Year: 2009
Director: Zack Sndyer
Screenplay: David Hayter
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson
Film Synopsis here
So my first "big" film of the year. I couldn't wait. I will try not to mention too much about the creators (Alan Moore) dislike for Hollywood and what he feels about making a flick out of his baby (if he was that bothered I sure he could have found a way of stopping the film). I am going do my best to keep away the comparisons to last years The Dark Knight as it's too easy. However, it's interesting to see that Batman's comic return to his dark roots happens in 1986 (Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns) around the same time that Alan Moore's dense work arrives. To add to this Moore's graphic novel is considered the moment when people REALLY looked at "comic books" as serious literature. So it's quite amusing to see that both The Dark Knight and Watchmen show up around the same time to make the comic book movie "serious".
Want to make it more ludicrous? The film studios decided to get the most pop art inclined working director this side of Micheal Bay ( Zack Snyder) to make the movie. Snyder came to prominence with the flashy Dawn of the Dead remake, a film I despised on first viewing (tried again and still hated), Before making a Box Office Smash with the comic book adaptation 300 (Frank Miller again, interesting). His heavily stylized (ALOT of slow motion), testosterone fueled movie gave him the chance to helm what appears to be his dream project.
Well well well Mr Snyder, despite a box office showing better than most R rated movies, a mostly positive critical praise and quick entry into the imdb's top 25o movies, everyone I spoke to (bar two) disliked your movie! Should we blame PR and Marketing for promoting this as "the next Dark Knight"? Should we blame an ignorant audience who haven't read the book it's based on? (most of the hate came from people who haven't a clue about the book) Or should we blame you Mr Snyder for making this movie "Watchmen-lite"?
No
I blame Alan Moore. Why? For raising the bar. Watchmen is an exceptional piece of literature which is unlike anything I've read. The way the book is put together makes an exact adaptation almost impossible. The quotes, the case files, it's odd episodic nature, the comic within a comic...Moore (and Artist Dave Gibbons) created something that goes beyond mainstream cinema. As Moore has stated many a time before this was not meant to be filmed.
But instead of praising what Snyder did right, many are quick to bemoan whats missing or "wrong". That unfortunate because Snyder give the audience a film which is likely to be most intelligent commercial film this year (it ain't gonna be G.I Joe is it?!). From it's brilliant opening credits to it's flawed but solid ending. Snyder delivers the closet adaptation to Moores opus anyone would be able to get. The fact that Terry Gilliam could put Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to screen and put could not get this near the big screen is a credit to the young director (and technological advances). While many complain about the omissions, the film still features some of the subtext that made the book such an intriguing read. The fact that Synder crammed as much as he did in 2 and a half hours deserves praise.
The biggest problem I found with the film however is the novels episodic structure and slow burn reveals makes the film oddly paced to say the least. Also Watchmen does not have one main character it has six and Snyder does his best to give them all the credit they deserve. To cut any of their well rounded development would be a cheat, so while many were probably sick of Dr Manhattan pondering the nature of life, to cut it out would make the end of the film convoluted.
Despite being hyped up as The Dark Knight 2, Watchmen is a methodically paced detective feature. Not to say that it hasn't got action. Snyder directs his set pieces with verve and flair and to add to this YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHATS HAPPENING!!!! Unlike other so called action directors Snyder makes sure every punch could be seen and felt. Not one to shy away from violence (see 300 and Dawn of the Dead) Watchmen takes blood to another level. This film is an 18 and it fucking means it. Yeah I've seen worse but the Arm Snap is almost as cringe inducing as the "magic pencil".
Watchmen also cox out pitch perfect performances from most of the cast. With Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup and Jeffery Dean Morgan nailing Rorschach, Dr Manhattan and The Comedian. Morgan's Comedian is a strong achievement being an presence throughout the film despite his death being the kick off point of the movie. The other performances in the film are good but are more functional than showy.
Watchmen is a solid adaptation of an extremely difficult task. Fans of the book should get rid of any pre-notions before going in, while non-readers should not get caught up in the hype and brace yourself for a dense "neo noir" (even that doesn't describe it well enough) which is miles away from your Superman's, Ironman's, etc.
So while I still found myself making the easy comparisons (Haley as Rorschach is as good as Ledger as The Joker and I have no qualms in saying that.), and found myself agreeing with Terry Gilliam in thinking that Watchmen is a mini series and not a film; Zack Snyder produces a fantastically ambitious love letter to a unique graphic novel, its fans and it's creator. Those who lambaste it should do themselves a favor and check out the League of extraordinary gentlemen and see the difference.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Friday, 13 February 2009
Review: Friday The 13th
Year: 2009
Director: Marcus Nispel
Screenplay: Damian Shannon, Mark Swift
Starring: Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker
Synopsis is here (like you need it)
"Hollywood will eat itself" - Taken from an IMDB comment
The first Friday the 13th film was a shameless cash in, based on the success of the seminal slasher Halloween (which in itself borrowed a shed load of elements from Black Christmas). If you don't believe me, watch Return to Crystal Lake: The Making of Friday the 13th, or just google it. The filmmakers didn't care and are proud of what they did, they're extremely proud of those box office returns.
So we jump forward almost 30 years and we see Micheal Bay's Platinum Dunes production company "remaking" Friday The 13th as the franchise (one of the most successful in American film history...yeah seriously) keeps making money to this day. Derided by critics but loved by horror fans, Mrs Vorhees (1st film, watch scream lol) and her deranged unstoppable killer son Jason have made a mint.
It's quite a surprise considering the original film itself. Despite some fantastic special effects work from Tom Savini and a memorable score (Ki Ki, Ma, Ma) from Harry Manfredini...The original film is not much to shout about. Sure it helped re-enforce those now infamous horror rules and standpoints and it has some atmospheric moments, but thats it. It can only really be taken as camp (no pun intended). So with this said....I wouldn't mind a remake.
Platinum Dunes have been down the remake road before. Taking classic American Horror films and "refreshing" them for a new generation. The problem I've had with them is they've always seemed to miss the point. Hollywood is always going to remake films but the films Platinum Dunes take don't need the treatment they've been given.
After looking at the early reviews of Friday The 13, I found that the critics have missed what I would consider a vital point about the Friday the 13 movies. Not only they looked at it with contempt about it as a bog standard horror film remake, but they also viewed it as a cynical cash in on the original. They really should have dug a little deeper because the original film WAS a cynical cash in on Halloween. The filmmakers pretty much state that on Wikipedia and Return to Crystal Lake (The making of the original film). They saw the bandwagon and jumped on it. The critics hated it but people came in droves and they created more due the returns made on each sequel.
The reason I say this is? Because The filmmakers were very honest with what they were doing. These days filmmakers show so much disdain for the audience when it comes to horror films it's unreal. After a quick browse at Wikipedia I read on what the writers wanted to do with the film; they didn't want it to be a period piece, wanted the teens to sound realistic etc.
Now while the teens in the film sound more realistic, they are still horrible, vapid entires, far removed from the fresh faced teenagers from just before i was born. Unfortunately modern horror filmmakers believe that rude, self absorbed youth is the only youth that we we wish to watch in slasher movies. Hell even Sidney Prescott was almost 15 years ago. Would would want a bunch of teenagers you might actually want to hang with? I want that? Why? Because I want anticipation back in horror movies. I want good people who have fallen into unfortunate events because you will WORRY and WAIT in FEAR for when the knife strikes. It's why I like The Blair Witch Project, it's why I like Wolf Creek, it's why I enjoy alot of horror films and dislike ones like this.
Navitiy has been replaced with arrogance and this self-importance leads to disengagement. I'm not surprised that modern filmmakers are killing themselves, trying to make their monsters lovable, because the supposed heroes of the films are so self-absorbed, empty headed or blank that it's hard to last the films pace (note the film is only about 90 mins long). So yes we want these assholes to die and fast.
But wait...here comes another problem. So your victims are so insipid that they're sucked any wish for them to live and the killer is so tired that he can't be bothered to finish them off with any invention. It's bad enough you can't relate to these people because their dickheads, but the fact that our (now) anti-hero can't be bothered to bump off these bastards in any fun way is even more distressing. It appears that after 30 years Jason can't be arsed to put any va va voom in his killing, maybe he's bored, maybe he's tired? Well as long as Sean Cunningham is alive they'll be no rest for the wicked as Jason half heatedly knifes most of his foes with his machete which is bizarrely still sharp after all this time (note it makes that "shink" noise even though there's no other metal implements near it).
Notice I don't mention anything about the acting or screenplay of the film? Well I'm sure the director stated to the token black kid in the movie "act black" and asked the Asian teen to (act Asian), but there's nothing that will make you wonder where these young thespians are headed to in the near future. This stems from the screenwriters not giving a shit about these people to give them anything near well rounded characterisation. Most of the young actors in the film do not have a chance to shine because they are quite simply meat.
The closest thing to someone you give a damn about? The ridiculously good looking Jared Padalecki whose given a sister to look for. He tries hard and comes out with the slight scratches but still has hardly anything to work with.
Like I said before the critics looked at this with contempt due to it being a bog standard horror remake. I look at it in contempt because even bog standard remakes can be fun. There is no fun in this, only mechanics. A Japanesse horror remake can still appeal to many who may not know about the original. The filmmakers here can't even be bothered to place anything dynamic into a tired franchese, even after 30 years.
Horror films are never award winners but they should be entertaining. For me they're most entertaining when those who are threatened by evil are people you can get behind. Because when the evil does get them, you lose hope and that's whats scary to me. "Can these people get out of this?" is the question I ask myself in a horror I like "he's going to die next" is the statement I say when I watch something I think is awful. Well...at least the tits were good.
Director: Marcus Nispel
Screenplay: Damian Shannon, Mark Swift
Starring: Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker
Synopsis is here (like you need it)
"Hollywood will eat itself" - Taken from an IMDB comment
The first Friday the 13th film was a shameless cash in, based on the success of the seminal slasher Halloween (which in itself borrowed a shed load of elements from Black Christmas). If you don't believe me, watch Return to Crystal Lake: The Making of Friday the 13th, or just google it. The filmmakers didn't care and are proud of what they did, they're extremely proud of those box office returns.
So we jump forward almost 30 years and we see Micheal Bay's Platinum Dunes production company "remaking" Friday The 13th as the franchise (one of the most successful in American film history...yeah seriously) keeps making money to this day. Derided by critics but loved by horror fans, Mrs Vorhees (1st film, watch scream lol) and her deranged unstoppable killer son Jason have made a mint.
It's quite a surprise considering the original film itself. Despite some fantastic special effects work from Tom Savini and a memorable score (Ki Ki, Ma, Ma) from Harry Manfredini...The original film is not much to shout about. Sure it helped re-enforce those now infamous horror rules and standpoints and it has some atmospheric moments, but thats it. It can only really be taken as camp (no pun intended). So with this said....I wouldn't mind a remake.
Platinum Dunes have been down the remake road before. Taking classic American Horror films and "refreshing" them for a new generation. The problem I've had with them is they've always seemed to miss the point. Hollywood is always going to remake films but the films Platinum Dunes take don't need the treatment they've been given.
After looking at the early reviews of Friday The 13, I found that the critics have missed what I would consider a vital point about the Friday the 13 movies. Not only they looked at it with contempt about it as a bog standard horror film remake, but they also viewed it as a cynical cash in on the original. They really should have dug a little deeper because the original film WAS a cynical cash in on Halloween. The filmmakers pretty much state that on Wikipedia and Return to Crystal Lake (The making of the original film). They saw the bandwagon and jumped on it. The critics hated it but people came in droves and they created more due the returns made on each sequel.
The reason I say this is? Because The filmmakers were very honest with what they were doing. These days filmmakers show so much disdain for the audience when it comes to horror films it's unreal. After a quick browse at Wikipedia I read on what the writers wanted to do with the film; they didn't want it to be a period piece, wanted the teens to sound realistic etc.
Now while the teens in the film sound more realistic, they are still horrible, vapid entires, far removed from the fresh faced teenagers from just before i was born. Unfortunately modern horror filmmakers believe that rude, self absorbed youth is the only youth that we we wish to watch in slasher movies. Hell even Sidney Prescott was almost 15 years ago. Would would want a bunch of teenagers you might actually want to hang with? I want that? Why? Because I want anticipation back in horror movies. I want good people who have fallen into unfortunate events because you will WORRY and WAIT in FEAR for when the knife strikes. It's why I like The Blair Witch Project, it's why I like Wolf Creek, it's why I enjoy alot of horror films and dislike ones like this.
Navitiy has been replaced with arrogance and this self-importance leads to disengagement. I'm not surprised that modern filmmakers are killing themselves, trying to make their monsters lovable, because the supposed heroes of the films are so self-absorbed, empty headed or blank that it's hard to last the films pace (note the film is only about 90 mins long). So yes we want these assholes to die and fast.
But wait...here comes another problem. So your victims are so insipid that they're sucked any wish for them to live and the killer is so tired that he can't be bothered to finish them off with any invention. It's bad enough you can't relate to these people because their dickheads, but the fact that our (now) anti-hero can't be bothered to bump off these bastards in any fun way is even more distressing. It appears that after 30 years Jason can't be arsed to put any va va voom in his killing, maybe he's bored, maybe he's tired? Well as long as Sean Cunningham is alive they'll be no rest for the wicked as Jason half heatedly knifes most of his foes with his machete which is bizarrely still sharp after all this time (note it makes that "shink" noise even though there's no other metal implements near it).
Notice I don't mention anything about the acting or screenplay of the film? Well I'm sure the director stated to the token black kid in the movie "act black" and asked the Asian teen to (act Asian), but there's nothing that will make you wonder where these young thespians are headed to in the near future. This stems from the screenwriters not giving a shit about these people to give them anything near well rounded characterisation. Most of the young actors in the film do not have a chance to shine because they are quite simply meat.
The closest thing to someone you give a damn about? The ridiculously good looking Jared Padalecki whose given a sister to look for. He tries hard and comes out with the slight scratches but still has hardly anything to work with.
Like I said before the critics looked at this with contempt due to it being a bog standard horror remake. I look at it in contempt because even bog standard remakes can be fun. There is no fun in this, only mechanics. A Japanesse horror remake can still appeal to many who may not know about the original. The filmmakers here can't even be bothered to place anything dynamic into a tired franchese, even after 30 years.
Horror films are never award winners but they should be entertaining. For me they're most entertaining when those who are threatened by evil are people you can get behind. Because when the evil does get them, you lose hope and that's whats scary to me. "Can these people get out of this?" is the question I ask myself in a horror I like "he's going to die next" is the statement I say when I watch something I think is awful. Well...at least the tits were good.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Inglourious Basterds: A Quick Glance
So BANG! QT's new trailer's out and I'm surprisingly underwhelmed. The film doesn't look boring but I'm not extremely excited by what I saw. This however may stem from my disappointment from Deathproof and Benjamin Button. But this is can only be a good thing because now my expectations are low and I should be able to switch my brain off and enjoy Basterds come August 21.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li: Quick Glance
As Street Fighter 4 is on the verge of being released on home consoles everywhere very soon, I've decided to have a second look at the horrendous Street Fighter movie due out near the end of the month in the U.S.
After checking out the movie blog i found myself even more disappointed. As "camp" as Bison's (or Vega depending on area) uniform is or as ridiculous as Balrog's (or Bison)boxing costume is...i want to see it. As a fan of the video game, I'm not there for realism (a such) I want to see M Bison with no pupils and Chun Li turn UPSIDE DOWN, DO THE SPLITS, HOVER IN MID AIR AND KICK PEOPLE!
For me and many fans I don't think it's too much to ask. Reason why? Comic Books are beginning to be taken seriously. Although the market is being saturated with graphic novel after graphic novel, 2008 was pretty much own by one film: The Dark Knight. A film which managed to keep the tone and spirit of the comics, have a hero doing outrageous things without looking stupid as well as break box office records and garner a shed load of critical and commercial acclaim.
I still believe this can be done for the video game film, with adaptations such as Hitman and Silent Hill displaying that the cross over could happen but at a snails pace. But not when the filmmakers show so much disregard for the fans they say the make the film for. True I have only seen the Trailer and read the blog (with it's feeble excuse of why your favorite characters are missing) and there's still the matter of me actually seeing the whole movie.
But a trailer is supposed to draw you into putting your hard earned cash down into watching a movie and by creating a film that has no feel of a street fighter game in any sense of the word (oh there's a hint of a fireball near the end of the trailer) will only cause those in two minds to most probably steal the film illegally.
Reading an issue Sight and Sound today had a review for Transporter 3, the magazine stated that with all the Bournes, Bonds and Batman striving for realism, Transporter becomes strangely endearing. I found myself thinking about Transformers and realizing that Micheal Bay's toy movie manage to do a similar thing with a lot of people. Although I hated it, I still respected Bay's cynically clever abuse of childhood nostalgia which gave the movie alot of it's praise. Maybe if the filmmakers looked more towards the absurd and the loony aspect of a Fighting Tournament people would warm towards it a lot more.*
* After more research I found out that the filmmakers are basing the film on the street fight alpha series. If your scratching your head and asking yourself "wha?" It's a series of SF games which came out after SF2 but is based on events which happened before it. While this may explain away some of my incessant moaning, it doesn't give good reason to why the drastic change of tone.
After checking out the movie blog i found myself even more disappointed. As "camp" as Bison's (or Vega depending on area) uniform is or as ridiculous as Balrog's (or Bison)boxing costume is...i want to see it. As a fan of the video game, I'm not there for realism (a such) I want to see M Bison with no pupils and Chun Li turn UPSIDE DOWN, DO THE SPLITS, HOVER IN MID AIR AND KICK PEOPLE!
For me and many fans I don't think it's too much to ask. Reason why? Comic Books are beginning to be taken seriously. Although the market is being saturated with graphic novel after graphic novel, 2008 was pretty much own by one film: The Dark Knight. A film which managed to keep the tone and spirit of the comics, have a hero doing outrageous things without looking stupid as well as break box office records and garner a shed load of critical and commercial acclaim.
I still believe this can be done for the video game film, with adaptations such as Hitman and Silent Hill displaying that the cross over could happen but at a snails pace. But not when the filmmakers show so much disregard for the fans they say the make the film for. True I have only seen the Trailer and read the blog (with it's feeble excuse of why your favorite characters are missing) and there's still the matter of me actually seeing the whole movie.
But a trailer is supposed to draw you into putting your hard earned cash down into watching a movie and by creating a film that has no feel of a street fighter game in any sense of the word (oh there's a hint of a fireball near the end of the trailer) will only cause those in two minds to most probably steal the film illegally.
Reading an issue Sight and Sound today had a review for Transporter 3, the magazine stated that with all the Bournes, Bonds and Batman striving for realism, Transporter becomes strangely endearing. I found myself thinking about Transformers and realizing that Micheal Bay's toy movie manage to do a similar thing with a lot of people. Although I hated it, I still respected Bay's cynically clever abuse of childhood nostalgia which gave the movie alot of it's praise. Maybe if the filmmakers looked more towards the absurd and the loony aspect of a Fighting Tournament people would warm towards it a lot more.*
* After more research I found out that the filmmakers are basing the film on the street fight alpha series. If your scratching your head and asking yourself "wha?" It's a series of SF games which came out after SF2 but is based on events which happened before it. While this may explain away some of my incessant moaning, it doesn't give good reason to why the drastic change of tone.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Year: 2008
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett
To say I was disappointed by this movie would be a bit of an understatement. Technical prowess aside, I haven't been so detached from a movie in such a long time. Superlatives have been thrown about the film and the Oscars have been extremely kind to the movie (13 nominations) but I found myself asking: "is this it?" The rushed ending, the dubious storytelling, the plodding pace, the overall coldness of the movie...am I the only one who felt these things?
Maybe I expected too much. I am a big David Fincher fan and Fight Club is one of my all time favorite movies. I could not wait to see what he would do with the material. Based on a short story by F Scott Fitzgerald, Fincher, Roth and Swicord nick the the gimmick of the story (a man aging backwards) and put a melodramatic spin on the tale turning it into the closest thing to a Rom-com Fincher will probably ever put out.
I don't want to go into the similarities of this film and Forrest Grump because it's very obvious to those who have seen more than the odd casual movie. In fact talking about the comparison to me is a waste of space because so many people have spotted it already. I will say this though...Gump's story is more efficient and more entertaining while less indulgent.
Once I got past the brilliant effects that the filmmakers have placed within the movie, BB left me cold. One of the main reasons is Brad Pitt portrayal of Button himself. Benjamin appears to us as an empty vessel. When an old man, he doesn't display the childlike wonder he should have, when he gets younger Pitt doesn't infuse the young with sage like wisdom. Pitt stays it straight all the way though. I love Pitt in many movies even though many people I know don't. He's embodied roles so much that to me he IS Tyler Durden, he IS Jeffrey Goines and he IS Rusty Ryan. Here however Pitt is too plain, too flat and just generally not that compelling to watch.
Because of this the main relationship suffers as Blancett plays the love interest Daisy with a great amount of energy. But while Blancett plays the role well, the character itself isn't a pleasant one, in fact the entire relationship the film is based on appears to me as awkward and cumbersome due to the fact that the two characters don't really gel. In fact the time where the two spend the most with each other is shown to us as a montage and for the most part their lingering looks before and after said montage just don't do it for me. This is because Fincher would rather pad the film out with secondary characters who are only around to ram home the films moral message: We as humans are lucky to be alive and we should live life to it's fullest. Not a bad message, however after three hours of constantly remind us ad nausem...you get tired of it.
The storytelling just isn't Fincher's best. As a director not known for his short films Fincher goes overboard with this tale. Emotional moments are drowned out by scenes that could easily have been edited out, and we spend far too much time going back to our storytellers in 2005 than we need to. To add to this the film makes mistakes that a you wouldn't expect it to make. If a character is narrating a story and we're hearing it from their perspective, why do we hear this person narrate things that he would have no chance of seeing, hearing or knowing? One of the pivotal plot points relies on Benjamin telling of something he'd have no idea of. We get the idea, but it's not good storytelling. As for the film climax...I can't even remember it if I told you. I do remember it comes quickly (quicker than the rest of the film) and left me saying..it's that it?
But it's not all bad. Like I stated there lies some gentile moments that bring a smile to my face and some of the films insights on our own mortality are interesting enough. The film is technically superb and beautifully shot (it is Finicher ever all) and the score is wonderful. But for me it's to no avail. if Fincher streamlined the story and placed more focus on the relationship and given that more warmth I could see myself watching this movie again. However due to the reasons I've placed above, I can't see myself buying the DVD and growing old with it.
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett
To say I was disappointed by this movie would be a bit of an understatement. Technical prowess aside, I haven't been so detached from a movie in such a long time. Superlatives have been thrown about the film and the Oscars have been extremely kind to the movie (13 nominations) but I found myself asking: "is this it?" The rushed ending, the dubious storytelling, the plodding pace, the overall coldness of the movie...am I the only one who felt these things?
Maybe I expected too much. I am a big David Fincher fan and Fight Club is one of my all time favorite movies. I could not wait to see what he would do with the material. Based on a short story by F Scott Fitzgerald, Fincher, Roth and Swicord nick the the gimmick of the story (a man aging backwards) and put a melodramatic spin on the tale turning it into the closest thing to a Rom-com Fincher will probably ever put out.
I don't want to go into the similarities of this film and Forrest Grump because it's very obvious to those who have seen more than the odd casual movie. In fact talking about the comparison to me is a waste of space because so many people have spotted it already. I will say this though...Gump's story is more efficient and more entertaining while less indulgent.
Once I got past the brilliant effects that the filmmakers have placed within the movie, BB left me cold. One of the main reasons is Brad Pitt portrayal of Button himself. Benjamin appears to us as an empty vessel. When an old man, he doesn't display the childlike wonder he should have, when he gets younger Pitt doesn't infuse the young with sage like wisdom. Pitt stays it straight all the way though. I love Pitt in many movies even though many people I know don't. He's embodied roles so much that to me he IS Tyler Durden, he IS Jeffrey Goines and he IS Rusty Ryan. Here however Pitt is too plain, too flat and just generally not that compelling to watch.
Because of this the main relationship suffers as Blancett plays the love interest Daisy with a great amount of energy. But while Blancett plays the role well, the character itself isn't a pleasant one, in fact the entire relationship the film is based on appears to me as awkward and cumbersome due to the fact that the two characters don't really gel. In fact the time where the two spend the most with each other is shown to us as a montage and for the most part their lingering looks before and after said montage just don't do it for me. This is because Fincher would rather pad the film out with secondary characters who are only around to ram home the films moral message: We as humans are lucky to be alive and we should live life to it's fullest. Not a bad message, however after three hours of constantly remind us ad nausem...you get tired of it.
The storytelling just isn't Fincher's best. As a director not known for his short films Fincher goes overboard with this tale. Emotional moments are drowned out by scenes that could easily have been edited out, and we spend far too much time going back to our storytellers in 2005 than we need to. To add to this the film makes mistakes that a you wouldn't expect it to make. If a character is narrating a story and we're hearing it from their perspective, why do we hear this person narrate things that he would have no chance of seeing, hearing or knowing? One of the pivotal plot points relies on Benjamin telling of something he'd have no idea of. We get the idea, but it's not good storytelling. As for the film climax...I can't even remember it if I told you. I do remember it comes quickly (quicker than the rest of the film) and left me saying..it's that it?
But it's not all bad. Like I stated there lies some gentile moments that bring a smile to my face and some of the films insights on our own mortality are interesting enough. The film is technically superb and beautifully shot (it is Finicher ever all) and the score is wonderful. But for me it's to no avail. if Fincher streamlined the story and placed more focus on the relationship and given that more warmth I could see myself watching this movie again. However due to the reasons I've placed above, I can't see myself buying the DVD and growing old with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)