Year: 2009 (UK release 2010)
Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Screenplay: Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Guillaume Laurant
Starring: Dany Boon, André Dussollier, Nicolas Marié, Julie Ferrier
Synopsis is here
The first few scenes at the beginning of Micmacs, not only tell us all we need to know about the our lead and his back story, but they are so cinematic in design that it does so without the need of dialogue. These early scenes don't waste a thing and like many of Jeunet's movies skews the viewpoint just enough that you know what sort of a ride your going to be in for. It's going to be oddball, it's going to be quirky and of course, way out of left field.
Tonally the film reminded me of Jeunet's Delicatessen, tittering over its dark territory (weapon manufacturing), and using humor to shed light on a subject that is usually reserved for more serious affair. This approach (much like his 1991 cult hit) works. Much like Delicatessen (which the film craftily makes a reference to); a dystopian feature about cannibalism features an amusing, rhythmic, bed squeaking scene that was nabbed by advertising very quickly (if I recall, i may be wrong). Micmac has scenes that maintain the same surreal nature. I tell you this may be the only film where an adopted group of homeless people with seemingly useless skills, band together in their scrapyard home to take on two weapon conglomerates. To add to this, they do it Ocean's 11 style. The simulates become apparent when we meet the very flexible contortionist played with an amusing amount of spunk by Julie Ferrier.
While I make silly comparisons to Steven Sodenbergh, it's clearly older films which get Jeunet going. The film loves to make neat little references to more silent features with most of the leads playing their roles with Keaton like dead pan, and of course the film is french so expect the obligatory Bogart moment.
The film's social commentary isn't as damming as possible but with this said the film doesn't want it to be. Also later on, when the film appears to want to make a massive point about the evils of these mercenaries, the film suddenly feels a little off, it's not what we signed up for. Fortunately Jeunet makes up for this very soon after.
What else to say about Micmacs? Well it is very funny, that's one thing. The movie has it's fair share of giggles, particularly with the actors playful performances. Even the love story within the plot has more smirk moments than your usual rom-com movie. The film is also gorgeous to look at. There some beautiful set design with our heroes scrapyard being a charming "palace" of clutter, with surroundings that wouldn't look too out of place if they shared a fence with the backyard of Terry Gilliam's head.
Micmac's has been out for a little while now and will probably disappear from theaters, soon be a rental for those who know of Jeunet's work or the slightly curious. To them I say go for it. To those who may not have heard of the guy or still have a severe Alien Resurrection hangover, I say the same thing. It just might be the cure.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Review: Repo Men
Year: 2010
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Screenplay: Eric Garica, Garrett Lerner
Starring: Jude Law, Forrest Whitaker, Liev Schreiber, Alice Braga
Synopsis is here
Loud, bloody and gratuitous, Repo Men was something I expected to get nothing out of and came out with an idiotic grin on my face. It has all the low, brainless, expectations that a film like this would bring but managed to squeeze out some interesting elements due to it's themes...as well as the standard, beer with the mate fueled action that you must have with this sort of thing. Genre expectations and context eh?
Repo men had it's fair share of detectors before it even left the block as it's plot apparently shares a few similarities with Repo! The Genetic Opera, which of course has similarities with Equilibrium which reminded people of Fahrenheit 451...you see where I'm going with this? While I understand why fans and makers of Repo! should be more than a little frustrated, it's very easy to see why the studios bulked at Darren Lynn Bousman's vision but were ok with something a little more straightforward. Hopefully, the stars will align and more people will watch Repo! even if it is to compare the film with this one.
Despite being a sci-fi action flick, what made Repo Men work for me is the buddy chemistry that occurs between Jude Law's (Remy) and Forrest Whitaker's (Jake). It's the friendship between the two that kept the interest up and drove the movie forward for me. Credit is due to the performances because I did really dig both Law and Whitaker. Law is always more interesting when a bit scuzzy, while Whitaker's presence and general likability. Their blue collar brother relationship is so smooth, that even when they're BBQing for bikers (Whitatker's Jake forever focused on the job in a gory sequence) it gives the film a reasonable grounding.
Grounding it certainly needs for it's interestingly timed high concept. The films "price of life" themes aren't very stretching, but the OTT aspect of it all has a certain appeal. The idea that these artificial organs not only cost the price of a house but with an APR that would make a banker blush is one thing, it's made even more amusing when you find out that it's Liev Schreiber (on oil slick form) that's selling these things. It's those tiny little moments that make the film quite appealing. That is until the introduction of the cumbersome love interest.
Alice Braga stumbles into the sci-fi and the film shifts from a silly but fun sci-fi satire into even more standard affair. But while the first hour had moments that stood out well enough on it's own, the introduction of Braga's bionic woman bogs the film down into "get character A to B territory". The punches and kicks do have that solid feel to them, but they restrict the film down a narrow and familiar path. You get the feeling more can be done with the material than what transpires, and while the ending is ballsy enough to not be as neat as it could be, the lead up to it is pretty forgettable...although the soundtrack is nice.
Despite it's flaws however, Repo Men did enough to keep my eyes open before it ran out of steam. Those who enjoyed Equilibrium may find some something in this, however those who like their sci-fi a bit hard may have to go else where.
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Screenplay: Eric Garica, Garrett Lerner
Starring: Jude Law, Forrest Whitaker, Liev Schreiber, Alice Braga
Synopsis is here
Loud, bloody and gratuitous, Repo Men was something I expected to get nothing out of and came out with an idiotic grin on my face. It has all the low, brainless, expectations that a film like this would bring but managed to squeeze out some interesting elements due to it's themes...as well as the standard, beer with the mate fueled action that you must have with this sort of thing. Genre expectations and context eh?
Repo men had it's fair share of detectors before it even left the block as it's plot apparently shares a few similarities with Repo! The Genetic Opera, which of course has similarities with Equilibrium which reminded people of Fahrenheit 451...you see where I'm going with this? While I understand why fans and makers of Repo! should be more than a little frustrated, it's very easy to see why the studios bulked at Darren Lynn Bousman's vision but were ok with something a little more straightforward. Hopefully, the stars will align and more people will watch Repo! even if it is to compare the film with this one.
Despite being a sci-fi action flick, what made Repo Men work for me is the buddy chemistry that occurs between Jude Law's (Remy) and Forrest Whitaker's (Jake). It's the friendship between the two that kept the interest up and drove the movie forward for me. Credit is due to the performances because I did really dig both Law and Whitaker. Law is always more interesting when a bit scuzzy, while Whitaker's presence and general likability. Their blue collar brother relationship is so smooth, that even when they're BBQing for bikers (Whitatker's Jake forever focused on the job in a gory sequence) it gives the film a reasonable grounding.
Grounding it certainly needs for it's interestingly timed high concept. The films "price of life" themes aren't very stretching, but the OTT aspect of it all has a certain appeal. The idea that these artificial organs not only cost the price of a house but with an APR that would make a banker blush is one thing, it's made even more amusing when you find out that it's Liev Schreiber (on oil slick form) that's selling these things. It's those tiny little moments that make the film quite appealing. That is until the introduction of the cumbersome love interest.
Alice Braga stumbles into the sci-fi and the film shifts from a silly but fun sci-fi satire into even more standard affair. But while the first hour had moments that stood out well enough on it's own, the introduction of Braga's bionic woman bogs the film down into "get character A to B territory". The punches and kicks do have that solid feel to them, but they restrict the film down a narrow and familiar path. You get the feeling more can be done with the material than what transpires, and while the ending is ballsy enough to not be as neat as it could be, the lead up to it is pretty forgettable...although the soundtrack is nice.
Despite it's flaws however, Repo Men did enough to keep my eyes open before it ran out of steam. Those who enjoyed Equilibrium may find some something in this, however those who like their sci-fi a bit hard may have to go else where.
Review: The Ghost (A.K.A The Ghost Writer)
Year: 2010
Director: Roman Polanski
Screenplay: Robert Harris, Roman Polanski
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Olivia Williams, Kim Cattrall, Pierce Brosnan
Synopsis is here
Reviews of this movie from some of my usual haunts have been full of praise for this movie. Lots of talk of metaphors and likening to Hitchcock as well as the usual cries of POLANSKI IS BACK! However throughout this plodding, dull film, there was a voice in my ear whispering: "If this wasn't Polanski, would all this gushing be heaped upon this movie?" This niggle got louder and louder until the films final scene which will be considered genius by fans and pointless by philistines such as my self.
However with it's lethargic pace and frustratingly boring characters, The Ghost did nothing to even ENGAGE me let alone entertain me. Despite having a story that should be full of intrigue, I was left with a bog standard thriller filled with dubious plot moments and listless characters who initiate jarring conversations. The scenes aren't awkward in the way they should be in a movie like this, they feel unfinished, as if the takes used weren't the best ones filmed. This continues throughout the movie giving the movie and uneven stiffness that had me at odds with everyone in the movie. It's obvious why McGregor's character is called the ghost but as he is also our eyes and ears of this piece why does he seem so uninterested? Polanski's film gives us nothing in this film to invest in. There's hints towards more successful endeavors (The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby et all) but no point do we feel the tightening grip that features in those earlier films.
The narrative is no better. Like Chinatown we have a character that goes for the money and stays for the mystery but features little or no involvement. Plot points are telegraphed from far, twists are not only late coming, but unsurprising and throughout your left at an arms length distanced from the story. Bad times from the man who turned New York City into a satanic tomb for Mia Farrow. In no way did I feel involved in what was going on and nor did it seem to matter and while I'm not looking for a cliched car chase or explosion to grab my attention, I was more than a little miffed that none of the films talk gripped me. The film is also a little insulting with some of the films moments of plot. Not to ruin the film on purpose but, considering how sensitive the material is...how often is this man left alone?
Performance wise, the film varied from dead eyed (McGregor), to miscast (Cattrall). Other displays fared better; Brosnan and Williams are high points, but all in all the there wasn't really anything to write home about. The same can be said from the films drab visuals which did as much to isolate me as a viewer as the characters relationships.
The Ghost is full of nods to the filmmakers earlier works but unfortunately the whole film feels Polanski-lite to me. It's a film that did little to excite or involve me in the slightest. A film I expected more from but gained nothing out of it. Philistine I may be, but at least this philistine has a copy of Chinatown at home to enjoy.
Director: Roman Polanski
Screenplay: Robert Harris, Roman Polanski
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Olivia Williams, Kim Cattrall, Pierce Brosnan
Synopsis is here
Reviews of this movie from some of my usual haunts have been full of praise for this movie. Lots of talk of metaphors and likening to Hitchcock as well as the usual cries of POLANSKI IS BACK! However throughout this plodding, dull film, there was a voice in my ear whispering: "If this wasn't Polanski, would all this gushing be heaped upon this movie?" This niggle got louder and louder until the films final scene which will be considered genius by fans and pointless by philistines such as my self.
However with it's lethargic pace and frustratingly boring characters, The Ghost did nothing to even ENGAGE me let alone entertain me. Despite having a story that should be full of intrigue, I was left with a bog standard thriller filled with dubious plot moments and listless characters who initiate jarring conversations. The scenes aren't awkward in the way they should be in a movie like this, they feel unfinished, as if the takes used weren't the best ones filmed. This continues throughout the movie giving the movie and uneven stiffness that had me at odds with everyone in the movie. It's obvious why McGregor's character is called the ghost but as he is also our eyes and ears of this piece why does he seem so uninterested? Polanski's film gives us nothing in this film to invest in. There's hints towards more successful endeavors (The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby et all) but no point do we feel the tightening grip that features in those earlier films.
The narrative is no better. Like Chinatown we have a character that goes for the money and stays for the mystery but features little or no involvement. Plot points are telegraphed from far, twists are not only late coming, but unsurprising and throughout your left at an arms length distanced from the story. Bad times from the man who turned New York City into a satanic tomb for Mia Farrow. In no way did I feel involved in what was going on and nor did it seem to matter and while I'm not looking for a cliched car chase or explosion to grab my attention, I was more than a little miffed that none of the films talk gripped me. The film is also a little insulting with some of the films moments of plot. Not to ruin the film on purpose but, considering how sensitive the material is...how often is this man left alone?
Performance wise, the film varied from dead eyed (McGregor), to miscast (Cattrall). Other displays fared better; Brosnan and Williams are high points, but all in all the there wasn't really anything to write home about. The same can be said from the films drab visuals which did as much to isolate me as a viewer as the characters relationships.
The Ghost is full of nods to the filmmakers earlier works but unfortunately the whole film feels Polanski-lite to me. It's a film that did little to excite or involve me in the slightest. A film I expected more from but gained nothing out of it. Philistine I may be, but at least this philistine has a copy of Chinatown at home to enjoy.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Review: Whip It
Year: 2009 (U.K. release 2010)
Director: Drew Barrymore
Screenplay: Shauna Cross
Starring: Ellen Page, Marcia Gay Harden, Kristen Wiig, Jullette Lewis, Eve, Alia Shawkat
Synopsis is here
Drew Barrymore's directional debut unfortunately only reached #6 in the U.S box office when it was released. It's takings in the U.S, a mere $13 million. This summer the Sex in the city movie sequel will be unleashed to an army of women and will easily top the charts. It's a sad state of affairs that something so fundamentally shallow, so irritatingly vapid will be watched by females of all ages, while Whip It; a film that truly believe there's more to women than just shoes, cocktails and men has been seen by hardly anyone.
Made by women (both screenwriter and director), for women, Whip It is a warming tale about a young girl who is looking to find her place in the world. She knows it's not with the beauty pageants and the almost repressed 50's ideals that her mother clings on to and it's certainly not with her dead end dinner job she partakes in when not at school. So what is it? She spies a poster for Roller Derby poster and believes that this sport may the thing for her.
While the film is formulaic and there's nothing special about the actual story, Barrymore makes sure that there's more going on within the film than Bliss moving from A to B. This is a film full of strong females defined by more than a wedding (Bride Wars, 27 Dresses), a man (sex in the city) or otherwise. These are women with real character, women that base their actions due to who they are, not because the "script tells them" or because they get a chiseled hunk at the end.
No this is a film about women who not only wish to buck social norms but also defend them. It's no surprise that some of the films strongest moments are when it focuses on the central family particularly through Page's neatly restrained Bliss and her forceful yet loving mother played by the wonderful Marcia Gay Harden. The tug of war battle of ideals works because it's not simply labeled in black and white. We can see from BOTH sides why they fight for what they want and we care about the characters because they care about each other.
Whip It also works because of it's humor, which is drawn from the characters because of who they are. Barrymore's small role as Smashley Simpson can be considered as a great example. The idea of a woman as cute as Barrymore becoming a screaming harpy, every time she's wronged on the pitch is something that's not only funny but something that stems from the characters passion of the game she plays, as well as herself.
Whip it works because quite simply it's sweet in nature and honest in execution. It's story may be complacent but there's not a shred of manipulation within the movie. The films performances are all watchable...so watchable that even Zoe Bell who was god awful in Death Proof is good fun here. The eclectic soundtrack fits the story and for those who hated Juno and expected the same thing just because it stars the same main actress, will also be pleasantly surprised by the lack of sass.
I must once again stress how upset I am that this film is being slept on. After film after film of tiresome rom-coms that bring nothing to the female table other than another entry into empty headed, moronic materialism. Along comes a film that wants girls to make a stand on their own terms, that's watched by no one. Is it true that miserable, glittery stalkers and four rich, vapid, slags are the only thing the female audience want when they go to the cinema? Box-office figures seem to say so.
Director: Drew Barrymore
Screenplay: Shauna Cross
Starring: Ellen Page, Marcia Gay Harden, Kristen Wiig, Jullette Lewis, Eve, Alia Shawkat
Synopsis is here
Drew Barrymore's directional debut unfortunately only reached #6 in the U.S box office when it was released. It's takings in the U.S, a mere $13 million. This summer the Sex in the city movie sequel will be unleashed to an army of women and will easily top the charts. It's a sad state of affairs that something so fundamentally shallow, so irritatingly vapid will be watched by females of all ages, while Whip It; a film that truly believe there's more to women than just shoes, cocktails and men has been seen by hardly anyone.
Made by women (both screenwriter and director), for women, Whip It is a warming tale about a young girl who is looking to find her place in the world. She knows it's not with the beauty pageants and the almost repressed 50's ideals that her mother clings on to and it's certainly not with her dead end dinner job she partakes in when not at school. So what is it? She spies a poster for Roller Derby poster and believes that this sport may the thing for her.
While the film is formulaic and there's nothing special about the actual story, Barrymore makes sure that there's more going on within the film than Bliss moving from A to B. This is a film full of strong females defined by more than a wedding (Bride Wars, 27 Dresses), a man (sex in the city) or otherwise. These are women with real character, women that base their actions due to who they are, not because the "script tells them" or because they get a chiseled hunk at the end.
No this is a film about women who not only wish to buck social norms but also defend them. It's no surprise that some of the films strongest moments are when it focuses on the central family particularly through Page's neatly restrained Bliss and her forceful yet loving mother played by the wonderful Marcia Gay Harden. The tug of war battle of ideals works because it's not simply labeled in black and white. We can see from BOTH sides why they fight for what they want and we care about the characters because they care about each other.
Whip It also works because of it's humor, which is drawn from the characters because of who they are. Barrymore's small role as Smashley Simpson can be considered as a great example. The idea of a woman as cute as Barrymore becoming a screaming harpy, every time she's wronged on the pitch is something that's not only funny but something that stems from the characters passion of the game she plays, as well as herself.
Whip it works because quite simply it's sweet in nature and honest in execution. It's story may be complacent but there's not a shred of manipulation within the movie. The films performances are all watchable...so watchable that even Zoe Bell who was god awful in Death Proof is good fun here. The eclectic soundtrack fits the story and for those who hated Juno and expected the same thing just because it stars the same main actress, will also be pleasantly surprised by the lack of sass.
I must once again stress how upset I am that this film is being slept on. After film after film of tiresome rom-coms that bring nothing to the female table other than another entry into empty headed, moronic materialism. Along comes a film that wants girls to make a stand on their own terms, that's watched by no one. Is it true that miserable, glittery stalkers and four rich, vapid, slags are the only thing the female audience want when they go to the cinema? Box-office figures seem to say so.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Review: Clash of the Titans
Year: 2010
Director: Louis Leterrier
Screenplay: Travis Beacham, Matt Manfredi, Phil Fay
Starring: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Mads Mikkelsen, Pete Postlethwaite
Synopsis is here
Well what to say about Clash of the Titans? I will say I was happy to watch it in 2-D the way it was supposed to be viewed and not in the rushed, outsourced £-D that has been cynically placed during the 11th hour in order to boost the box office. Watching it in 2-D was a plus because instead of bitching about terrible £-D, I could bitch about the film instead.
So what aspects of the film will I bitch about? Not much. Oh. So what will I gush about? Not much either. COTT is a main meal of meh with a side order of shrug. There's nothing amazing about it, and nothing truly terrible. I'd love to write a review that goes either way but unfortunately Louis Leterrier's film sits stubbornly in the middle, doing no more, no less. I'm sure I could probably end the review there to be honest. But I feel I must finish for the seven people who enjoy my writing and press on.
My main issue with Clash may be that even though I'm not a scholar on Greek Myth, I still get the feeling that the film is still quite light on it's source material. In fact when looking back at the film, there really only is three scenes of interest and even then they feel usually light considering A) what the films about and B) what a film like this should contain. I understand that many don't go to a movie like this for dense plotting but even the (admittedly well captured) action feels more lightweight than expected. I'm not sure about yourselves but I expect a film with the name clash of the titans to feel more epic. Never the less, Clash isn't a terrible film. Leterrier handles his visuals well and manages to bring about enough excitement to the films set pieces to keep it watchable, although those who expect immense Kracken action may actually be slightly disappointed.
Once again, when it comes to the acting, I didn't expecting grand, epic displays but I was just hoping for the film to deliver something not awful. Once again Clash does merely OK. Sam Worthington can't get rid of his Oz accent which distracts from a moderately spunky everyman part. He doesn't suck, but he doesn't astound. Gemma Arterton holds enough screen presence to make me sightly more interested in the upcoming Prince of Persia blockbuster. Other displays of interest include a solid display of badassery from Mads Mikkelsen while Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes ham up proceedings more than a pig on a spit. Nicolas Hoult and Kaya Scodelario (both from Skins) turn up and look a bit lost in the surroundings but at least they have more to do than Danny Huston who appears to have had all his lines end up on the cutting room floor. There's a similar feeling for the sparse appearance for Pete Postlethwaite who could have done with more screen presence considering that his role is quite pivotal.
Clash of the Titans is the kind of forgettable fluff you expect to come out at this time of year. If you have a younger sibling or haven't let the child within you die then you may get more than enough enjoyment out of it. A lot of people however, just may be happy enough that it's shorter than Troy.
Director: Louis Leterrier
Screenplay: Travis Beacham, Matt Manfredi, Phil Fay
Starring: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Mads Mikkelsen, Pete Postlethwaite
Synopsis is here
Well what to say about Clash of the Titans? I will say I was happy to watch it in 2-D the way it was supposed to be viewed and not in the rushed, outsourced £-D that has been cynically placed during the 11th hour in order to boost the box office. Watching it in 2-D was a plus because instead of bitching about terrible £-D, I could bitch about the film instead.
So what aspects of the film will I bitch about? Not much. Oh. So what will I gush about? Not much either. COTT is a main meal of meh with a side order of shrug. There's nothing amazing about it, and nothing truly terrible. I'd love to write a review that goes either way but unfortunately Louis Leterrier's film sits stubbornly in the middle, doing no more, no less. I'm sure I could probably end the review there to be honest. But I feel I must finish for the seven people who enjoy my writing and press on.
My main issue with Clash may be that even though I'm not a scholar on Greek Myth, I still get the feeling that the film is still quite light on it's source material. In fact when looking back at the film, there really only is three scenes of interest and even then they feel usually light considering A) what the films about and B) what a film like this should contain. I understand that many don't go to a movie like this for dense plotting but even the (admittedly well captured) action feels more lightweight than expected. I'm not sure about yourselves but I expect a film with the name clash of the titans to feel more epic. Never the less, Clash isn't a terrible film. Leterrier handles his visuals well and manages to bring about enough excitement to the films set pieces to keep it watchable, although those who expect immense Kracken action may actually be slightly disappointed.
Once again, when it comes to the acting, I didn't expecting grand, epic displays but I was just hoping for the film to deliver something not awful. Once again Clash does merely OK. Sam Worthington can't get rid of his Oz accent which distracts from a moderately spunky everyman part. He doesn't suck, but he doesn't astound. Gemma Arterton holds enough screen presence to make me sightly more interested in the upcoming Prince of Persia blockbuster. Other displays of interest include a solid display of badassery from Mads Mikkelsen while Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes ham up proceedings more than a pig on a spit. Nicolas Hoult and Kaya Scodelario (both from Skins) turn up and look a bit lost in the surroundings but at least they have more to do than Danny Huston who appears to have had all his lines end up on the cutting room floor. There's a similar feeling for the sparse appearance for Pete Postlethwaite who could have done with more screen presence considering that his role is quite pivotal.
Clash of the Titans is the kind of forgettable fluff you expect to come out at this time of year. If you have a younger sibling or haven't let the child within you die then you may get more than enough enjoyment out of it. A lot of people however, just may be happy enough that it's shorter than Troy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)