Year: 2009
Director: Kathryn Bigalow
Screenplay: Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Antony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
I was unusually quiet after watching The Hurt Locker. Usually after viewing a film, I'm pretty vocal about it to whomever will listen. It's just my way. After The Hurt Locker I had nothing to say. My silence continued until I got home and booted up my laptop. I was silent because quite simply I was stunned.
The bravest, brawniest, most testosterone fueled action movie of the year was not made my McG, it wasn't done by Micheal Mann (which is a surprise to me). It certainly wasn't done by Micheal Bay. No, the most macho film of 2009 was directed by a 57 year old women. Kathryn Bigelow (director of Point Break, Strange Days and Near Dark) brings to the screen not only one of the most visceral outlooks of modern war, but holds some of the strongest observations on the war in Iraq.
Case in point, the central performance of Jeremy Renner's Sgt William James. It's a display worthy of an award. Here's a man who lives on the edge and can't step away. James' medals are the bomb parts that could have killed him. He feels that most alive when standing inside the "moon suit" used to protect him. Near the end, when on leave, James is asked by his wife to pick up cereal in the supermarket. As he stands amongst the dozen of coloured boxes he realises that normal life holds nothing for him. What starts out as just a job has quickly become more than that. Almost every day this man holds the lives of so many people in his hands...and he isn't afraid to juggle. When asked why he's so willing to risk his life, James cannot answer, but for some reason he knows that his comrades can never do what he does.
Renner's performance in turn is almost a metaphor for the entire film. War is dark, complex and offers no easy answers. Compare this to some of the more simplistic looks at war as of late and you realize how strong Bigalow's film really is. The Hurt Locker doesn't politicize or try to offer simple answers. In fact it's lack of pandering brings out some of the darker and more intriguing aspects of war. Character motivations are murky at best but as that end shots pans up and we see the amount of days left, we thank god that James can't follow up the question.
The opening 10 minutes are the most tightly wound of the year. It encapsulates the chaos of war perfectly. Not since Saving Private Ryan have we seen anything so raw. Unlike SPR however, modern warware has no time for heroes, just men who can complete the objective. The film's unease heightens the more obsessed James becomes with the job at hand. He takes more risks than his squad leader before hims, risks that Sgt Sanborn (played with by-the-book directness by Anthony Mackie) isn't willing to take. Unfortunately when you've become as good as James is at disposing bombs it's hard not to have admiration.
Bigalow is back to what she does best mixing conflicted young men with heightened tension in a bowl and pulling it through the ringer. Her in your face style grabs hold of the viewer from the beginning and doesn't let go. The firefights have a Mann-esque feel to them. So close you can smell the gun smoke, so near that your sitting in the car bomb also. Many of the films victims (expect one) are so unexpected that like Stone's platoon, you hold the feeling that anybody can be next. The best shot of the film is the one of James lying in the sand waiting for an insurgent to move. A fly lands on his eyelid and yet he doesn't blink, a combination of his training and his obsession. Not until the job is done, death is no option.
But this is where other areas of Bigalow's direction comes in. The simple shots of the Iraqi people are amongst some of the most unsettling, because any of the distant and complacent faces could be holding a mobile phone or a 9v battery. In The Hurt Locker, you don't run from explosions and with that action cliche firmly out the way, the risk becomes far greater.
The film also manages to hold it's fragile story together despite a lack of a true strong narrative. Here less is more and a constrictive by the rails plotline is not what this film needs. War isn't a structured and as cliched as this sounds there are no winners. Wanna bet? Just ask Sgt James to pick up some cereal.
Note: I have left out the names of the bigger actors who have small parts in the film. It's best for you to discover them blindly the same way I did.
The podcast review is just on this link
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Monday, 31 August 2009
Review: Funny People
Year: 2009
Director: Judd Apatow
Screenplay: Judd Apatow
Starring: Adam Sandler, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Seth Rogan, Johna Hill, Jason Schwartzman
The marketing for funny people is all wrong. Much like the confused all action trailer/T.V Spots of box office hit Inglourious Basterds, if your expecting a film filled to the brim with belly laughs, you may be better off with The Hangover or Bruno. Apatow however seems to be on his way to be a more juvenile John Hughes of his generation. His films as a director (and a few of the many he's produced) deal with grand themes that confront a generation of man-children with a Peter Pan complex.
The 40 Year old virgin dealt with a man whose embraced more comics and games than girlfriends. Knocked Up is about a young man who must deal with fatherhood before his time. Funny People is about morality and time lost to careless and selfish endeavours. Yes, it's wrapped around a structure of dick and fart jokes but that's what it's really about.
The most interesting thing about this for me is how personal these films are, in particular Funny People. The film starts with home footage of our main character George Simmons (Sandler) making prank calls to unsuspecting folk. This is real footage of a young Sandler who used to live with Apatow (who can be seen by eagle-eyed viewers in the video cracking up). Those who have been boning up on the writer/director/producer, can clearly see that everyone in the film have been taken from real comedians that Apatow knows and loves and Sandler takes centre stage.
Almost playing himself Sandler has never been better. Those who hate his usual sthick may find something of interest here he brings across a semi-tragic performance while raining in the dopey, rage filled characters he's well known for. Some of the performance reminds me of comedians of the past I've loved like Kenneth Williams or Peter Sellers. Comedians who could bring a crowd of people to tears of laughter, but never appeared to be happy themselves. Comedian's who are angry at themselves for being a success (or sell-outs) but never the less would sign up for the next piece of crap thrown their way. For Sandler to look so deeply inside himself for this performance is not only brave, but immensely watchable.
Other reviews I've read and heard have criticised the lack of arc by the Simmons character, stating that he doesn't learn anything. In watching the film I realise that in fact he does but his self-realisation is a small one left until the last scene of the film. I rather this then the film's characters flipping suddenly and forgetting who they were at the beginning of the movie.
The secondary characters have their moments and while they are slightly flat, they are extremely funny. A whole second film could have been created out of the roommate trio of Jonha Hill, Seth Rogan and Jason Schwartzman and all three have great chemistry with each other. Eric Bana (ex-stand up himself) almost comes in too late to give us a taste of his actual accent (I'm sure there people out there that still believe he's American). Bana actually helps pick up the films second half which is lopsided against the stronger first half. Apatow's wife Leslie Mann also hold her own in the second half of the movie as Simmons "one who got away" and her decision at the end of the film is wonderfully truthful and keeps the films integrity.
The main issue I had with Funny People is that it's way too long and a little too schizophrenic for it's own good. The characters aren't the most lovable people in the world (in fact the egos on them are huge) so when the film does a 180 half way and asks us to try and feel sorry for some of these guys....it's extremely difficult. In fact the only person I could truly sympathize with is Rogan's Ira character but even then, the reason why he starts to work for George is underhanded.
With this said, the film reminded me of The Wrestler, in which I was allowed to observe something I have an interest in (stand up comedy) from a completely different point of view. I found the film laugh out loud funny for the most part and full of quick one liners that made Apatow's earlier films so popular. The line that got me is said by rapper/producer Rza, playing a deli clerk who is working with Ira. "Seinfield's my man, that boy Kramer, he's my Nigga." If you don't see why I was rolling down the isle after he said that...this film is not for you.
Director: Judd Apatow
Screenplay: Judd Apatow
Starring: Adam Sandler, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Seth Rogan, Johna Hill, Jason Schwartzman
The marketing for funny people is all wrong. Much like the confused all action trailer/T.V Spots of box office hit Inglourious Basterds, if your expecting a film filled to the brim with belly laughs, you may be better off with The Hangover or Bruno. Apatow however seems to be on his way to be a more juvenile John Hughes of his generation. His films as a director (and a few of the many he's produced) deal with grand themes that confront a generation of man-children with a Peter Pan complex.
The 40 Year old virgin dealt with a man whose embraced more comics and games than girlfriends. Knocked Up is about a young man who must deal with fatherhood before his time. Funny People is about morality and time lost to careless and selfish endeavours. Yes, it's wrapped around a structure of dick and fart jokes but that's what it's really about.
The most interesting thing about this for me is how personal these films are, in particular Funny People. The film starts with home footage of our main character George Simmons (Sandler) making prank calls to unsuspecting folk. This is real footage of a young Sandler who used to live with Apatow (who can be seen by eagle-eyed viewers in the video cracking up). Those who have been boning up on the writer/director/producer, can clearly see that everyone in the film have been taken from real comedians that Apatow knows and loves and Sandler takes centre stage.
Almost playing himself Sandler has never been better. Those who hate his usual sthick may find something of interest here he brings across a semi-tragic performance while raining in the dopey, rage filled characters he's well known for. Some of the performance reminds me of comedians of the past I've loved like Kenneth Williams or Peter Sellers. Comedians who could bring a crowd of people to tears of laughter, but never appeared to be happy themselves. Comedian's who are angry at themselves for being a success (or sell-outs) but never the less would sign up for the next piece of crap thrown their way. For Sandler to look so deeply inside himself for this performance is not only brave, but immensely watchable.
Other reviews I've read and heard have criticised the lack of arc by the Simmons character, stating that he doesn't learn anything. In watching the film I realise that in fact he does but his self-realisation is a small one left until the last scene of the film. I rather this then the film's characters flipping suddenly and forgetting who they were at the beginning of the movie.
The secondary characters have their moments and while they are slightly flat, they are extremely funny. A whole second film could have been created out of the roommate trio of Jonha Hill, Seth Rogan and Jason Schwartzman and all three have great chemistry with each other. Eric Bana (ex-stand up himself) almost comes in too late to give us a taste of his actual accent (I'm sure there people out there that still believe he's American). Bana actually helps pick up the films second half which is lopsided against the stronger first half. Apatow's wife Leslie Mann also hold her own in the second half of the movie as Simmons "one who got away" and her decision at the end of the film is wonderfully truthful and keeps the films integrity.
The main issue I had with Funny People is that it's way too long and a little too schizophrenic for it's own good. The characters aren't the most lovable people in the world (in fact the egos on them are huge) so when the film does a 180 half way and asks us to try and feel sorry for some of these guys....it's extremely difficult. In fact the only person I could truly sympathize with is Rogan's Ira character but even then, the reason why he starts to work for George is underhanded.
With this said, the film reminded me of The Wrestler, in which I was allowed to observe something I have an interest in (stand up comedy) from a completely different point of view. I found the film laugh out loud funny for the most part and full of quick one liners that made Apatow's earlier films so popular. The line that got me is said by rapper/producer Rza, playing a deli clerk who is working with Ira. "Seinfield's my man, that boy Kramer, he's my Nigga." If you don't see why I was rolling down the isle after he said that...this film is not for you.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
xXx 3 has a director
A quick skim on the interwebz has allowed me to find out that xXx 3 has a director. It seems that Vin Diesel is doing his best to dreg up franchises that pretty much died on their arses a while back. The first xXx was pretty forgetable for me and I didn't bother with the next level so could this return be worth myself watching?
The director Ericson Core hasn't got a big film catolgoue in terms of direction but as a cinematographer he's been in charge of such faves as Daredevil. Ok so yeah that's a bit unfair, as he was also part of another Vin franchise The Fast and the Furious, one which despite having a huge cliched story, had some great stunts captured by Core.
But with so much time past, will anyone care about this? Considering the box office of Fast and Furious, answers may point to yes.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Inception Trailer up and about
I was loving Christopher Nolan way before he made his mark on the Batman mythology. In fact my favorite films of his are The Prestige and Following. So Just because he hasn't mentioned anything about what happens next to Bruce Wayne doesn't bother me too much especially when the trailer is as nutty as this:
Or go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh5FD2AePJ0
The website hasn't got much to say and is just as maddening, however having seen the work done on the Batman marketing as well as the superb memento website, No doubt this site will be worth checking again in the near future.
Or go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh5FD2AePJ0
The website hasn't got much to say and is just as maddening, however having seen the work done on the Batman marketing as well as the superb memento website, No doubt this site will be worth checking again in the near future.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Review: Let The Right One In
Year: 2009 (Full U.K release)
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Screenplay: John Ajvide Lindqvist
Starring: Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson
Vampires are big business again all of a sudden and I guess that's pretty cool. We've had Zombie films for ages so change is a good thing. Unfortunately, the most popular vampire tale being told at this moment is Twilight. A series with a soppy narrative, idiotic female characters (seriously that Bella character = Moron) and nurtured Vampires. While females from 8-30 enjoy that author's bizarre sexual fantasy (even the actors think it), it's really just not for me. Edward Cullen can stare into that dim-witted bints eyes for eternity, I like my vampires like Severen.
Which brings me to Let The Right One In, a vampire movie with balls..or not (people who know the story will get that). A film that is as ambiguous as it is beautiful, a film which believes in the idea of vampires connecting with humans but does nothing to take away their dark nature. No glittering skin here folks, it's blood on snow all the way.
But apart from the fact that a school kid begins a relationship with a vampire, LTROI doesn't share much of a connection with Twilight, in fact it has more in common with another Swedish made film; Lucas Moodysson's Lilja-4eva. Both deal with children from poor backgrounds and damaged family lives finding solace some an unexpected source. The similarities continue when both films show that the characters don't seem to be able to survive without each other, together the two halves make a complete whole. It is this emotional connection that is the strength of the movie, it's foundation is the assured direction from Tomas Alfredson, and it is built upon by two excellent display by it's child actors.
Alfredson's film is one that works best when it says nothing. It's dialogue is short and sharp and almost ineffective when compared to the movies images. Alfredson's direction of visuals is sublime, managing to put across character backgrounds and motivations quickly without having to resort to weak dialogue exposition. Alot of the images don't need dialouge to be compelling. I've never read the original novel, but in watching the film Alfredson manages to deleve into the lives of these people quickly and convincingly. After a brief skim of the novel's story you realise Alfredson's left quite a bit of the book out, but this in no way effects the film's appeal. In fact the film only make me want to read the original story more and how many adaptations do that?
Alfredson also coaxes two striking performances from the films leads. Kare Hedebrant is gives of the right air of innocence as Oskar, but it's Lina Leandersson's haunting portrayal of Eli that stands out. Ambiguous and complex, Leandersson's display is one that seems to show wisdom beyond her years while still holding an aspect of nativity about her. She's world weary and doesn't look a day over 12. The two are perfect for the film and maintain the cryptic motivations of their relationship until the end.
The film is not perfect, the music is far too obtrusive in a film that works best when quiet and certain subplots which are clearly more important in the book just don't sit comfortably with the rest of the film. But that's not the point, these are mere nitpicks of a film with a extremely raw emotional core.
The film is to be remade by Cloverfield's Matt Reeves and word has it that the U.S version will be made more "very accessible to a wider audience". This to me means spelt out to people would even bother to try and watch the original. I ask to myself whats the point (read: money) but as long as there's no glittering skin, it may be worth watching.
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Screenplay: John Ajvide Lindqvist
Starring: Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson
Vampires are big business again all of a sudden and I guess that's pretty cool. We've had Zombie films for ages so change is a good thing. Unfortunately, the most popular vampire tale being told at this moment is Twilight. A series with a soppy narrative, idiotic female characters (seriously that Bella character = Moron) and nurtured Vampires. While females from 8-30 enjoy that author's bizarre sexual fantasy (even the actors think it), it's really just not for me. Edward Cullen can stare into that dim-witted bints eyes for eternity, I like my vampires like Severen.
Which brings me to Let The Right One In, a vampire movie with balls..or not (people who know the story will get that). A film that is as ambiguous as it is beautiful, a film which believes in the idea of vampires connecting with humans but does nothing to take away their dark nature. No glittering skin here folks, it's blood on snow all the way.
But apart from the fact that a school kid begins a relationship with a vampire, LTROI doesn't share much of a connection with Twilight, in fact it has more in common with another Swedish made film; Lucas Moodysson's Lilja-4eva. Both deal with children from poor backgrounds and damaged family lives finding solace some an unexpected source. The similarities continue when both films show that the characters don't seem to be able to survive without each other, together the two halves make a complete whole. It is this emotional connection that is the strength of the movie, it's foundation is the assured direction from Tomas Alfredson, and it is built upon by two excellent display by it's child actors.
Alfredson's film is one that works best when it says nothing. It's dialogue is short and sharp and almost ineffective when compared to the movies images. Alfredson's direction of visuals is sublime, managing to put across character backgrounds and motivations quickly without having to resort to weak dialogue exposition. Alot of the images don't need dialouge to be compelling. I've never read the original novel, but in watching the film Alfredson manages to deleve into the lives of these people quickly and convincingly. After a brief skim of the novel's story you realise Alfredson's left quite a bit of the book out, but this in no way effects the film's appeal. In fact the film only make me want to read the original story more and how many adaptations do that?
Alfredson also coaxes two striking performances from the films leads. Kare Hedebrant is gives of the right air of innocence as Oskar, but it's Lina Leandersson's haunting portrayal of Eli that stands out. Ambiguous and complex, Leandersson's display is one that seems to show wisdom beyond her years while still holding an aspect of nativity about her. She's world weary and doesn't look a day over 12. The two are perfect for the film and maintain the cryptic motivations of their relationship until the end.
The film is not perfect, the music is far too obtrusive in a film that works best when quiet and certain subplots which are clearly more important in the book just don't sit comfortably with the rest of the film. But that's not the point, these are mere nitpicks of a film with a extremely raw emotional core.
The film is to be remade by Cloverfield's Matt Reeves and word has it that the U.S version will be made more "very accessible to a wider audience". This to me means spelt out to people would even bother to try and watch the original. I ask to myself whats the point (read: money) but as long as there's no glittering skin, it may be worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)