Year: 2009
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenplay: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner
Starring: George Clooney, Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga
Plot Synopsis is here
Up in the air is the second film I've seen at the London Film Festival and after a couple of drinks with the people I was with, I found myself at the station trying to make sure I get on the right train. However, I needed to go to the loo. 10 minutes later my stupid bladder and idiotic brain placed me on the wrong train. After a brief text conversation to my girlfriend and a trip to tescos, I managed to get a lift back so I could write this review. The point of this meaningless story is the fact that despite my film geekiness and sudden lack of direction, I'm lucky to have someone like my girlfriend that may be able to give me a lift. An emotional connection, one that if I didn't have I'd have to spend a crap load of money having to get back to my warm bedroom. What's it got to do with Up in the air? Well that's what it's all about!
Up in the air is about emotional bonds and their frailties. We take them for granted constantly but without them, we can become trapped, isolated and disconnected. With this said however, some find this confronting. I mean people aren't the greatest company are they? And George Clooney's character Ryan has constructed a lifestyle that not only keeps him constantly moving, but one that allows him to shun all the little distractions and baggage that we hold dear.
He is a man who is hired to fire people because bosses haven't got the guts to do the dirty work. This is something he's turned into an artform. His lifestyle is soon threatened by a spunky young 23 year old named Natalie (Kendrick), whose realised that all this traveling across the country in order to fire people is a lot of money and video casting is a far more cost effective. Natalie becomes a stone in Ryan's shoe and very soon Ryan starts to stumble into all those little distractions that he avoided so well.
Up in the air is fantastically cast, subtly directed and profoundly funny. It's also a mainstream film that has the balls to observe the terrible circumstances that we have found ourselves. The film is littered with scenes of people losing their jobs, and while some moments are hilariously awkward, many carry a quiet poignancy as the film ups the ante. Reitman's film is an indictment to everything that happened to America is the last two years. A viewer came out of the film and stated that the pick picks easy targets, however if any one out there can name five recent fictional American movies that are making such on point criticisms on the American way of living right, I'd love to hear them.
Unlike so many other directors out there who are creating simplistic films about fantastic escapism, Reitman concentrates on the various aspects of American life that are truly being affected. Juno was a gentle look at the very real situation of children having children. Up in the air is a film about losing our humanity within the corporate world. Yes, I've summed it up in laymans terms, but Reitman's film is one of the only films out there so is willing to address the distress.
Seriousness aside, this film is the perfect foil for it's cast. The themes are heavy, but they are carefully juggled by the superb Clooney, who hasn't been this smooth since Out of Sight. Not only a true movie star but a daring actor who is willing expose himself and deconstruct his star persona. His patchy box office numbers have often been made up by challenging subject matter and of course a smooth performance, here is no different. Up in the air may not target the demographic that the studios want but it's a sublime turn certainly gives the film the prestige it deserves. Here, he's sly, cocksure and never misses a beat. Even Danny Ocean would be sweating in his boots in front of Ryan Bingham. It's also welcoming to see the gorgeous Vera Farmiga in a bouncy yet complicated role as Alex, Ryan's sex buddy. For an actress whose constantly noted for her "strung out" performances (See the departed, Joshua, Orphan etc), Farmiga matches Clooney in cracking sexuality beat for beat. It a role that turns you on, not because of her looks but her ability to turn a phase as well as her partner The chemistry is beyond sizzling.
Three cheers must also go out to the other strong female display in the film, coming in the form of Anna Kendrick, whose well rounded yet so wonderfully naive could have been so easily a retreaded "voice of reason" act that could have dulled the sharp script with it's wry dialogue and cutting observations.
Reitman's direction is as confident as his fully realized screenplay, shooting as matter of fact as possible, with no wasteful shots, needless clever asides or flabby scenes. Even in the face of cliche, Reitman laughs in the face of going down a hackneyed route, converting commonplace moments, and subverting scenes that could have easily sink the film, particularly in the later half of the film.
Up in the air is sharp and stylish film making with a maturing director at the helm, and a note perfect cast (I haven't even mentioned the solid supporting turns of Jason Bateman et all.). It's a film that is as joyfully amusing as it is melancholy. Bittersweet but not without it a glimmer of hope, Up in the air is a film that I hope to see win awards next year.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Monday, 19 October 2009
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Review: The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Review: 2009
Director: Terry Gilliam
Screenplay: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown
Starring: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Christopher Plummer
Plot Synopsis is here
Director: Terry Gilliam
Screenplay: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown
Starring: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Christopher Plummer
Plot Synopsis is here
A Terry Gilliam film is always a herculean task. Not to watch mind, no that's usually a joy. I mean the process of Gilliam as director actually making a film itself always requires the power of the Norse gods themselves in order to get it made. Be it totalitarian producers (Brazil) to the fiasco of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a production so wrecked with problems that ANOTHER film was made that documents what had happened. This last film still hasn't been made and Gilliam will get another chance now that the rights have been retrieved by the director.
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is no different with one the leads (Ledger) dying halfway through filming. This tragic loss however, showed how bloody minded Gilliam is. Finishing the film in Heath's honor, Ledger's role of Tony is now played by not only the deceased, but by three other actors. It seems that nothing will stop Gilliam from completing his visions.
Me, as a viewer is happy that Gilliam managed to finish this movie because it once again shows just how imaginative Gilliam is. This is a film filled with fantastical visions and gorgeous imagery that could only come from the artist known as Terry. The film playfully motifs much of Gilliam's back catalogue but still manages to produce some delightfully original visual moments.
The films narrative reminded me (bizarrely) of M Night Shyamalan extremely pompous Lady in the water; from it's red headed heroine in peril to it's melding of fantasy realms within the modern world. The film also brings about the same message of the death of creativity and story, although unlike Shyamalan ego trip, Gilliam turns clearly wishes to push the focus on Hollywood itself, with the film at times showing a clear allegory towards modern cinema. Parnassus cynically demonstrates that there's shysters and crooks everywhere trying to destroy the imagination and ability of artists. What makes Parnassus a better film than the aforementioned Lady in the water is while the character of Parnassus is literally NOT Gilliam himself but any artist wishing to make his mark. There's no smarm here, just the honest insight on how we maybe killing artistic merit.
However, as with many of Gilliam's films, he has so much to say and appears to have very little time for discipline and the films plot strands are very thin. The film could really do with a tiny bit of explanation on how the power of Doctor Parnassus is harnessed, as well as giving the more important characters additional back story. early opinions have stated confusion with the film. I had no such problem with following the story, but in my point of view the film needed more weight, especially with the grand metaphors Gilliam wishes to push forward.
Despite this, Parnassus manages to maintain engagement with it's charming cast. Much as been said with the new casting implements that took place, however the way it's handled in the film is tasteful. Also if it were not for the fact that the issues involving Ledger became public knowledge the transitions would be almost unnoticeable. I do wish that I hadn't known anything about the "replacements" in the film because it would have been an delightful surprise.
Ledger's last performance once again shows how much potential the young actor had. It's a much more restrained performance than his role of The Joker, but the quirks and magnetism come through strong. The three Tony transformations played Depp, Law and Farrell vary in quality (Law is the weakest, Depp has the best material to work with) but they manage to enhance the extraordinary power of the imagery world that lies behind Parnassus' mirror. Depp has a scene stealing monologue which clearly feels written after Ledgers death. It's a wonderful moment from a blink and you'll miss it display from Depp.
I found myself wondering why Christopher Plummer was never considered for Albert Dumbledore (correct me if I'm wrong) as he brings just as much of gravitas that both Richard Harris and Micheal Gambon have given to the part. Lily Cole is not only just a pretty face (especially when she wears less make up) but puts more than enough spunk into a role that another dead eyed model would have ruined. Cole shows that she has some acting chops behind her catwalking. Another solid performance comes from (relatively) unknown Andrew Garfield while Verne Troyer gets all the good grubby lines as a voice of reason and truth. Tom Waits rounds up the cast as the scenery chewing (but great fun) antagonist of the piece.
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is bittersweet film, both in fiction and reality and despite it's story issues, it brings about some of the best of a masterful director. Gilliam, whose is approaching his 70's shows no signs of losing his bite with his film cynically taking subliminal chunks out of the hand that sometimes feeds him. Despite the film sometimes not holding enough weight, it's cast is forever engaging and it's visuals are some of the most eye popping of the year. Gilliam fans will know what all the fuss is about, Ledger fans may well up in his last performance, while others may sit there befuddled. But then difficult is just the way Gilliam likes it.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is no different with one the leads (Ledger) dying halfway through filming. This tragic loss however, showed how bloody minded Gilliam is. Finishing the film in Heath's honor, Ledger's role of Tony is now played by not only the deceased, but by three other actors. It seems that nothing will stop Gilliam from completing his visions.
Me, as a viewer is happy that Gilliam managed to finish this movie because it once again shows just how imaginative Gilliam is. This is a film filled with fantastical visions and gorgeous imagery that could only come from the artist known as Terry. The film playfully motifs much of Gilliam's back catalogue but still manages to produce some delightfully original visual moments.
The films narrative reminded me (bizarrely) of M Night Shyamalan extremely pompous Lady in the water; from it's red headed heroine in peril to it's melding of fantasy realms within the modern world. The film also brings about the same message of the death of creativity and story, although unlike Shyamalan ego trip, Gilliam turns clearly wishes to push the focus on Hollywood itself, with the film at times showing a clear allegory towards modern cinema. Parnassus cynically demonstrates that there's shysters and crooks everywhere trying to destroy the imagination and ability of artists. What makes Parnassus a better film than the aforementioned Lady in the water is while the character of Parnassus is literally NOT Gilliam himself but any artist wishing to make his mark. There's no smarm here, just the honest insight on how we maybe killing artistic merit.
However, as with many of Gilliam's films, he has so much to say and appears to have very little time for discipline and the films plot strands are very thin. The film could really do with a tiny bit of explanation on how the power of Doctor Parnassus is harnessed, as well as giving the more important characters additional back story. early opinions have stated confusion with the film. I had no such problem with following the story, but in my point of view the film needed more weight, especially with the grand metaphors Gilliam wishes to push forward.
Despite this, Parnassus manages to maintain engagement with it's charming cast. Much as been said with the new casting implements that took place, however the way it's handled in the film is tasteful. Also if it were not for the fact that the issues involving Ledger became public knowledge the transitions would be almost unnoticeable. I do wish that I hadn't known anything about the "replacements" in the film because it would have been an delightful surprise.
Ledger's last performance once again shows how much potential the young actor had. It's a much more restrained performance than his role of The Joker, but the quirks and magnetism come through strong. The three Tony transformations played Depp, Law and Farrell vary in quality (Law is the weakest, Depp has the best material to work with) but they manage to enhance the extraordinary power of the imagery world that lies behind Parnassus' mirror. Depp has a scene stealing monologue which clearly feels written after Ledgers death. It's a wonderful moment from a blink and you'll miss it display from Depp.
I found myself wondering why Christopher Plummer was never considered for Albert Dumbledore (correct me if I'm wrong) as he brings just as much of gravitas that both Richard Harris and Micheal Gambon have given to the part. Lily Cole is not only just a pretty face (especially when she wears less make up) but puts more than enough spunk into a role that another dead eyed model would have ruined. Cole shows that she has some acting chops behind her catwalking. Another solid performance comes from (relatively) unknown Andrew Garfield while Verne Troyer gets all the good grubby lines as a voice of reason and truth. Tom Waits rounds up the cast as the scenery chewing (but great fun) antagonist of the piece.
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is bittersweet film, both in fiction and reality and despite it's story issues, it brings about some of the best of a masterful director. Gilliam, whose is approaching his 70's shows no signs of losing his bite with his film cynically taking subliminal chunks out of the hand that sometimes feeds him. Despite the film sometimes not holding enough weight, it's cast is forever engaging and it's visuals are some of the most eye popping of the year. Gilliam fans will know what all the fuss is about, Ledger fans may well up in his last performance, while others may sit there befuddled. But then difficult is just the way Gilliam likes it.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Review: Fanatsic Mr Fox
Year: 2009
Director: Wes Anderson
Screenplay: Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach
Starring: George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, Michal Gambon, Jason Schwartzman
Plot synopsis is here
While I'd admire the fact that authors such J.K Rowling and Dan Brown have got a generation reading again in an age where the most complicated read is text speak, they've never captured the creativity and wit that Roald Dahl brought to me when I was younger. Hell even now I still class Boy as one of the books I'd need on a desert island. From The Twits to The Adventures of Henry Sugar this was a man who had me enthralled by the art of story telling from a young age. I even remember going to the Dahl Museum when I was younger and if it still stands when I have kids, that's where they'll be going on their holidays too.
Imagine my surprise when I heard about Wes Anderson's plans to film an adaptation of Dahl's Fantastic Mr Fox. The talk of this development started in 2004, and only now does the spoils of labour have appeared. Why? because Anderson has decided to film the movie as stop animation as opposed to the now more common CGI.
Dahl's books have been adapted for cinema with varying degrees of success with perhaps the most famous of them being disliked by the author himself. Anderson approaches the story as an American paying tribute to the material, the stop animation not only gives the film a vivid amount of detail and style but also gives the film an English feel that would have been lost if filmed in another way. The look of the film is allegedly inspired by the Buckinghamshire village of Great Missenden where Dahl lived and worked. As someone whose not only born and bred in Bucks but lives so close to this village I could lick the place, it's clear to say that Anderson has done his homework. The look of the film may not dazzle like the vast landscapes of the excellent UP, but it has a unique homely feel that evokes the spirit of the book it has taken it's ques from.
With the surroundings almost firmly in place (explain later) Anderson, then makes the film his own. Utilizing his themes of dysfunctional families and huge egos to his utmost, Anderson makes the films central message one about pride. Like the aforementioned UP, the film doesn't pander to it's younger audience in any shape for form, nor does it ram it's morals down their throat. Fantastic Mr Fox merely lies it's cards on the table as is, presenting it's message in it's clearest form. As great as our talents are, we must sometimes rely on others to get the best out of them.
Semi-serious moments aside, the film is hilarious with many of the films best comic moments in the first act. By not watering down any elements, or pandering to peoples knowledge of pop culture (for the most part, explain later), the film manages to get away with moments of almost outrageous humor. One of the main reasons for this is the screenplay dialogue which exercises a strong use of the English language. When characters talk, none of them are condensing to each other, and the audiences reaction when I watched it merely enforces the fact that you don't have to dumb things down just for a cheap laugh.
This is not to say, it's not without it's flaws, sometimes the film's American sensibilities get in the way of the "Englishness" of the whole proceedings. Fox's whistle is a natty little trademarks, but anyone with cinema savvy will know that it's nabbed from Donald Sutherland's Hawkeye from the American anti-war classic M.A.S.H. The mixture of moods sometimes clash, but no more than feeling a little odd.
This brings me on to the voice acting, which despite clearly having these actors cast to bolster the U.S market, their voices are cast because because they're are truly right for the part. Clooney once again lends his charm to the proceedings, managing to carry the weighty aspects of Mr Fox (yeah, seriously) while still being light hearted. Streep is great foil for him as his long suffering wife. Jason Schwartzman's grumpy Ash is a wonderful addition to the story, while Bill Murray, Willem Defoe and Michel Gambon are as reliable as they always are.
Fanastic Mr Fox doesn't stick as close to the material as more rabid fans would probably have liked, but unlike say, Tim Burton's visually stunning, emotionally hollow Charlie and the chocolate factory, Anderson's film brings around more Dahl spirit than one may think. When it moves away from the book, it's not for the directors own pretensions, but to assist to themes of the story. Something that even Dahl himself would be proud of.
Hear more talk on this film at Geekplanetonline
Director: Wes Anderson
Screenplay: Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach
Starring: George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, Michal Gambon, Jason Schwartzman
Plot synopsis is here
While I'd admire the fact that authors such J.K Rowling and Dan Brown have got a generation reading again in an age where the most complicated read is text speak, they've never captured the creativity and wit that Roald Dahl brought to me when I was younger. Hell even now I still class Boy as one of the books I'd need on a desert island. From The Twits to The Adventures of Henry Sugar this was a man who had me enthralled by the art of story telling from a young age. I even remember going to the Dahl Museum when I was younger and if it still stands when I have kids, that's where they'll be going on their holidays too.
Imagine my surprise when I heard about Wes Anderson's plans to film an adaptation of Dahl's Fantastic Mr Fox. The talk of this development started in 2004, and only now does the spoils of labour have appeared. Why? because Anderson has decided to film the movie as stop animation as opposed to the now more common CGI.
Dahl's books have been adapted for cinema with varying degrees of success with perhaps the most famous of them being disliked by the author himself. Anderson approaches the story as an American paying tribute to the material, the stop animation not only gives the film a vivid amount of detail and style but also gives the film an English feel that would have been lost if filmed in another way. The look of the film is allegedly inspired by the Buckinghamshire village of Great Missenden where Dahl lived and worked. As someone whose not only born and bred in Bucks but lives so close to this village I could lick the place, it's clear to say that Anderson has done his homework. The look of the film may not dazzle like the vast landscapes of the excellent UP, but it has a unique homely feel that evokes the spirit of the book it has taken it's ques from.
With the surroundings almost firmly in place (explain later) Anderson, then makes the film his own. Utilizing his themes of dysfunctional families and huge egos to his utmost, Anderson makes the films central message one about pride. Like the aforementioned UP, the film doesn't pander to it's younger audience in any shape for form, nor does it ram it's morals down their throat. Fantastic Mr Fox merely lies it's cards on the table as is, presenting it's message in it's clearest form. As great as our talents are, we must sometimes rely on others to get the best out of them.
Semi-serious moments aside, the film is hilarious with many of the films best comic moments in the first act. By not watering down any elements, or pandering to peoples knowledge of pop culture (for the most part, explain later), the film manages to get away with moments of almost outrageous humor. One of the main reasons for this is the screenplay dialogue which exercises a strong use of the English language. When characters talk, none of them are condensing to each other, and the audiences reaction when I watched it merely enforces the fact that you don't have to dumb things down just for a cheap laugh.
This is not to say, it's not without it's flaws, sometimes the film's American sensibilities get in the way of the "Englishness" of the whole proceedings. Fox's whistle is a natty little trademarks, but anyone with cinema savvy will know that it's nabbed from Donald Sutherland's Hawkeye from the American anti-war classic M.A.S.H. The mixture of moods sometimes clash, but no more than feeling a little odd.
This brings me on to the voice acting, which despite clearly having these actors cast to bolster the U.S market, their voices are cast because because they're are truly right for the part. Clooney once again lends his charm to the proceedings, managing to carry the weighty aspects of Mr Fox (yeah, seriously) while still being light hearted. Streep is great foil for him as his long suffering wife. Jason Schwartzman's grumpy Ash is a wonderful addition to the story, while Bill Murray, Willem Defoe and Michel Gambon are as reliable as they always are.
Fanastic Mr Fox doesn't stick as close to the material as more rabid fans would probably have liked, but unlike say, Tim Burton's visually stunning, emotionally hollow Charlie and the chocolate factory, Anderson's film brings around more Dahl spirit than one may think. When it moves away from the book, it's not for the directors own pretensions, but to assist to themes of the story. Something that even Dahl himself would be proud of.
Hear more talk on this film at Geekplanetonline
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Review: Halloween 2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Screenplay: Rob Zombie
Starring: Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif
Plot Synopsis is here
The first film was dull, loud and self indulgent, great stuff eh? Well if you liked Rob Zombies drab retread of John Carpenter's seminal horror classic, you'll love H2. It's even more simple-minded, it's louder and overloaded with gallons more self-indulgence. How bad? Well here's a film in which a teenager whose been through a traumatic event has a poster of Charles Manson over her bed a year after.
The biggest problem with Rob Zombies supposed thriller is that it's so unbelievably in love with its so called "vision", that it has no clue that it's just as bland as other re-imaginings. Zombie pukes up as many warped heavy metal music video images as possible but it can't even be bothered to clear up the things that truly matter. Things such as those aggravating slasher cliches which telegraph scares faster than a fat kid in a sugar factory. This is a film that truly believes that some jive about white horses will distract the viewer long enough to show that Halloween 2 has no story or atmosphere. Sorry Rob, you haven't caught me out, mostly because I know that's your wife (again) in those boring dream sequences. Once again Neopism rears it's head and Zombie finds yet another way of shoving his loved one into his film, so once again you can watch (with hands clasped tightly over face) another awful performance from her.
Zombie's got such a hard on for his wife, random dreams and romanticizing the villain of the piece (for some reason). That he misses a sub-plot that runs through his movie that is far more interesting. Zombie's vision of Halloween involves bulking up much of the plot to give Micheal Myers a stereotyped, ripped off (This film clearly nabs from psycho) background to raise some sort of empathy. What he fails to see is the plot that involves Dr Loomis (A truly hapless Malcolm McDowell) as a soulless shadow of himself, selling the story of Micheal for blood money. It's an interesting aspect of plot which is wasted, so Zombie can lavish masturbatory images of people getting bludgeoned, maimed and hacked to pieces. Not only is this tiresome but it's execution is far too over the top for it's own good. It only serves to a select few of people who believe this is extreme.
Unfortunately the best extreme cinema comes nowhere near a trite Rob Zombie screenplay, but is found in European and far east Asian endeavors. These films also have what people in the business call STORY, and do not have to resort to swearing in every other word to emphasis emotion. Swearing in dialogue is a true art form and Zombie has not mastered it with is trite screenplay.
It's clear that a Rob Zombie music video would be visually interesting, however to extend this over such a long period of time becomes extremely boring. The visuals look good but hold no tone. I'm not looking for complicated subtext in slashers but I do wish to feel some sort of tension. Zombie's film didn't even give me the cheap pleasure of jump scares, such is how bad this movie fails.
I could mention performances but why? The screenplay cares not for the characters or dialogue and the director cares not for the displays so there's no point complaining about them as these actors (or hot girls) have nothing to work with. Even the ever formidable Brad Dourif looks more embarrassed than anything thing else.
What gets my goat about Zombie's film the most is how lost his original voice is. When watching small aspects of the the film you can see that Zombie isn't truly incompetent. But of course it means nothing as the directors boorish self-importance overrides anything of interest. Indulgence is a difficult thing to keep in balance and for some filmmakers, it allows some true flourishes of inspiration for others such as Zombie you are given loud, obnoxious movies that have nothing to say other than how brilliant the filmmaker must be because they say so. At first I had given Zombie the benefit of the doubt with his debut movie House of 1000 corpses, but now I've released what's living behind Zombie's eyes is purely and simply....monotonous.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Director: Rob Zombie
Screenplay: Rob Zombie
Starring: Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif
Plot Synopsis is here
The first film was dull, loud and self indulgent, great stuff eh? Well if you liked Rob Zombies drab retread of John Carpenter's seminal horror classic, you'll love H2. It's even more simple-minded, it's louder and overloaded with gallons more self-indulgence. How bad? Well here's a film in which a teenager whose been through a traumatic event has a poster of Charles Manson over her bed a year after.
The biggest problem with Rob Zombies supposed thriller is that it's so unbelievably in love with its so called "vision", that it has no clue that it's just as bland as other re-imaginings. Zombie pukes up as many warped heavy metal music video images as possible but it can't even be bothered to clear up the things that truly matter. Things such as those aggravating slasher cliches which telegraph scares faster than a fat kid in a sugar factory. This is a film that truly believes that some jive about white horses will distract the viewer long enough to show that Halloween 2 has no story or atmosphere. Sorry Rob, you haven't caught me out, mostly because I know that's your wife (again) in those boring dream sequences. Once again Neopism rears it's head and Zombie finds yet another way of shoving his loved one into his film, so once again you can watch (with hands clasped tightly over face) another awful performance from her.
Zombie's got such a hard on for his wife, random dreams and romanticizing the villain of the piece (for some reason). That he misses a sub-plot that runs through his movie that is far more interesting. Zombie's vision of Halloween involves bulking up much of the plot to give Micheal Myers a stereotyped, ripped off (This film clearly nabs from psycho) background to raise some sort of empathy. What he fails to see is the plot that involves Dr Loomis (A truly hapless Malcolm McDowell) as a soulless shadow of himself, selling the story of Micheal for blood money. It's an interesting aspect of plot which is wasted, so Zombie can lavish masturbatory images of people getting bludgeoned, maimed and hacked to pieces. Not only is this tiresome but it's execution is far too over the top for it's own good. It only serves to a select few of people who believe this is extreme.
Unfortunately the best extreme cinema comes nowhere near a trite Rob Zombie screenplay, but is found in European and far east Asian endeavors. These films also have what people in the business call STORY, and do not have to resort to swearing in every other word to emphasis emotion. Swearing in dialogue is a true art form and Zombie has not mastered it with is trite screenplay.
It's clear that a Rob Zombie music video would be visually interesting, however to extend this over such a long period of time becomes extremely boring. The visuals look good but hold no tone. I'm not looking for complicated subtext in slashers but I do wish to feel some sort of tension. Zombie's film didn't even give me the cheap pleasure of jump scares, such is how bad this movie fails.
I could mention performances but why? The screenplay cares not for the characters or dialogue and the director cares not for the displays so there's no point complaining about them as these actors (or hot girls) have nothing to work with. Even the ever formidable Brad Dourif looks more embarrassed than anything thing else.
What gets my goat about Zombie's film the most is how lost his original voice is. When watching small aspects of the the film you can see that Zombie isn't truly incompetent. But of course it means nothing as the directors boorish self-importance overrides anything of interest. Indulgence is a difficult thing to keep in balance and for some filmmakers, it allows some true flourishes of inspiration for others such as Zombie you are given loud, obnoxious movies that have nothing to say other than how brilliant the filmmaker must be because they say so. At first I had given Zombie the benefit of the doubt with his debut movie House of 1000 corpses, but now I've released what's living behind Zombie's eyes is purely and simply....monotonous.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Review: UP
Year: 2009
Director: Bob Peterson & Pete Docter
Screenplay: Bob Peterson & Pete Docter
Starring: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai
Plot Synopsis is here
I'm not sure I've said it in my blog yet but I'm sure I've said it in real life; If mainstream Hollywood absorbed half of what Pixar does with every one of their films, then I would be in cinematic heaven. For me it's gone beyond how colourful there movies are, or how great the animation is. Their movies are now nothing short of what I want from ANY film let alone a family film. Today I watched a film which had a montage with more emotion and pathos then the entire 166 minutes of Benjamin Button. I saw action sequences with more invention and thrill behind them than your Fast and Furious' and enough humor to stand against the so-called best comedies of the year. Even then there's more to UP than what I've just said.
It's is hard to top the films sublime almost wordless first act, which details our protagonist and his regret beautifully (it features two of the most heartbreaking moments I've seen in a family film in a long time) but UP manages to maintain it's emotional connection until the end due to Pixar's belief in character and story. These are characters that ring true even if it's they're talking dogs. The filmmakers firmly believe there's a story to be told about a 78 year old man and they believe that people will want to watch it.
This is a story with grand themes of mortality, loss and living your dreams with well rounded characters with real hopes, fears and beliefs. It doesn't insult the viewers intelligence and sell them short. It doesn't just want to tell you the story visually (which it does with aplomb) it wishes to truly engage you with what it has to say about life and the human condition. Human Condition? You may ask.But at times, if it weren't for the more outlandish parts of the film and the bright colours, this could be high drama. UP may be considered a "kids film" but it's one which is brave enough to deal with the death of a family member head on. I admire the films wish not to conceal aspects of life that we must contemplate one day.
But the humor! Oh the humor! Real gags with actual timing! With most family films wringing comedy (celeb) voices for cheap laughs or reverting to bland pop culture for easy jokes, it's just heartwarming to see a film that can make you laugh because the characters are funny. It's not forced, it feels very real. I laughed out loud....a lot. But UP is one of those films.
It's also one of those films that shows true talent within the craft. Co-Directors Bob Peterson and Pete Docter bring about a dazzling array of visual images (bizarrely reminding myself of Herzog's Fitzcarraldo) that aren't just pretty because of the animation, but because they're beautifully staged and full of creativity. For me the house being lifted by balloons will be one of the definitive moments of my cinematic year.
The voice acting is once again top notch which Ed Asner carries the film effortlessly. It's a voice that sounds familiar but isn't really. It's also a layered performance, one not restricted to just grumpy and scared but one which completes the characters poignancy. Asner is aided by the perfectly goofy voice of Jordan Nagai, whose first film endeavor is a lovable one. The villain of the piece is played by Christopher Plummer with a certain sleazy charm.
If I were to nitpick at the film it would be to say that the film is running on fumes slightly by the last act. Many might be a little dismayed by the films villain and how the the final showdown is a little anti-climatic. With this said Pixar have become bigger than simple films about good and evil. UP is a film about making sure that the life you live is one worth living no matter what happens. A moral that a child can truly take to the bank.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Director: Bob Peterson & Pete Docter
Screenplay: Bob Peterson & Pete Docter
Starring: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai
Plot Synopsis is here
I'm not sure I've said it in my blog yet but I'm sure I've said it in real life; If mainstream Hollywood absorbed half of what Pixar does with every one of their films, then I would be in cinematic heaven. For me it's gone beyond how colourful there movies are, or how great the animation is. Their movies are now nothing short of what I want from ANY film let alone a family film. Today I watched a film which had a montage with more emotion and pathos then the entire 166 minutes of Benjamin Button. I saw action sequences with more invention and thrill behind them than your Fast and Furious' and enough humor to stand against the so-called best comedies of the year. Even then there's more to UP than what I've just said.
It's is hard to top the films sublime almost wordless first act, which details our protagonist and his regret beautifully (it features two of the most heartbreaking moments I've seen in a family film in a long time) but UP manages to maintain it's emotional connection until the end due to Pixar's belief in character and story. These are characters that ring true even if it's they're talking dogs. The filmmakers firmly believe there's a story to be told about a 78 year old man and they believe that people will want to watch it.
This is a story with grand themes of mortality, loss and living your dreams with well rounded characters with real hopes, fears and beliefs. It doesn't insult the viewers intelligence and sell them short. It doesn't just want to tell you the story visually (which it does with aplomb) it wishes to truly engage you with what it has to say about life and the human condition. Human Condition? You may ask.But at times, if it weren't for the more outlandish parts of the film and the bright colours, this could be high drama. UP may be considered a "kids film" but it's one which is brave enough to deal with the death of a family member head on. I admire the films wish not to conceal aspects of life that we must contemplate one day.
But the humor! Oh the humor! Real gags with actual timing! With most family films wringing comedy (celeb) voices for cheap laughs or reverting to bland pop culture for easy jokes, it's just heartwarming to see a film that can make you laugh because the characters are funny. It's not forced, it feels very real. I laughed out loud....a lot. But UP is one of those films.
It's also one of those films that shows true talent within the craft. Co-Directors Bob Peterson and Pete Docter bring about a dazzling array of visual images (bizarrely reminding myself of Herzog's Fitzcarraldo) that aren't just pretty because of the animation, but because they're beautifully staged and full of creativity. For me the house being lifted by balloons will be one of the definitive moments of my cinematic year.
The voice acting is once again top notch which Ed Asner carries the film effortlessly. It's a voice that sounds familiar but isn't really. It's also a layered performance, one not restricted to just grumpy and scared but one which completes the characters poignancy. Asner is aided by the perfectly goofy voice of Jordan Nagai, whose first film endeavor is a lovable one. The villain of the piece is played by Christopher Plummer with a certain sleazy charm.
If I were to nitpick at the film it would be to say that the film is running on fumes slightly by the last act. Many might be a little dismayed by the films villain and how the the final showdown is a little anti-climatic. With this said Pixar have become bigger than simple films about good and evil. UP is a film about making sure that the life you live is one worth living no matter what happens. A moral that a child can truly take to the bank.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)