Year: 2009
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Christopher McQuarrie, Nathan Alexander
Starring: Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Eddie Izzard, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson
I enjoyed Superman returns more than alot of people but hey I'm usually against the grain with things like that. But in all honestly, I was rather hoping that the Rumors I heard of Bryan Singer returning to redo X men 3 after the rather drab offering given to us by Brett Ratner. So imagine my surprise to discover that in a complete 180, Singer decides his next film is a historical thriller set in WW2?
For all it's controversy, Valkyrie manages to show that it's an adequate thriller, with enough scenes that rise it above made-for-TV level (Singer's visual storytelling still stands out). However it's bizarre lead casting and lack of conflict stands out terribly.
The film tells the tale of Claus Schenk Graf Von Stauffenberg (Cruise), a German Colonel who plotted (3 times) to kill Hitler and free Germany from his rule. Valkyrie concentrates on the final failed plot.
Although Singer's movie is one of his best looking (if not the best) of his filmography, it suffers from a dreadfully artificial tone that breaks up the films better moments. This may be of the "Titanic syndrome" that the film that the film unfortunately harbors. Due to the fact that I the viewer knows how the plot ends before even watching the film, the film needs a something else to keep me gripped.
The film however doesn't have too much in the way of a strong conflict (either internal or external) to help bolster the story in any way. Cruise's Stauffenberg is a man who know longer believes his leader can lead, however we don't look deep enough into the man's insight, I'd like to believe that there's more going on inside the head of the Colonel, but we never see it. Instead we get cumbersome metaphors to the films title (just happened to be listening to Wagner were we?). What appears to be missing for me is Singer's theme of identity and alienation that was so prominent throughout his movies. It's one of the reasons I enjoyed the aforementioned Superman is that Singer. But it's a theme that seems to be missing here. Stauffenberg appears far too confident for a man whose lost is faith and sense of self within Nazi Germany.
But alot of this stems from placing Maverick himself as the lead character in the film. Cruise, a favorite actor of mine, struggles in this role due to his star status. I can easily separate Cruise from his crazy religion and those who can't and hate his films because of it should slap themselves. However, in Valkyrie all I can see is Tom Cruise in an eyepatch. It's clear that Cruise wishes plays the role as a constantly calculating character, but from the awkward German monologue at the beginning of the film (he can't lose his U.S twang) to the clumsy shout for a free Germany at the films climax, it's clear that he hasn't got the range for this. It's a shame because for the most part I can watch him in many things.
Cruise is surrounded by top English talent, and of course we all know that if your English you must play a Nazi at some point in your lifetime as it's cinematic law. It's maybe because of such a law that many of them are coasting on autopilot. Don't get me wrong, it's not that they're bad, it's just that no one stands out, with the exception being the very reliable Bill Nighy.
Flaws aside the film is for the most part a formidable thriller. Singer keeps the pace in fifth gear and still manages to wring a lot of tension from material, especially in the second half when the pieces of the plot begin to come together before unraveling. It's probably a shame that I've watched Inglourious Basterds before this. Tarantino's WW2 fantasy had me more tightly wound in the fact chapter than the whole of Valkyrie, and QT's decision to make his war movie a fairy tale of sorts allows him freedom to roam across the whole of the landscape of the second world war. Allowing to change what he wants at will and bring about something a little different from the norm. Singer's dedication to the material is admirable, but routine. Die hards should get a kick out some this because the film stays true to it's roots, however for me, I would prefer investing in a documentary of Stauffenberg for more insight.
Note: Anyone whose seen this. I'm just wondering if I was the only person who found the score obtrusive?
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Review: Baby Blues (aka Cradle Will Fall.)
Year: 2008 (U.K DVD release 2009)
Director: Lars Jacobson & Amardeep Kaleka
Screenplay: Lars Jacobson
Starring: Colleen Porch
Based roughly on the true story of Andrea Yates, Baby Blues is a psychological horror film which gets an A for effort but unfortunately comes up short when it comes to true shocks.
The film is co directed by first timer Lars Jacobson and the slightly more seasoned Amardeep Kaleka is visually interesting for the most part. For a made for DVD movie the film has a very polished feel to it, with much of the film drenched in some colourful hues. The two directors clearly know how to craft a film and isolated scenes do cause a considerable amount of tension.
Unfortunately the film falls down on it's lack of ability to engage in it's central themes of filicide (to kill one's children) and mental anguish instead concentrating on creating a subverted hack and slash feature. This is a shame because it's not as if the actors couldn't pull of the more complex aspects of their characters. In fact praise should go to the films lead Colleen Porch whose manages to hide the fact that she is quite attractive and give her mental break down a respectable amount of pathos.
The film gives it's secrets away far too quickly and fall into the trap of becoming a mundane film that hardly stands out from it's predecessors. With this said, this does mean that I get to recommend to you the even more demented Frailty by Bill Paxton which travels similar paths but is far more confident in it's craft. Baby Blue had an interesting idea, but unfortunately it decided to play it safe, something that many wouldn't want to see in a horror film.
Director: Lars Jacobson & Amardeep Kaleka
Screenplay: Lars Jacobson
Starring: Colleen Porch
Based roughly on the true story of Andrea Yates, Baby Blues is a psychological horror film which gets an A for effort but unfortunately comes up short when it comes to true shocks.
The film is co directed by first timer Lars Jacobson and the slightly more seasoned Amardeep Kaleka is visually interesting for the most part. For a made for DVD movie the film has a very polished feel to it, with much of the film drenched in some colourful hues. The two directors clearly know how to craft a film and isolated scenes do cause a considerable amount of tension.
Unfortunately the film falls down on it's lack of ability to engage in it's central themes of filicide (to kill one's children) and mental anguish instead concentrating on creating a subverted hack and slash feature. This is a shame because it's not as if the actors couldn't pull of the more complex aspects of their characters. In fact praise should go to the films lead Colleen Porch whose manages to hide the fact that she is quite attractive and give her mental break down a respectable amount of pathos.
The film gives it's secrets away far too quickly and fall into the trap of becoming a mundane film that hardly stands out from it's predecessors. With this said, this does mean that I get to recommend to you the even more demented Frailty by Bill Paxton which travels similar paths but is far more confident in it's craft. Baby Blue had an interesting idea, but unfortunately it decided to play it safe, something that many wouldn't want to see in a horror film.
Review: Gamer
Year: 2009
Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Screenplay: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Starring: Gerard Butler, Micheal C Hall
There's a brief moment in gamer where a dog is pissing on a women who grins inanely. It's an blink and you miss it shot but it talks in spades about the mind set of the filmmakers of this film.
Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor have been accused of crossing the line of bad taste in their last film Crank 2 and while I unfortunately haven't seen that yet. If Crank 2 talks about women like Gamer does, I'll probably not watch it.
Gamer is the closet thing to cinematic rape I've seen this year. It's Misogynistic, puerile trash dressed up as sci-fi and it really shouldn't exist. I'm sure the film will have it's fans (it's at 6.2 on the imdb at this moment) but I however, will not be one of them.
Gamer has all the problems I have with many films bad plotting, no characterization, no tension etc. But it also has the added issue of a dislike for women. I haven't seen women degraded like this since Bride Wars. Gratuitous half nudity is one thing but some of the things that are said to and done to women in this gives a nasty vibe. This vibe stems from the fact that there's hardly any reason for this treatment of women other than the fact that the filmmakers can.
The treatment of women is as nasty as the depiction of gamers themselves is lazy. Once again this is a film which shows us that gamers are either mouthy teens or fat greasy slobs, despite the millions of Wii's sold. The two factors combine to show that gamers view women not as other people but as sex objects. Not what I needed to see on a Sunday morning.
Neveldine & Taylor's OTT style of filmmaking is of course one to be taking with a pinch of salt. But of course that's when the film has a sense of humor. I enjoyed Crank as the film clearly didn't want anyone to take it seriously. Gamer however seems to have missed out on the joke and plays it's cards poker faced. Strangely this doesn't help the films script or quieter moments which are ridiculous to the point of unintentional hilarity. Of course Neveldine & Taylor does care about quiet moments because it's all about the violence which is doled out ad nausea. I don't mind a bit of the ol' ultra, but usually only when there's context. Gamer is a film which makes Micheal Hanke's Funny Games even more smug than it should be.
The acting? Bland. Gerard Butler does his best Russell Crowe impression but has nothing to grab hold of considering the matertal. I won't comment on any of the female performances because most of them are the bravest in the world for taking a role in this piece of divel. Micheal C Hall is wasted, while Ludicris appearz in dis movie 4 da kidz.
Like a Micheal Bay movie, Gamer doesn't seem to have any clue how to pace tension or bring about any sense of tone. The action is cut to ribbons so you have no idea whats going on and the kernel of an interesting idea that lies in Gamer is submerged in horrible overkill. Not that it's matters because David Cronenberg had already aced this material ten years ago in eXistenZ.
I didn't expect much from Gamer but then who would? To say it's mindless plays into the filmmakers hands so I'll end with saying it's dull, over edited tripe.
Note: If you really need to see a film like this check out Mamoru "ghost in the shell" Oshii's stunningly beautiful Avalon. It may be a far better use of your time.
Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Screenplay: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Starring: Gerard Butler, Micheal C Hall
There's a brief moment in gamer where a dog is pissing on a women who grins inanely. It's an blink and you miss it shot but it talks in spades about the mind set of the filmmakers of this film.
Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor have been accused of crossing the line of bad taste in their last film Crank 2 and while I unfortunately haven't seen that yet. If Crank 2 talks about women like Gamer does, I'll probably not watch it.
Gamer is the closet thing to cinematic rape I've seen this year. It's Misogynistic, puerile trash dressed up as sci-fi and it really shouldn't exist. I'm sure the film will have it's fans (it's at 6.2 on the imdb at this moment) but I however, will not be one of them.
Gamer has all the problems I have with many films bad plotting, no characterization, no tension etc. But it also has the added issue of a dislike for women. I haven't seen women degraded like this since Bride Wars. Gratuitous half nudity is one thing but some of the things that are said to and done to women in this gives a nasty vibe. This vibe stems from the fact that there's hardly any reason for this treatment of women other than the fact that the filmmakers can.
The treatment of women is as nasty as the depiction of gamers themselves is lazy. Once again this is a film which shows us that gamers are either mouthy teens or fat greasy slobs, despite the millions of Wii's sold. The two factors combine to show that gamers view women not as other people but as sex objects. Not what I needed to see on a Sunday morning.
Neveldine & Taylor's OTT style of filmmaking is of course one to be taking with a pinch of salt. But of course that's when the film has a sense of humor. I enjoyed Crank as the film clearly didn't want anyone to take it seriously. Gamer however seems to have missed out on the joke and plays it's cards poker faced. Strangely this doesn't help the films script or quieter moments which are ridiculous to the point of unintentional hilarity. Of course Neveldine & Taylor does care about quiet moments because it's all about the violence which is doled out ad nausea. I don't mind a bit of the ol' ultra, but usually only when there's context. Gamer is a film which makes Micheal Hanke's Funny Games even more smug than it should be.
The acting? Bland. Gerard Butler does his best Russell Crowe impression but has nothing to grab hold of considering the matertal. I won't comment on any of the female performances because most of them are the bravest in the world for taking a role in this piece of divel. Micheal C Hall is wasted, while Ludicris appearz in dis movie 4 da kidz.
Like a Micheal Bay movie, Gamer doesn't seem to have any clue how to pace tension or bring about any sense of tone. The action is cut to ribbons so you have no idea whats going on and the kernel of an interesting idea that lies in Gamer is submerged in horrible overkill. Not that it's matters because David Cronenberg had already aced this material ten years ago in eXistenZ.
I didn't expect much from Gamer but then who would? To say it's mindless plays into the filmmakers hands so I'll end with saying it's dull, over edited tripe.
Note: If you really need to see a film like this check out Mamoru "ghost in the shell" Oshii's stunningly beautiful Avalon. It may be a far better use of your time.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Review: Push
Year: 2009
Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: David Bourla
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou,
Push got a hard time when released and it's easy to understand why. It's nothing new in any shape or form. In fact when watching it, I compared it to X-men meets Total Recall. It is very derivative of other sci-fi. With this said, the film, with it's patchy narrative and "been there" tone is still a good laugh.
A film like Push need energy to keep it going and this movie has it in spades. Despite being slightly confused by it's naff exposition that crops up from time to time, McGuigan makes sure that the film is never boring. In an era where comic book style movies feel that they need a grand statement to be interesting, Push is good natured enough just to go with the flow, without slipping into monotonous storytelling.
What I enjoyed about McGuigan's film is that the action sequences still feel fresh and fun despite being seen in many a film before. your pushers, bleeders, shadows and what not are nothing new. However, once again, much like District 9, Push is placed in an completely different setting that invigorates the set pieces. It's great to see a film like this set in the hustle and bustle of Hong Kong (the whole film was filmed there) and McGuigan's reason behind filming there (a riff on Casablanca) gives me a a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Despite having a patchy script with badly introduced characters, the glue that holds the set pieces together are the performances. Chris Evans once again shows that he's a charming actor and has more than enough charisma for a film like this. His chemistry with Datoka Fanning (who once you get past those manga eyes is growing up to be a great actress) is one that is sorely missed by movies with a bigger budget than this one. In fact it's much stronger than the relationship with the forgettable (yet attractive) Camilla Belle that fails to truly sizzle.
Another acting damp squib stems from the chief villain played by Dijimon Hounsou, although this stems more from having a character with little to do than sneer.
For the most part, Push works well enough, even the films twists (something I telegraphed too easily in McGuigan's Lucky Number Slevin) worked with me due to the pulpiness of the genre. McGuigan's interest in time manipulation and perception once again plays a part in the movie and I found myself very invested in what he had to say about it, despite seeing it done better in other films.
A fun film that may provide strong background noise on a night out. Don't worry about what the characters say, it's not as interesting as it could be.
Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: David Bourla
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou,
Push got a hard time when released and it's easy to understand why. It's nothing new in any shape or form. In fact when watching it, I compared it to X-men meets Total Recall. It is very derivative of other sci-fi. With this said, the film, with it's patchy narrative and "been there" tone is still a good laugh.
A film like Push need energy to keep it going and this movie has it in spades. Despite being slightly confused by it's naff exposition that crops up from time to time, McGuigan makes sure that the film is never boring. In an era where comic book style movies feel that they need a grand statement to be interesting, Push is good natured enough just to go with the flow, without slipping into monotonous storytelling.
What I enjoyed about McGuigan's film is that the action sequences still feel fresh and fun despite being seen in many a film before. your pushers, bleeders, shadows and what not are nothing new. However, once again, much like District 9, Push is placed in an completely different setting that invigorates the set pieces. It's great to see a film like this set in the hustle and bustle of Hong Kong (the whole film was filmed there) and McGuigan's reason behind filming there (a riff on Casablanca) gives me a a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Despite having a patchy script with badly introduced characters, the glue that holds the set pieces together are the performances. Chris Evans once again shows that he's a charming actor and has more than enough charisma for a film like this. His chemistry with Datoka Fanning (who once you get past those manga eyes is growing up to be a great actress) is one that is sorely missed by movies with a bigger budget than this one. In fact it's much stronger than the relationship with the forgettable (yet attractive) Camilla Belle that fails to truly sizzle.
Another acting damp squib stems from the chief villain played by Dijimon Hounsou, although this stems more from having a character with little to do than sneer.
For the most part, Push works well enough, even the films twists (something I telegraphed too easily in McGuigan's Lucky Number Slevin) worked with me due to the pulpiness of the genre. McGuigan's interest in time manipulation and perception once again plays a part in the movie and I found myself very invested in what he had to say about it, despite seeing it done better in other films.
A fun film that may provide strong background noise on a night out. Don't worry about what the characters say, it's not as interesting as it could be.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Review: Tyson
Year: 2008 (U.K release 2009)
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)