead character and odd moral scope make the film stand out unattractively. Every Harry Potter (a series of movies I dislike) try to help encourage children more than this film can. Potter is a dull lead character but his story encourages, growth, wisdom and creativity (even when most of the time it's not from him). Speed in Speed Racer almost appears to have similar traits but it's so thinly spread and smothered between the visuals (and anti-capitalism stance) that it gets lost.
It doesn't help that everything about Speed Racer is an oddity. It's crammed with characters, loopy visuals and set pieces but it doesn't seem to be saying anything. Stephen King said of Kubrick's the Shining "A big beautiful car, with no engine" and the same goes for Speed Racer. This is a living, breathing video game that could suit the world of Halo or otherwise if done right. However while many modern video games have been doing what they can to incorporate pathos and depth into aspects of their storylines (see GTA4), Speed Racer is nothing but visual distraction.
Maybe I'm expecting to much from what is ultimately a kids movie but I don't think so. Pixar manage to bring about emotional impact, humor and unique characters to their stories. Why can't the Wachowski brothers? To say I didn't gawp in awe at the digial achievement on display would be wrong. however the film is completely shallow.
I wouldn't have a problem with the movie if the characters inside the (dull) story were engaging but not so. The directing duo do nothing to make me give a shit about Speed and his family and the performances from the actors are extremely one note. Their "emotional" scenes are pointless and I spent most of the film waiting for the next race to start as they are the only reason to watch the movie. However due to the lack of any true danger that might effect the character, the actions sequences have a nasty pre-ordained feeling. Making any sense of excitement come across as false. Flat characters in a film like this are almost forgivable but flat action as well? Bad Times. As awesome as the film looks the film doesn't actually generate any genuine feeling of excitement. I remember how I felt when I first saw the matrix...I don't get the feeling here at all.
The acting is piss poor and the directors look like they did nothing to get any true response out of the performances on show. John Goodman does his worst audition for a Super Mario Bros remake, while Susan Sarandon sleepwalks through her performance (although her thankless role is strongest). After four season of Lost, Matthew Fox decides to take a break with a tediously terminator-esque role as the emotionless Racer X. Christina Ricci is underused as the main love interest Trixie but the real disappointment is Emile Hirsch. His performance reminds one of a rabbit in the headlights, dazzled, sunned and unsure. I find this a shame as I feel that Hirsch is a great young actor. Quite simply, the movies background are more animated than the actors.
I'm pleased with what the Wachowski Brothers tried to do but I don't believe for a second that it works. the grand visuals are a great distraction from the bad acting, risible dialogue and thinly spread plot. The Wachowski's have produced a film which will inspire film makers for the future and thats a great thing. But for fuck sake guys can you just hurry up and make Carnivore already?
Monday, 26 May 2008
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Review: Iron Man
Year: 2008
Director: Jon Favreau
Screenwriter: Hawk Ostby, Mark Fergus
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
The moment I knew I enjoyed Iron was when Tony Stark (Downley jr) and Rhody (Howard) are drunk while a glitzy hip hop video is playing behind them. This will mean fuck all to many people but those who love The Wu Tang Clan will know that Ghostface Killah (my fave member joint with RZA) has the nick name Tony Stark and named one of his albums Ironman after his love of the comics. The tiny fact that they place Killah in the film shows it's sense of fun. With this said Iron man has an interesting more realistic (in a comic book/film sense) approach to it's proceedings than say The Punisher.
Directed by Jon Favreau Iron manages to balance a laid back sense of fun with an origin story that comes close to competing with Christopher Nolan's Batman's Begins. I say comes close because Iron man manages to get me interested into a story and character I've never shown any real interest in. With a character such as Batman I knew all I needed to know, I just wanted it done right. With Ironman I didn't even know which war fucked him up royally (It was Nam) let alone supporting characters.
That for me was always the first hurdle that the film had to cross and it cleared it well. Iron man as a character is charming, funny and engaging. The story also manages to be as entertaining, keeping itself from being a bland retread of other general origin stories despite having all the similar plot points. A lot of this comes from Favreau wish to give the film the same easy going feel that inhabited Doug Liman's Swingers (written by Favreau). Ironically Liman's awful Jumper could have done with the same sense of fun (as well as story structure and better acting).
I expected this from Favreau who clearly likes the idea of keeping things loose (see working with Will Farrell). Nothing about the film is rigid at all, the dialogue has an obvious amount of improvisation, the humor doesn't come across as staged, and the actors feel like the built upon their characters as opposed to just merely reading from the script. In doing this the film feels more organic, more plausible and generally more entertaining.
The masterstroke in keeping this all together is of course casting Robert Downley jr as the lead. It worries me that in the next ten years we'll see less of actors like this and more good looking cardboard cutouts. Downley jr IS iron man, just like he WAS Wayne Gale or Harry Lockhart. His performance is full of energy, charm and cheeky improv. He encapsulates the playboy feel of Stark perfectly. At times he outshines Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne but only at times. Paltrow is an interesting (although a little flat) choice for the "love interest" while Terrence Howard provides a stable performance as Stark's Army Buddy. Bridge's has a ball as Obadiah Stane and avoids the easy option of completely hamming his character up.
What Bale (and Batman Begins) has however, is that psychological edge that is not seen in many of the Marvel Comic book adaptations. You still know where you stand with Brucie and friends. Iron man's lighter balance of comic material at times skips over a very intriguing aspect of the story: The war mongering. I'm still not sure if Favreau's light touch should have glossed over the talk of weapons, wars and legacy. Stark at the beginning is the epitome of American patriotism in the beginning, before seeing what happens on the other side. The double dealing and grey areas give an interesting conflict not seen in the happy go lucky violence of The Punisher etc. But the conflict doesn't last long enough to truly question the polemic views that will always stand in America. The film clearly leans left but before "getting serious" the film gets to what everyone is watching it for......the set pieces.
The action sequences are well executed and fun. Nothing we haven't seen before but still exciting. This is mostly down to the background work done by the screenplay.
Iron man is a better start to the blockbuster movies than Jumper. It has a story with an actual conclusion and structure, much better acting (my little blurb doesn't give the actors their due at all), and has a greater sense of fun. At the end of the film I found myself looking forward to a sequel if one ever appears. The likelihood of this looks good due to the box office figures so here's hoping the the sequel will expand on the good work done here.
Director: Jon Favreau
Screenwriter: Hawk Ostby, Mark Fergus
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
The moment I knew I enjoyed Iron was when Tony Stark (Downley jr) and Rhody (Howard) are drunk while a glitzy hip hop video is playing behind them. This will mean fuck all to many people but those who love The Wu Tang Clan will know that Ghostface Killah (my fave member joint with RZA) has the nick name Tony Stark and named one of his albums Ironman after his love of the comics. The tiny fact that they place Killah in the film shows it's sense of fun. With this said Iron man has an interesting more realistic (in a comic book/film sense) approach to it's proceedings than say The Punisher.
Directed by Jon Favreau Iron manages to balance a laid back sense of fun with an origin story that comes close to competing with Christopher Nolan's Batman's Begins. I say comes close because Iron man manages to get me interested into a story and character I've never shown any real interest in. With a character such as Batman I knew all I needed to know, I just wanted it done right. With Ironman I didn't even know which war fucked him up royally (It was Nam) let alone supporting characters.
That for me was always the first hurdle that the film had to cross and it cleared it well. Iron man as a character is charming, funny and engaging. The story also manages to be as entertaining, keeping itself from being a bland retread of other general origin stories despite having all the similar plot points. A lot of this comes from Favreau wish to give the film the same easy going feel that inhabited Doug Liman's Swingers (written by Favreau). Ironically Liman's awful Jumper could have done with the same sense of fun (as well as story structure and better acting).
I expected this from Favreau who clearly likes the idea of keeping things loose (see working with Will Farrell). Nothing about the film is rigid at all, the dialogue has an obvious amount of improvisation, the humor doesn't come across as staged, and the actors feel like the built upon their characters as opposed to just merely reading from the script. In doing this the film feels more organic, more plausible and generally more entertaining.
The masterstroke in keeping this all together is of course casting Robert Downley jr as the lead. It worries me that in the next ten years we'll see less of actors like this and more good looking cardboard cutouts. Downley jr IS iron man, just like he WAS Wayne Gale or Harry Lockhart. His performance is full of energy, charm and cheeky improv. He encapsulates the playboy feel of Stark perfectly. At times he outshines Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne but only at times. Paltrow is an interesting (although a little flat) choice for the "love interest" while Terrence Howard provides a stable performance as Stark's Army Buddy. Bridge's has a ball as Obadiah Stane and avoids the easy option of completely hamming his character up.
What Bale (and Batman Begins) has however, is that psychological edge that is not seen in many of the Marvel Comic book adaptations. You still know where you stand with Brucie and friends. Iron man's lighter balance of comic material at times skips over a very intriguing aspect of the story: The war mongering. I'm still not sure if Favreau's light touch should have glossed over the talk of weapons, wars and legacy. Stark at the beginning is the epitome of American patriotism in the beginning, before seeing what happens on the other side. The double dealing and grey areas give an interesting conflict not seen in the happy go lucky violence of The Punisher etc. But the conflict doesn't last long enough to truly question the polemic views that will always stand in America. The film clearly leans left but before "getting serious" the film gets to what everyone is watching it for......the set pieces.
The action sequences are well executed and fun. Nothing we haven't seen before but still exciting. This is mostly down to the background work done by the screenplay.
Iron man is a better start to the blockbuster movies than Jumper. It has a story with an actual conclusion and structure, much better acting (my little blurb doesn't give the actors their due at all), and has a greater sense of fun. At the end of the film I found myself looking forward to a sequel if one ever appears. The likelihood of this looks good due to the box office figures so here's hoping the the sequel will expand on the good work done here.
Review: In Bruges
Year: 2008
Director: Martin McDonagh
Screenwriter: Martin McDonagh
Cast: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clémence Poésy, Jordan Prentice, Thekla Reuten
Three great central performances, captured in a beautiful city (trust me I've been) combined with a deviously dark wit and a well paced story (until some messy plot issues at the end) make up Martin McDonagh's In Bruges. The film took me by surprise owing more to No Country for old men than say Lock Stock or Snatch. McDonagh's film demonstrates that the bad guys become even more interesting when they have a crisis of fate.
After an a botched assassination hit, Ray (Farrell) has headed to Bruges with a fellow hitman named Ken, to hide out. The grumpy Ray ponders his fate while the gentler Ken spends his time sightseeing and tiring to reassure his younger assassin that everything will be fine. Unfortunately Harry (Fiennes), the boss that ordered the hit has other ideas.
While No Country for Old Men took an old school Mcguffin and turn that aspect of plot into a grand epic revisionist western. In Burges is more introspective keeping the focus purely on it's leads. When the film wasn't hitting me with punchy dialogue and one liners, there are brief moments of poignancy that stayed with me longer than the comedy. McDonagh develops his characters well, allowing them to stew in their situation bring forth characteristics slowly and allowing the chance for the characters to evolve into well rounded individuals. Ray and Ken feel like an Irish odd couple during the first half of the film, the banter comes in thick and fast, and you get to know them as they evolve and shift roles. At one point the two feel like an old married couple, two scenes later a spoilt brat and mother. The interaction is feels almost like a buddy cop movie, In Bruges comes across as Lethal Weapon for the other side.
The two leads give off two very different but effective performances. Farrell, in his most mature performance in ages, is brilliant. His comic timing and visual tics are hilairious and his acting range throughout the film is broad and engaging throughout. Glesson on the other hand uses his screen prescene to mass effect. His performance is gentle and fatherly, two things he's done before with ease but not with this much resonance. It's great to watch, as the two role complement each other so well it's constantly engrossing. You can't wait to see what the next guy is going to say next.
To round it off we are given brute energy of Ralph Fiennes as a fiendishly loutish cherry on top of the main duo. Fiennes role is like a tornado, with chaos happening everywhere he goes. Be it at home with the family (delightfully awkward Xmas moment) or when he finally appears in Bruges. Not only has he some of the best lines in the movie, his delivery gives them more punch and humor. A character that can easily be forgotten is given a wonderfully animated touch. The support range from the thankless (Clemence Poesy) to the memorable (Jordan Prentice)
The screenplay written by McDonagh (who is also theatre playwright) is one full of cracking one liners and amusing, un-p.c moments. These moments are forced to meld with moments of poignancy. However McDonagh clearly understands context, these are despicable characters and their moments of offensiveness only illustrate and highlight their phobias and isolation (expect for Fiennes who is clearly just an 'orrible cunt). The story overdoes it's ending, in particular a death which goes on for too long and ends with a very unconvincing plot moment. But up until that point the story moves at a steady pace and redeems itself after a few missteps.
In Burges doesn't have massive set pieces or the now familiar traits of the new wave Brit gangland movies. Howevcr its story is ten times stronger then most of the Guy Richie imitators/nick love films and for the most part the film is laugh out loud funny. I was almost embarrassed with how loud I laughed at some of the jokes. To add to this In Burge reminded me of how much I love small films when I get the chance to see them. The general jaded feel that can happen with some of Hollywood's bigger movies is lost when going into something like this. The laughs come naturally, the drama works well and the story is fulfilling. While it may not be remembered in those big books of blockbusting box office stats, In Burge is more likely to remain in the memory of those who were lucky to see it.
Director: Martin McDonagh
Screenwriter: Martin McDonagh
Cast: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clémence Poésy, Jordan Prentice, Thekla Reuten
Three great central performances, captured in a beautiful city (trust me I've been) combined with a deviously dark wit and a well paced story (until some messy plot issues at the end) make up Martin McDonagh's In Bruges. The film took me by surprise owing more to No Country for old men than say Lock Stock or Snatch. McDonagh's film demonstrates that the bad guys become even more interesting when they have a crisis of fate.
After an a botched assassination hit, Ray (Farrell) has headed to Bruges with a fellow hitman named Ken, to hide out. The grumpy Ray ponders his fate while the gentler Ken spends his time sightseeing and tiring to reassure his younger assassin that everything will be fine. Unfortunately Harry (Fiennes), the boss that ordered the hit has other ideas.
While No Country for Old Men took an old school Mcguffin and turn that aspect of plot into a grand epic revisionist western. In Burges is more introspective keeping the focus purely on it's leads. When the film wasn't hitting me with punchy dialogue and one liners, there are brief moments of poignancy that stayed with me longer than the comedy. McDonagh develops his characters well, allowing them to stew in their situation bring forth characteristics slowly and allowing the chance for the characters to evolve into well rounded individuals. Ray and Ken feel like an Irish odd couple during the first half of the film, the banter comes in thick and fast, and you get to know them as they evolve and shift roles. At one point the two feel like an old married couple, two scenes later a spoilt brat and mother. The interaction is feels almost like a buddy cop movie, In Bruges comes across as Lethal Weapon for the other side.
The two leads give off two very different but effective performances. Farrell, in his most mature performance in ages, is brilliant. His comic timing and visual tics are hilairious and his acting range throughout the film is broad and engaging throughout. Glesson on the other hand uses his screen prescene to mass effect. His performance is gentle and fatherly, two things he's done before with ease but not with this much resonance. It's great to watch, as the two role complement each other so well it's constantly engrossing. You can't wait to see what the next guy is going to say next.
To round it off we are given brute energy of Ralph Fiennes as a fiendishly loutish cherry on top of the main duo. Fiennes role is like a tornado, with chaos happening everywhere he goes. Be it at home with the family (delightfully awkward Xmas moment) or when he finally appears in Bruges. Not only has he some of the best lines in the movie, his delivery gives them more punch and humor. A character that can easily be forgotten is given a wonderfully animated touch. The support range from the thankless (Clemence Poesy) to the memorable (Jordan Prentice)
The screenplay written by McDonagh (who is also theatre playwright) is one full of cracking one liners and amusing, un-p.c moments. These moments are forced to meld with moments of poignancy. However McDonagh clearly understands context, these are despicable characters and their moments of offensiveness only illustrate and highlight their phobias and isolation (expect for Fiennes who is clearly just an 'orrible cunt). The story overdoes it's ending, in particular a death which goes on for too long and ends with a very unconvincing plot moment. But up until that point the story moves at a steady pace and redeems itself after a few missteps.
In Burges doesn't have massive set pieces or the now familiar traits of the new wave Brit gangland movies. Howevcr its story is ten times stronger then most of the Guy Richie imitators/nick love films and for the most part the film is laugh out loud funny. I was almost embarrassed with how loud I laughed at some of the jokes. To add to this In Burge reminded me of how much I love small films when I get the chance to see them. The general jaded feel that can happen with some of Hollywood's bigger movies is lost when going into something like this. The laughs come naturally, the drama works well and the story is fulfilling. While it may not be remembered in those big books of blockbusting box office stats, In Burge is more likely to remain in the memory of those who were lucky to see it.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Review: Drillbit Taylor
Year: 2008
Director: Steven Brill
Screenwriters: Kristofor Brown, Seth Rogen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Leslie Mann, Nate Hartley, Troy Gentile, David Dorfman, Alex Frost
Frat Pack everywhere! It appears that U.S Mainstream Comedy Cinema won't allow anyone else into their movies. No Seth Rogan? Then no way. No Vince Vaughan? Try again sucker. No Judd Apatow? Denied! It seems that if you do not have least one of these people in your movies then it's not allowed to make money. Ok so that's not true. However as long as these Frat Pack films break even at least, you ain't seen the last of these guys.
Drillbit Taylor is yet another film produced by Apatow productions. Taking liberally from the film My Bodyguard (1980) and with certain elements being thought up by the master of a thousand childhoods (John Hughes under his Edmond Dantes pseudonym); DT is a sweet (but not too slushy) film about a group of nerds who have just entered high school. They decide to hire a hobo as a personal bodyguard to defend them from a couple of bullies, with amusing results. There's not much else to the films plot, but that's not the point. It seems like a touching (and amusing) way to aim the Apatow humor at a younger audience.
For the most part, it works I guess. As a fan of Owen Wilson I found most of the movie enjoyable. Wilson's lazy Texan drawl and offbeat charm keep the film moving, elevating a below mediocre family film to a watchable one. Don't be expecting to laugh as loud as in Superbad or The Wedding Crashers (if you enjoyed those movies) as the dialogue is not nearly as quotable and the set pieces aren't as nearly as outrageous. In fact the more OTT a frat pack production is the stronger the film is as a whole. Drillbit misses the manic performances from some of the other frat members. It is in Drillbit you discover how strong the comic talents of the frat pack as it is sorely missing here. Many of the jokes, one could say are a little off. Mostly because of the performances (and dodgy editing). In the hands of others I would have laughed a lot louder than I did. Not to say that I didn't laugh, however I doubt this will have the same effect as when I watched Superbad again the other day.
Wilson is of course the strongest performance, his timing is still extremely strong and he can still make me laugh at dialogue that other actors couldn't. Leslie Mann (an underrated comic actress) also shines in the small amount of screen time she's in. The chemistry between herself and Wilson is likable, easy going and most important amusing. A stronger story could have been made with the two adult characters than the "yoof" of the film. Not to say that the younger guys in the film are terrible...just awkward and not in a Micheal Cera way. The lead trio just stand out unnaturally at times, looking more geeky and standing out more than they should.
This doesn't help the slim plot which drags a hell of a lot considering that these kids are supposed to carry the film until the end. Wilson may be the star of the film but the kids are the protagonists and while every so often they come off with gems in various moments of the film, they fade into the background far more than they should. If this is considered a spiritual predecessor to Superbad it needed kids who could compared to the talents and timing of Cera and Hill.
Director Steven Brill may have agreed on the casting due to the physical attributes of the kids but he could have at least spent more time working on the timing of the three. I have labelled them quite harshly, however I have only gone by how well the film has labelled them; Troy Gentile is the fat one, Nate Hartley is the skinny one and David Dorfman is the weedy one. They act towards their one characteristic and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and while Superbad take three archetypes and gives them a fresh feel and makes them lovable (and quotable). Drillbit has three similar stereotypes and does nothing with them.
Brill, director of the awful Without a paddle creates a film which is a damn sight better than that piece of junk in that it is actually funny in places. It has set pieces that not only crack smiles but with bring out the odd guffaw. The film is a watchable one but one without freshness. It's light but forgettable . With this said however, it's worth a renting for not only Wilson and Mann but a slightly twisted performance from head bully played by Alex Frost who some may remember at Alex from Gus Van Sant's marvellous/boring (either/or) Elephant.
Director: Steven Brill
Screenwriters: Kristofor Brown, Seth Rogen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Leslie Mann, Nate Hartley, Troy Gentile, David Dorfman, Alex Frost
Frat Pack everywhere! It appears that U.S Mainstream Comedy Cinema won't allow anyone else into their movies. No Seth Rogan? Then no way. No Vince Vaughan? Try again sucker. No Judd Apatow? Denied! It seems that if you do not have least one of these people in your movies then it's not allowed to make money. Ok so that's not true. However as long as these Frat Pack films break even at least, you ain't seen the last of these guys.
Drillbit Taylor is yet another film produced by Apatow productions. Taking liberally from the film My Bodyguard (1980) and with certain elements being thought up by the master of a thousand childhoods (John Hughes under his Edmond Dantes pseudonym); DT is a sweet (but not too slushy) film about a group of nerds who have just entered high school. They decide to hire a hobo as a personal bodyguard to defend them from a couple of bullies, with amusing results. There's not much else to the films plot, but that's not the point. It seems like a touching (and amusing) way to aim the Apatow humor at a younger audience.
For the most part, it works I guess. As a fan of Owen Wilson I found most of the movie enjoyable. Wilson's lazy Texan drawl and offbeat charm keep the film moving, elevating a below mediocre family film to a watchable one. Don't be expecting to laugh as loud as in Superbad or The Wedding Crashers (if you enjoyed those movies) as the dialogue is not nearly as quotable and the set pieces aren't as nearly as outrageous. In fact the more OTT a frat pack production is the stronger the film is as a whole. Drillbit misses the manic performances from some of the other frat members. It is in Drillbit you discover how strong the comic talents of the frat pack as it is sorely missing here. Many of the jokes, one could say are a little off. Mostly because of the performances (and dodgy editing). In the hands of others I would have laughed a lot louder than I did. Not to say that I didn't laugh, however I doubt this will have the same effect as when I watched Superbad again the other day.
Wilson is of course the strongest performance, his timing is still extremely strong and he can still make me laugh at dialogue that other actors couldn't. Leslie Mann (an underrated comic actress) also shines in the small amount of screen time she's in. The chemistry between herself and Wilson is likable, easy going and most important amusing. A stronger story could have been made with the two adult characters than the "yoof" of the film. Not to say that the younger guys in the film are terrible...just awkward and not in a Micheal Cera way. The lead trio just stand out unnaturally at times, looking more geeky and standing out more than they should.
This doesn't help the slim plot which drags a hell of a lot considering that these kids are supposed to carry the film until the end. Wilson may be the star of the film but the kids are the protagonists and while every so often they come off with gems in various moments of the film, they fade into the background far more than they should. If this is considered a spiritual predecessor to Superbad it needed kids who could compared to the talents and timing of Cera and Hill.
Director Steven Brill may have agreed on the casting due to the physical attributes of the kids but he could have at least spent more time working on the timing of the three. I have labelled them quite harshly, however I have only gone by how well the film has labelled them; Troy Gentile is the fat one, Nate Hartley is the skinny one and David Dorfman is the weedy one. They act towards their one characteristic and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and while Superbad take three archetypes and gives them a fresh feel and makes them lovable (and quotable). Drillbit has three similar stereotypes and does nothing with them.
Brill, director of the awful Without a paddle creates a film which is a damn sight better than that piece of junk in that it is actually funny in places. It has set pieces that not only crack smiles but with bring out the odd guffaw. The film is a watchable one but one without freshness. It's light but forgettable . With this said however, it's worth a renting for not only Wilson and Mann but a slightly twisted performance from head bully played by Alex Frost who some may remember at Alex from Gus Van Sant's marvellous/boring (either/or) Elephant.
Sunday, 6 April 2008
R.I.P Charlton Heston
Sympathies go out to the family of Charlton Heston. The star of movies such as Ed Cid and Ben Hur. Not the biggest fan of many of his movies (Can't stand soylent green or The omega man for sure), nor of his political views but he was a man that truly shaped the landscape of cinema as we know it.
His face, presence and talent have lead to many iconic moments in film and he will be greatly remembered.
His face, presence and talent have lead to many iconic moments in film and he will be greatly remembered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)