Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Joanna Hogg
Screenplay: Joanna Hogg
Starring: Christopher Baker, Kate Fahy, Tom Hiddleston
Synopsis is here
I can honestly say this without a doubt...I don't know anyone I could recommend this movie to. I find this a bit of a shame because I would love to pick their brain. In fact saying that I enjoyed Archipelago almost has a shade of sadomasochist to it. The film itself is about a middle class family who have clearly spent years doing their best to pick each other apart. This is perhaps nothing new to some who were fans of films like American Beauty, The Ice Storm, Festen et all. However, such films have a certain element of warmth or connectivity to them. Archipelago has a chilliness as glacial as it's pace. For me its cold shoulder and British stiff upper lip is what makes the film so interesting.
Comparisons to Hanke and Bergman have been made and are very apt but gone is the dehumanization and existential crisis and is replaced with a repressed insecurity that only the British middle class could bring to proceedings. Hoggs film works best when it highlights those slight, recognizable intricacies that some families would love to hide.
Told in static, unwavering shots (combined with some beautiful blocking/framing of characters) Joanne Hogg sets and maintains the films focus and tone with remarkable precision. We learn much about these characters through their placement and coupling alone. Such aspects are important as despite it's naturalistic and often economic dialogue, most of the films kick comes from their restraint and body language. An example of this is Edward (Huddlestone) whose gawky stance and positioning constantly betray his feelings towards his other family members. It's also worth noting that one of the films domineering characters is an unseen, absent father who is given an eerie omnipresence by the family's one sided phone calls with him. The reason I bring this up is due to Edwards presence (or lack there of) when the calls are made. When the revelation that the family are on holiday for one last get together with Edward before he goes to Africa for 11 months, the lack of communication speak volumes.
Conversation with the film are often polite pleasantries, masking a bitterness and anxiety that's clearly been felt for years. Hogg manages to seize upon this aspect time and time again throughout. The films main highlight involving Edwards sister Cynthia (a wonderfully scrabulous Lydia Leonard), a restaurant and some cooked guinea fowl is not only a well observed moment of humor, but also a deftly timed release of restrained emotion that truly feels like it's been back up since the helicopter landed on the island. You get the feeling that the missing father micromanages every relationship within the family.
Archipelago is carefully handled affair with Joanna Hogg who makes use her own directional discipline to take hold of a family who has lost their own. It is a film without a "regular" narrative structure but this is a film that doesn't need one. Keeping us at an arms distance at all times, we can merely watch in cringe-worthy detail a brief moment in this family's life. We will never know what's made them this way, only speculate. You don't get the relief of a usual cliched ending you can only hope that things can get better. The film by no way perfect; it's pace is beyond slow, there characters are be no means likable and it suffers from a very irritating artist character whose pretensions are almost as insufferable as my own. But Hogg's ability to open a door to these people, stir such fascination about them before shutting us off with nothing but our own thoughts to ponder, allows Archipelago to be one of the most stimulating films I've taken in this years first quarter. I don't know anyone I can recommend this to, but those who have the patience may absorb much from viewing it.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Monday, 21 March 2011
Review: The Lincoln Lawyer
Year: 2011
Director: Brad Furman
Screenplay: John Romano
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillippe, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo, Michael Peña, Bryan Cranston, Bob Gunton
Synopsis is here:
The Lincoln Lawyer is an unfortunate soul, but not for the reasons one may think. Coming out in the middle of March with not much to contest it speaks volumes. The combination of Mr McConaughey's recent work (I've mostly seen him shilling smellys more than anything), first quarter dumping ground release and an oddly weak advertising campaign (the strongest marketing appears to be tweets over TV spots or anything else for that matter) seem to suggest that The Lincoln Lawyer isn't worth anyone's time. Someone could alert Lionsgate however to up their game slightly for the DVD release as The Lincoln Lawyer is quite the smooth operator.
The Lincoln Lawyer's premise has a certain appeal to it. I really enjoyed the idea of this "back seat" lawyer landing this highly unlikely case and seeing how well he can use his smarts to navigate the situation. It doesn't sound like much but the film sells this by giving us a formidable display from Matthew McConaughey. It's the charm he gives to this character that really drives the film throughout. We see him defending reprehensible scum but not without an admirable sense of justice. In a world where even in real life we enjoy trying to shoe horn everything into simple black and white, McConaughey manages to direct this character into the awkward crawl space that is the moral gray area, while keeping us on his side throughout. We are willing to follow Mick Haller as he is not only charismatic with where he takes us, but he is also smart. We want to see where this going because Haller moves forward logically and with a knowledge other lawyers may not have. You couldn't imagine the prosecution behaving in the way he does. The screenplay and McConaughey make this feel organic and unscripted. It's what you want from a character like this.
This does cause a few issues within the movie as the narrative wishes to tie everything up far too neatly and goes against what we've just seen. It's very frustrating watching how this man operates only for the plot to fall down, as it's not willing to follow through on it's own convictions. However considering the board scope of the proceedings it's understandable, as the film does suffer from tell-us-again syndrome. An example is one scene in which McConaughey and William H Macy twice mentioning information we could have easily worked out visually.
The films broadness doesn't mean boredom however, and the films execution (despite some oddly placed shutter speed moments) is always appealing. Brad Furman gives the look of the film enough flourish and keeps the moral issue in the forefront. Despite some of the narrative short comings; it is a courtroom thriller that mixes it's elements well enough to keep an eye on things until the end. McConaughey's turn plays well against the Beverly Hills bravado of Ryan Phillippe, an actor who doesn't get enough dues. To add to this, the large array of character actors on show here all do well with what they have to do despite one major role clearly being streamlined (Tomei) to "fit in".
The Lincoln Lawyer should hopefully find a good home on the DVD market where those who have avoided cinemas for various reasons will pick this up for a good Friday night without prejudice. With an overcrowded blockbuster season approaching quicker than one may expect, this maybe the one of the more interesting mainstream adult films that some may see in sometime.
Director: Brad Furman
Screenplay: John Romano
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillippe, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo, Michael Peña, Bryan Cranston, Bob Gunton
Synopsis is here:
The Lincoln Lawyer is an unfortunate soul, but not for the reasons one may think. Coming out in the middle of March with not much to contest it speaks volumes. The combination of Mr McConaughey's recent work (I've mostly seen him shilling smellys more than anything), first quarter dumping ground release and an oddly weak advertising campaign (the strongest marketing appears to be tweets over TV spots or anything else for that matter) seem to suggest that The Lincoln Lawyer isn't worth anyone's time. Someone could alert Lionsgate however to up their game slightly for the DVD release as The Lincoln Lawyer is quite the smooth operator.
The Lincoln Lawyer's premise has a certain appeal to it. I really enjoyed the idea of this "back seat" lawyer landing this highly unlikely case and seeing how well he can use his smarts to navigate the situation. It doesn't sound like much but the film sells this by giving us a formidable display from Matthew McConaughey. It's the charm he gives to this character that really drives the film throughout. We see him defending reprehensible scum but not without an admirable sense of justice. In a world where even in real life we enjoy trying to shoe horn everything into simple black and white, McConaughey manages to direct this character into the awkward crawl space that is the moral gray area, while keeping us on his side throughout. We are willing to follow Mick Haller as he is not only charismatic with where he takes us, but he is also smart. We want to see where this going because Haller moves forward logically and with a knowledge other lawyers may not have. You couldn't imagine the prosecution behaving in the way he does. The screenplay and McConaughey make this feel organic and unscripted. It's what you want from a character like this.
This does cause a few issues within the movie as the narrative wishes to tie everything up far too neatly and goes against what we've just seen. It's very frustrating watching how this man operates only for the plot to fall down, as it's not willing to follow through on it's own convictions. However considering the board scope of the proceedings it's understandable, as the film does suffer from tell-us-again syndrome. An example is one scene in which McConaughey and William H Macy twice mentioning information we could have easily worked out visually.
The films broadness doesn't mean boredom however, and the films execution (despite some oddly placed shutter speed moments) is always appealing. Brad Furman gives the look of the film enough flourish and keeps the moral issue in the forefront. Despite some of the narrative short comings; it is a courtroom thriller that mixes it's elements well enough to keep an eye on things until the end. McConaughey's turn plays well against the Beverly Hills bravado of Ryan Phillippe, an actor who doesn't get enough dues. To add to this, the large array of character actors on show here all do well with what they have to do despite one major role clearly being streamlined (Tomei) to "fit in".
The Lincoln Lawyer should hopefully find a good home on the DVD market where those who have avoided cinemas for various reasons will pick this up for a good Friday night without prejudice. With an overcrowded blockbuster season approaching quicker than one may expect, this maybe the one of the more interesting mainstream adult films that some may see in sometime.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Review: Inside Job
Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon
Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.
Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.
The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.
What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.
For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon
Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.
Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.
The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.
What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.
For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Review: Battle: Los Angeles
Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez
Synopsis is here:
One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.
Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.
One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.
Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.
In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care.
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez
Synopsis is here:
One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.
Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.
One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.
Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.
In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Review: Unknown
Year: 2011
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Screenplay: Oliver Butcher, Stephen Cornwell
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones
Synopsis is here:
If films could fight, I'm guessing Unknown would be the blood stained aftermath of Total Recall and Frantic smacking each other for almost two hours. The problem is as much as that as much as I wouldn't mind this idea in my own twisted mind; Unknown is too sanitized for it's own good. Oh the violence is there but while Frantic had a certain sense of despair throughout; and Total Recall's OTT story was matched by it's ambiguity. Unknown slips through those gaps leaving us with quite a mediocre affair. The marketing/casting suggests a follow on to Taken, however, Unknown is no way near as kinetic, nor as fun. It is twice as ludicrous though so there's that.
I had two problems with Taken. The first is the pacing, which is not quick enough to wrap someone up into the film's character, his situation or any of the red herrings put in place. Unknown runs (quite slowly) on rails and it doesn't help that it borrows way too much off Frantic (which I had unfortunately seen quite recently) to not only make its thrills its own but to actually distract you. If you do thrillers well then you know exactly where this film is going...before the characters. Far too often people were introduced into the mix and I had their conclusions planned out way before they said their first line.
The second issue is I kept asking why. Too many times things just didn't add up and the script and the direction do nothing to not only wrap the right elements up (there is a BIG change of heart that really doesn't ring true) but do nothing to make you forget these lapses in logic. Nor does the film patch over them. If your thinking there's enough action to help you brush past such things, your wrong. So when everything builds to it's climax I found myself laughing my backside off.
What I didn't find funny however is the wastefulness of the cast on screen. Everyone on screen aren't bad, but they bring nothing to the material. It's almost as if they are just as dissatisfied with the script as I was. The biggest upset for me was January Jones; an actress that's starting to make waves due to Mad Men, who've I've not seen in any substantial role as of yet. Unknown makes sure that I still have not.
As mentioned before, Unknown reminded me more of Frantic than Taken. However, Frantic was a film placed in the hands of a man who made two men, one woman, a boat and a knife thrilling. Unknown doesn't really care about turning the screw and it really shows.
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Screenplay: Oliver Butcher, Stephen Cornwell
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones
Synopsis is here:
If films could fight, I'm guessing Unknown would be the blood stained aftermath of Total Recall and Frantic smacking each other for almost two hours. The problem is as much as that as much as I wouldn't mind this idea in my own twisted mind; Unknown is too sanitized for it's own good. Oh the violence is there but while Frantic had a certain sense of despair throughout; and Total Recall's OTT story was matched by it's ambiguity. Unknown slips through those gaps leaving us with quite a mediocre affair. The marketing/casting suggests a follow on to Taken, however, Unknown is no way near as kinetic, nor as fun. It is twice as ludicrous though so there's that.
I had two problems with Taken. The first is the pacing, which is not quick enough to wrap someone up into the film's character, his situation or any of the red herrings put in place. Unknown runs (quite slowly) on rails and it doesn't help that it borrows way too much off Frantic (which I had unfortunately seen quite recently) to not only make its thrills its own but to actually distract you. If you do thrillers well then you know exactly where this film is going...before the characters. Far too often people were introduced into the mix and I had their conclusions planned out way before they said their first line.
The second issue is I kept asking why. Too many times things just didn't add up and the script and the direction do nothing to not only wrap the right elements up (there is a BIG change of heart that really doesn't ring true) but do nothing to make you forget these lapses in logic. Nor does the film patch over them. If your thinking there's enough action to help you brush past such things, your wrong. So when everything builds to it's climax I found myself laughing my backside off.
What I didn't find funny however is the wastefulness of the cast on screen. Everyone on screen aren't bad, but they bring nothing to the material. It's almost as if they are just as dissatisfied with the script as I was. The biggest upset for me was January Jones; an actress that's starting to make waves due to Mad Men, who've I've not seen in any substantial role as of yet. Unknown makes sure that I still have not.
As mentioned before, Unknown reminded me more of Frantic than Taken. However, Frantic was a film placed in the hands of a man who made two men, one woman, a boat and a knife thrilling. Unknown doesn't really care about turning the screw and it really shows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)