Year: 2009
Director: Andrzej Bartkowiak
Screenplay: Justin Marks
Starring: Kristin Kreuk, Chris Klein, Neal McDonough, Robin Shou, Moon Bloodgood, Taboo, Michael Clarke Duncan
Childhood fondness of the Capcom franchise and morbid curiosity brought me to watching this. There was clearly something telling me that watching this would be a bad idea, however, but the urge was just too strong. I had to see if this was a train wreck or merely a little misguided. By the time Chris Kelin utters his first line...I couldn't stop laughing. I was laughing because of Kelin's dreadful performance. I was laughing because of the films half baked storytelling. I laughed at many things I wasn't supposed to, but one of the main reasons I laughed is because if I didn't...I would have been in tears.
Legend of Chun Li is a bad movie. It's close to Uwe Boll bad. It is a film which has the Interpol having no idea how to trace the main villain Bison (McDonough voicing his role in his best Oirish accent) but anyone off the street can merely use an Internet cafe and gather ALL the information anyone would need on him. It's a movie in which the main character "seduces" a female for information with a atrocious dance moves set to a dire gangster rap soundtrack. It's movie that has some of the worst narration this side of Blade Runner. It's a movie... I could go on.
This is a film seemingly fueled by bad decisions. Considering most causal gamers stopped following the street fighter franchise around the Alpha series, why on earth did the filmmakers consider it to be a good idea to involve characters from then? With a story so simple, why do we need Kristin Kreuk to narrate the movie for us? Why do all the actors in this film have the same dead eyed look? You know, the kind of look that someone who sold their soul would have?
It's clearly obvious a deal with the devil was made for this movie. I mean how else could a Black Eyed Pea get a gig "acting" in this film? (There must of been dealings in X-men: Origins and Nine also). Another, more important questions abound include is how on earth does Andrzej Bartkowiak keep getting offered movies? Why does he edit the shit out of his (admittedly not bad) action sequences? If these questions can be answers please...tell me.
After my review of Avatar and it's clunky script, I feel I may have to apologize. Cameron's film has it's issues but at least it's enjoyable. This...this is an abomination against action movies, a crime against good storytelling, a waste of time and effort, simply put....a bad movie.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Review: Avatar
Year: 2009
Director: James Cameron
Screenplay: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi
Synopsis is here
One of the things I like about writing a personal film blog is that my opinion is my own. Call me a cynic, but it's very hard at times to take certain print press reviews as is due to the huge amount of coverage and hype they force down a readers throat. From the first screenshot reveals to the XX page spread two months before hand. When your bombarded with information about a said film and then greeted with a gushing, glowing five star review at the end, it's hard not to get a little weary. And so with over TWELVE years of preloaded hype, self-proclaimed "king of the world" James Cameron returns with what many consider to be his opus; Avatar.
I've read the early reviews and many have bleated about how great this movie is, and granted in another twelve years I believe that we will be still talking about the EFFECTS of this movie and how far CGI has advanced because of it. However when it comes to how it AFFECTS us, I'm not so sure. Avatar features some of the most astonishing visuals for a film I've ever seen in my short time here on this planet, however when a film has taken so long to prefect in looks it's a shame that we are given a script that doesn't seem to have progressed as well as it's SFX.
It's an odd meld of something you haven't seen before with something you've seen maybe far too often. My mouth dropped to the floor when Jake takes his first Na'vi steps into the world of Pandorum, but I also had to cover the same mouth to stop myself from laughing at some of the trite and corny dialogue. The film's world is one of the most beautifully realized conceptions this year nay DECADE, but the films characters are as bland and dry as crackers. This conflict goes on throughout the film and unfortunately it's stronger than the friction that's meant to be going on up on the screen.
Not like this matters when the action takes hold of the film. Avatar is strongest when it says nothing and it's set pieces say that best, with some glorious sequences that put the likes of Lucas, Bay, Emmerich and the rest to shame. The effects money is up on the screen for all to see and with no horrible editing techniques to distract. One of the issues i had with My Bloody Valentine 3D is that it's was hacked up so much that the 3D just simply didn't work. Here, along with the effects it's seamless, in fact it becomes second nature and Cameron and his P.C nerds have played with the depth of field inwards instead of outwards to make 3D something almost worth investing. With this said...will anyone else have £300 Million to make the 3D this good? I think not. Good luck to seeing 2 of this a year, let alone 10.
Script problems aside, the acting is more than adequate, Sam Worthington makes a great grunt and has enough screen presence to make sure he's not another face in the crowd. Zoe Saldana is emotional but not too memorable as the Na'vi love interest Neytiri, while Stephen Lang chews the entire screen like welsh taffy as Col. Miles Quaritch. The rest of the performances are nothing to shout about but then they aren't written to be anything more than generic support characters. in fact I'm hard pressed to remember their names.
Which once again brings me to what stops Avatar being a great film for me, it's story. Many have made jokes, likening the film to Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Ferngully and the like, and to be fair, that IS all in there. I didn't expect mind blowing originality, but Cameron does nothing to make the movie feel fresh other than the out of this world visuals, and that's not enough. A clear allegory to the Iraq War is made and once again this year inter-racial politics raises it's head and it's all handled well. However, there's nothing narrative wise that matches Neil Blomkamp's District 9 or dare I say this... The Hurt Locker (directed by Cameron's Ex-wife Kathryn Bigalow).
But when it's all said and done, Avatar is an event film and one that will bring in punters and is enjoyable. To get action set pieces like what we see here makes up for the poor showing we got during the summer, and for all the narrative issue, Cameron once again shows that given a large budget he can put most of it to good use. But for all the hype, coverage and five star reviews, I feel a little down that Avatar has only been taken for face value. Game-Changer? Only if we start judging books by their covers.
Note: I know it's hard and you've probably already seen it but try not to watch the Trailer for Avatar, it tells the viewer the WHOLE story in 3 minutes. The run time for the film is almost three hours, you may feel cheated.
Director: James Cameron
Screenplay: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi
Synopsis is here
One of the things I like about writing a personal film blog is that my opinion is my own. Call me a cynic, but it's very hard at times to take certain print press reviews as is due to the huge amount of coverage and hype they force down a readers throat. From the first screenshot reveals to the XX page spread two months before hand. When your bombarded with information about a said film and then greeted with a gushing, glowing five star review at the end, it's hard not to get a little weary. And so with over TWELVE years of preloaded hype, self-proclaimed "king of the world" James Cameron returns with what many consider to be his opus; Avatar.
I've read the early reviews and many have bleated about how great this movie is, and granted in another twelve years I believe that we will be still talking about the EFFECTS of this movie and how far CGI has advanced because of it. However when it comes to how it AFFECTS us, I'm not so sure. Avatar features some of the most astonishing visuals for a film I've ever seen in my short time here on this planet, however when a film has taken so long to prefect in looks it's a shame that we are given a script that doesn't seem to have progressed as well as it's SFX.
It's an odd meld of something you haven't seen before with something you've seen maybe far too often. My mouth dropped to the floor when Jake takes his first Na'vi steps into the world of Pandorum, but I also had to cover the same mouth to stop myself from laughing at some of the trite and corny dialogue. The film's world is one of the most beautifully realized conceptions this year nay DECADE, but the films characters are as bland and dry as crackers. This conflict goes on throughout the film and unfortunately it's stronger than the friction that's meant to be going on up on the screen.
Not like this matters when the action takes hold of the film. Avatar is strongest when it says nothing and it's set pieces say that best, with some glorious sequences that put the likes of Lucas, Bay, Emmerich and the rest to shame. The effects money is up on the screen for all to see and with no horrible editing techniques to distract. One of the issues i had with My Bloody Valentine 3D is that it's was hacked up so much that the 3D just simply didn't work. Here, along with the effects it's seamless, in fact it becomes second nature and Cameron and his P.C nerds have played with the depth of field inwards instead of outwards to make 3D something almost worth investing. With this said...will anyone else have £300 Million to make the 3D this good? I think not. Good luck to seeing 2 of this a year, let alone 10.
Script problems aside, the acting is more than adequate, Sam Worthington makes a great grunt and has enough screen presence to make sure he's not another face in the crowd. Zoe Saldana is emotional but not too memorable as the Na'vi love interest Neytiri, while Stephen Lang chews the entire screen like welsh taffy as Col. Miles Quaritch. The rest of the performances are nothing to shout about but then they aren't written to be anything more than generic support characters. in fact I'm hard pressed to remember their names.
Which once again brings me to what stops Avatar being a great film for me, it's story. Many have made jokes, likening the film to Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Ferngully and the like, and to be fair, that IS all in there. I didn't expect mind blowing originality, but Cameron does nothing to make the movie feel fresh other than the out of this world visuals, and that's not enough. A clear allegory to the Iraq War is made and once again this year inter-racial politics raises it's head and it's all handled well. However, there's nothing narrative wise that matches Neil Blomkamp's District 9 or dare I say this... The Hurt Locker (directed by Cameron's Ex-wife Kathryn Bigalow).
But when it's all said and done, Avatar is an event film and one that will bring in punters and is enjoyable. To get action set pieces like what we see here makes up for the poor showing we got during the summer, and for all the narrative issue, Cameron once again shows that given a large budget he can put most of it to good use. But for all the hype, coverage and five star reviews, I feel a little down that Avatar has only been taken for face value. Game-Changer? Only if we start judging books by their covers.
Note: I know it's hard and you've probably already seen it but try not to watch the Trailer for Avatar, it tells the viewer the WHOLE story in 3 minutes. The run time for the film is almost three hours, you may feel cheated.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Review: Where The Wild Things Are
Year: 2009
Director: Spike Jonez
Screenplay: Spike Jonez, Dave Eggers
Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo, Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano Catherine O'Hara
Synopsis is here
"I WILL EAT YOU UP!" - Carol - Not only a manifestation of Max's imagination but also his emotions. Watch carefully when Carol says these words.
I've once again been ill (2009 has been a odd year for me in terms of sickness) and my podcast co-host left me a text a few days ago asking for us to go up and see Where The Wild Things Are and Me and Orson Welles because if i don't watch them...we don't have a show. Feeling like I did, I dreaded heading to the cinema because I felt that the state I was in (missed work the day before, in bed etc) I didn't feel I'd be able to give these films my full attention. However going would mean the show could go on (recording tomorrow), I'd obviously be well enough for my next day of work (also tomorrow) and of course I would have added even more films to this years growing list.
In going, I found that, Where the wild things are (or WTWTA for short) was the perfect movie for how I was feeling because from the first jarring, jump cuts to the wonderfully poised end shot WTWTA took me by the scuff of the neck and shook me to life. Jonez, a formidable director has created a film that effectively captures the untamed abandon of children emotions with a maturity that I haven't seen since the fantasy films of the 80's.
A coming of age story that sits between the troublesome space of childhood and adolescence. Max is a conflicted child whose not old enough to play with the bigger kids but is expect to govern his emotions with a certain amount of maturity. Problem is these days we expect kids to grow up fast and deal, as a short but pivotal scene in Max's School shows. Trouble is Max has not yet understood these aspects of responsibility fully yet and because this he retreats into the childish mannerisms that worked so well with him in the past. As the film continues on, we see a child take those first shaky steps into growing up, and while Max may not have all the answers, he will at least be able stand on his own two when he has some.
Jonez, a filmmaker who we know more for controlling the mindbending scripts of Charlie Kuffman, finds himself on what could be considered new ground for him. He hits the ground running with direction so assured you wouldn't have known of the films troubled production. From the start he manages to find that wonderful rough and tumble feel of a certain childhood that resonates with those who had it. It's a hard feeling to capture but one that comes across so effortlessly with Jonez combination of well timed jump cuts, wonderful art direction and vibrant cinematography that not only seamlessly joins the real with the fantastic (because as a child you believe the two are one) but somehow, accurately places the film at a child eyes view. It's a nostalgic feeling given without the need for branded toys or well known television characters, but with the fact that everyone is bigger than you and can change their emotions in a blink of an eye from fun to dangerous without you knowing why. To capture this mixture of fear, joy and amazement is a difficult one but it's one that Jonez handles with aplomb.
But the film is also helped by a central performance that reminded me how complex we can be as children. I loved Max because he's played not as a perfect angelic creature that only seem to exist in displays by creepy "stage" children, nor is he a 'orrible little brat that is too easy to dislike. He is the full embodiment of all those little complexities that make a child what they are. Jonez coxes out such a true performance, it's reminiscent of the Spielberg displays of old. It's played with perfect pitch by Records and comes across as natural and unaffected as any child you'll meet off the street.
Records is of course joined by some more experienced actors who lend their voices to the titular wild things. Lead by the solid Gandolfini, we are given a gaggle of character actors rightfully chosen for what they can bring to the part and persona as opposed to being well known. Great work is done by all, least not by Lauren Ambrose whose aloof K.W became the main draw for me in the films later half.
If there is any flaws, I could say that the second act has a bit of drag to it. The film's plot is thin and Jonez and Eggars script doesn't have enough to fully cover it. But this is a minor issue about a film that reminds us what it's like to be a kid. Yet another "family" movie which doesn't pander to it's audience be it adult or child by sugar coating it's moral or message. A child's fantasy land can be fearsome, it can be jubilant but it's theirs to shape, shift and meld into whatever they need to cope with whatever comes in their way.
I haven't read Maurice Sendak's classic children's tale and due to being over the recommended age, I will probably never read it until I have my own kids. I find it a shame that I've missed out on reading the tale, because if the book can stir my kids emotions as much as the film they've already grown up a lot richer.
Director: Spike Jonez
Screenplay: Spike Jonez, Dave Eggers
Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo, Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano Catherine O'Hara
Synopsis is here
"I WILL EAT YOU UP!" - Carol - Not only a manifestation of Max's imagination but also his emotions. Watch carefully when Carol says these words.
I've once again been ill (2009 has been a odd year for me in terms of sickness) and my podcast co-host left me a text a few days ago asking for us to go up and see Where The Wild Things Are and Me and Orson Welles because if i don't watch them...we don't have a show. Feeling like I did, I dreaded heading to the cinema because I felt that the state I was in (missed work the day before, in bed etc) I didn't feel I'd be able to give these films my full attention. However going would mean the show could go on (recording tomorrow), I'd obviously be well enough for my next day of work (also tomorrow) and of course I would have added even more films to this years growing list.
In going, I found that, Where the wild things are (or WTWTA for short) was the perfect movie for how I was feeling because from the first jarring, jump cuts to the wonderfully poised end shot WTWTA took me by the scuff of the neck and shook me to life. Jonez, a formidable director has created a film that effectively captures the untamed abandon of children emotions with a maturity that I haven't seen since the fantasy films of the 80's.
A coming of age story that sits between the troublesome space of childhood and adolescence. Max is a conflicted child whose not old enough to play with the bigger kids but is expect to govern his emotions with a certain amount of maturity. Problem is these days we expect kids to grow up fast and deal, as a short but pivotal scene in Max's School shows. Trouble is Max has not yet understood these aspects of responsibility fully yet and because this he retreats into the childish mannerisms that worked so well with him in the past. As the film continues on, we see a child take those first shaky steps into growing up, and while Max may not have all the answers, he will at least be able stand on his own two when he has some.
Jonez, a filmmaker who we know more for controlling the mindbending scripts of Charlie Kuffman, finds himself on what could be considered new ground for him. He hits the ground running with direction so assured you wouldn't have known of the films troubled production. From the start he manages to find that wonderful rough and tumble feel of a certain childhood that resonates with those who had it. It's a hard feeling to capture but one that comes across so effortlessly with Jonez combination of well timed jump cuts, wonderful art direction and vibrant cinematography that not only seamlessly joins the real with the fantastic (because as a child you believe the two are one) but somehow, accurately places the film at a child eyes view. It's a nostalgic feeling given without the need for branded toys or well known television characters, but with the fact that everyone is bigger than you and can change their emotions in a blink of an eye from fun to dangerous without you knowing why. To capture this mixture of fear, joy and amazement is a difficult one but it's one that Jonez handles with aplomb.
But the film is also helped by a central performance that reminded me how complex we can be as children. I loved Max because he's played not as a perfect angelic creature that only seem to exist in displays by creepy "stage" children, nor is he a 'orrible little brat that is too easy to dislike. He is the full embodiment of all those little complexities that make a child what they are. Jonez coxes out such a true performance, it's reminiscent of the Spielberg displays of old. It's played with perfect pitch by Records and comes across as natural and unaffected as any child you'll meet off the street.
Records is of course joined by some more experienced actors who lend their voices to the titular wild things. Lead by the solid Gandolfini, we are given a gaggle of character actors rightfully chosen for what they can bring to the part and persona as opposed to being well known. Great work is done by all, least not by Lauren Ambrose whose aloof K.W became the main draw for me in the films later half.
If there is any flaws, I could say that the second act has a bit of drag to it. The film's plot is thin and Jonez and Eggars script doesn't have enough to fully cover it. But this is a minor issue about a film that reminds us what it's like to be a kid. Yet another "family" movie which doesn't pander to it's audience be it adult or child by sugar coating it's moral or message. A child's fantasy land can be fearsome, it can be jubilant but it's theirs to shape, shift and meld into whatever they need to cope with whatever comes in their way.
I haven't read Maurice Sendak's classic children's tale and due to being over the recommended age, I will probably never read it until I have my own kids. I find it a shame that I've missed out on reading the tale, because if the book can stir my kids emotions as much as the film they've already grown up a lot richer.
Review: Me and Orson Welles
Year: 2008 (2009 U.K Release)
Director: Richard Linklater
Screenplay: Holly Gent Palmo, Vincent Palmo Jr
Starring: Zac Efron, Christian McKay, Claire Danes, Ben Chaplin, James Tupper
Synopsis is here
Like the theater it talks about, what makes Me and Orson Welles tick is it's cast. Linklater for me has always had an eye for story in the films of his that I've seen, but here he's had troupe of actors who fit into there roles so snug (bar one person but more on that later) that you would believe they're been rehearsing these roles on stage for years before hand. It's not just that everyone has a role to play here, it's the fact that they've been so correctly chosen, that Linklater has no need to worry while bringing about this wonderfully heady coming of age drama which just so happens to feature one of the most dominant influences (if not the MOST dominant) on what we consider modern cinema. Hyperbole? A little, but ask anyone when it comes to film, Welles was the Elvis and we all know what the great John Lennon said about him.*
In this film Welles is played with a explosive combination of fire and charm by Christian McKay. An English actor, McKay's portrayal of the titular Welles not only dominates the screen but is one of the strong imitations of the Man to grace the screen. No matter what your eyes gravitate towards him and whether it's bombastically proclaiming how important he is, or seductively whispering how vital his cast is, Welles' persuasion always wins out right. McKay performance within the film is just as domineering as Welles' presence in real life and is eerily accurate. It's a display that almost knocks everyone out of screen...almost.
Efron, just as likely picked for his box office draw as well as his ability to sing and dance at first struggles with the material and comes off a little stiff, especially when he comes up against more seasoned performers such as Claire Danes (in crafty performance that balances cute affection with blind ambition). However, Efron exhibits a huge amount of screen presence and charm in a role that is more dramatic than many are used to from him. In a film which could have easily lost it's straight man to a multitude of great turns (Chaplin's George Coulouris and Tupper's on the money reincarnation of Joe Cotton are stand outs) Efron holds his own exceedingly well.
For a film about strong personalities being governed and controlled by an even greater presence, Linklater keeps his direction low-key and the pace and tone of the movie breezy. I usually don't go for movies which fall into this period, or about theatre but by the end of the movie, Linklater's easy on the eye visuals and subtle telling of the story (just let the acting flourish maybe?) had me hooked.
The film isn't perfect. Unfortunately I've seen far too many coming of age stories in my short life and this own does nothing fresh with it's well worn narrative to distract me from the fact that I know whats coming next. But in all honestly with a a group of performances as tight as the ones on show, it doesn't really matter.
I also loved the films eye for detail and it's witty moments of foreshadowing. It's hard not to let a smile creep up on your face at points, such as when Welles talks about a certain book based on his father, or the telling line "what do I do to top this!?" after the opening performances standing grand opening. It's not only the performance of Welles that is good but the knowledge about him that helps makes the film so enjoyable for me.
At a time where people are turning their heads towards James Cameron's mega picture, those who are looking for something else could do worse than pick up a ticket for this. Linklater's film reminds us that although effects can be fun, there's still nothing that can hit home as well as a good cast.
Director: Richard Linklater
Screenplay: Holly Gent Palmo, Vincent Palmo Jr
Starring: Zac Efron, Christian McKay, Claire Danes, Ben Chaplin, James Tupper
Synopsis is here
Like the theater it talks about, what makes Me and Orson Welles tick is it's cast. Linklater for me has always had an eye for story in the films of his that I've seen, but here he's had troupe of actors who fit into there roles so snug (bar one person but more on that later) that you would believe they're been rehearsing these roles on stage for years before hand. It's not just that everyone has a role to play here, it's the fact that they've been so correctly chosen, that Linklater has no need to worry while bringing about this wonderfully heady coming of age drama which just so happens to feature one of the most dominant influences (if not the MOST dominant) on what we consider modern cinema. Hyperbole? A little, but ask anyone when it comes to film, Welles was the Elvis and we all know what the great John Lennon said about him.*
In this film Welles is played with a explosive combination of fire and charm by Christian McKay. An English actor, McKay's portrayal of the titular Welles not only dominates the screen but is one of the strong imitations of the Man to grace the screen. No matter what your eyes gravitate towards him and whether it's bombastically proclaiming how important he is, or seductively whispering how vital his cast is, Welles' persuasion always wins out right. McKay performance within the film is just as domineering as Welles' presence in real life and is eerily accurate. It's a display that almost knocks everyone out of screen...almost.
Efron, just as likely picked for his box office draw as well as his ability to sing and dance at first struggles with the material and comes off a little stiff, especially when he comes up against more seasoned performers such as Claire Danes (in crafty performance that balances cute affection with blind ambition). However, Efron exhibits a huge amount of screen presence and charm in a role that is more dramatic than many are used to from him. In a film which could have easily lost it's straight man to a multitude of great turns (Chaplin's George Coulouris and Tupper's on the money reincarnation of Joe Cotton are stand outs) Efron holds his own exceedingly well.
For a film about strong personalities being governed and controlled by an even greater presence, Linklater keeps his direction low-key and the pace and tone of the movie breezy. I usually don't go for movies which fall into this period, or about theatre but by the end of the movie, Linklater's easy on the eye visuals and subtle telling of the story (just let the acting flourish maybe?) had me hooked.
The film isn't perfect. Unfortunately I've seen far too many coming of age stories in my short life and this own does nothing fresh with it's well worn narrative to distract me from the fact that I know whats coming next. But in all honestly with a a group of performances as tight as the ones on show, it doesn't really matter.
I also loved the films eye for detail and it's witty moments of foreshadowing. It's hard not to let a smile creep up on your face at points, such as when Welles talks about a certain book based on his father, or the telling line "what do I do to top this!?" after the opening performances standing grand opening. It's not only the performance of Welles that is good but the knowledge about him that helps makes the film so enjoyable for me.
At a time where people are turning their heads towards James Cameron's mega picture, those who are looking for something else could do worse than pick up a ticket for this. Linklater's film reminds us that although effects can be fun, there's still nothing that can hit home as well as a good cast.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Review: The Box
Year: 2009
Director: Richard Kelly
Screenplay: Richard Kelly
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella
Synopsis is here
One word I would avoid when describing the still young film career of Richard Kelly is ordinary. Donnie Darko decided to meld Lynchian tones with Breakfast Club sensibilities, while the schizophrenic nature of Southland Tales may not gel completely but still stands out as one of the more ambitious ventures in 2006's cannon of cinema. The Box comes 3 years later and even now with his most "accessible" work the young director still manages to find ways of making his mark on the film.
The Box goes against the grain when it comes to modern sci-fi, with Kelly setting the film in the 70's and invoking the unnerving paranoid feelings of older sci-fi hits. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) springs to mind, although the film is not as focused as Phillip Kaufman creepy thriller, Kelly goes about developing a film which has a similar vibe of unease. It asks a lot of questions (maybe one too many) but doesn't try to answer all of them. Most of the time this would annoy me but not here. Why? I'm not entirely sure yet. It may be because with this film, Kelly concentrates on capturing a mood that isn't as commonly found as it used to be. It might be because this film despite all it's conspiracy theory trappings, the movie is quite effective with it's emotional responses to it's primary question (although the acting is at times uneven*). It might also be the fact that Kellys direction is a little more attentive to the audience and slightly less self-indulgent. Either/or The Box is a thriller which is tightly wound, well paced has enough unsettling moments to keep the film entertaining.
The Box has it's flaws in the way of it's intrusive score from members of Arcade Fire (I band I don't mind) and it's placement of the films story. Setting in the film in Virgina gives the two leads of M and Diaz affected accents that are unbelievable and effect for the most part their enjoyable performances.
Monthly publication Sight and Sound disliked the fact that Kelly's 70's setting has been taken too much from pop culture to be believable. I disagree, as the film is meant to be a pulpy fun feature not to be taken to heart. The Box is a drumming to a different beat and isn't meant to be observed so strenuously. For the most part it's ambiguous, B movie-style nature works and when Kelly reigns in some of those more indulgent urges of his (a lot Darko motifs appear for no reason other than we've seen them before) the film is a actually a well made two hour diversion. Now if he can just narrow the theorizing down to about one or two selective stories, he'll be back in business.
Note: I still find it hard to believe that someone who works quite high at NASA and a teacher are living paycheck to paycheck. Kelly doesn't do a great job showing the desperation. This may effect how one may view why the button is pressed.
*Frank Langella however is wonderfully sinister.
Director: Richard Kelly
Screenplay: Richard Kelly
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella
Synopsis is here
One word I would avoid when describing the still young film career of Richard Kelly is ordinary. Donnie Darko decided to meld Lynchian tones with Breakfast Club sensibilities, while the schizophrenic nature of Southland Tales may not gel completely but still stands out as one of the more ambitious ventures in 2006's cannon of cinema. The Box comes 3 years later and even now with his most "accessible" work the young director still manages to find ways of making his mark on the film.
The Box goes against the grain when it comes to modern sci-fi, with Kelly setting the film in the 70's and invoking the unnerving paranoid feelings of older sci-fi hits. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) springs to mind, although the film is not as focused as Phillip Kaufman creepy thriller, Kelly goes about developing a film which has a similar vibe of unease. It asks a lot of questions (maybe one too many) but doesn't try to answer all of them. Most of the time this would annoy me but not here. Why? I'm not entirely sure yet. It may be because with this film, Kelly concentrates on capturing a mood that isn't as commonly found as it used to be. It might be because this film despite all it's conspiracy theory trappings, the movie is quite effective with it's emotional responses to it's primary question (although the acting is at times uneven*). It might also be the fact that Kellys direction is a little more attentive to the audience and slightly less self-indulgent. Either/or The Box is a thriller which is tightly wound, well paced has enough unsettling moments to keep the film entertaining.
The Box has it's flaws in the way of it's intrusive score from members of Arcade Fire (I band I don't mind) and it's placement of the films story. Setting in the film in Virgina gives the two leads of M and Diaz affected accents that are unbelievable and effect for the most part their enjoyable performances.
Monthly publication Sight and Sound disliked the fact that Kelly's 70's setting has been taken too much from pop culture to be believable. I disagree, as the film is meant to be a pulpy fun feature not to be taken to heart. The Box is a drumming to a different beat and isn't meant to be observed so strenuously. For the most part it's ambiguous, B movie-style nature works and when Kelly reigns in some of those more indulgent urges of his (a lot Darko motifs appear for no reason other than we've seen them before) the film is a actually a well made two hour diversion. Now if he can just narrow the theorizing down to about one or two selective stories, he'll be back in business.
Note: I still find it hard to believe that someone who works quite high at NASA and a teacher are living paycheck to paycheck. Kelly doesn't do a great job showing the desperation. This may effect how one may view why the button is pressed.
*Frank Langella however is wonderfully sinister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)