Year: 2011
Director: Rupert Wyatt
Screenplay: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver
Starring: James Franco, Frida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, David Oyelowo
Synopsis is here
Once again this oddball glut of summer films has surprised me. I had no expectations for Rise of the Planet of the apes at all, neither high or low. Coming out nearer the back end of the summer after all the bigger films have had their way, ROTPOTA looked lucky to just be hanging out with the so called big boys. The trailer didn't look like anything special, while a small part of my brain kept reminding me that it's a reboot of a franchise, whose last entry nearly killed it's chances of survival (and may have cause the whole reboot mania to some ) due to it's frustrating ending and mixed critical praise (it was successful at the box office however). I was merely hoping that ROTPOTA didn't go the way of Burton's dry and tasteless re-imaging.
It turns out that Rupert Wyatt and his screenwriters have really looked into what they could do to make sure that there film didn't feel like a cynical cash grab. In fact by the time we reach the films strikingly kinetic Golden gate Bridge climax, I had released that my mouth had dropped more than once. This is a film that brings it's preposterous spectacle to the foreground (some brilliant CGI effects from Weta) but doesn't do so at the sacrifice of story or emotion. Throughout the film I found myself constantly wanted to know what happens next to Caesar (Andy Serkis once again bringing his ape knowledge and skills to much aplomb) and where this story was going to take me. It's very clear from the overlong title alone that the film is looking for sequels, however Wyatt's film tell the tale of nature going awry with a visual sharpness and zeal that i found missing from other summer hits that concentrated on stunts alone.
I loved how Caesar's tale is crafted and how his relationships between humans and other apes slowly shifts and shapes itself. The politics within the film are pretty basic but what the film lacks in hard talk is made up with expression. This film could have easily had Caesar as a flat character with only anger as his only characteristic. The performance from Serkis and the writing avoid this. We not only feel for Caesar and his persecution from his aggressors but we also condone his actions against his ignorant "owner". Despite being underwritten Franco makes sure that his role of Will has enough nativity within it to make the choices made by Caesar believable ones. It is a shame however that despite this, the human characters are so awkwardly shoehorned into the film. Freida Pinto is pushed into a sensible eye candy role spouting typical voice of reason quotes while Brian Cox (the best Hannibal Lecktor) has played better antagonists in his sleep the less said about Tom Felton the better.
The film is all about the apes and to be fair, this isn't too much of a bad thing. As the film slowly places the foundation for a bigger picture in the background (involving space shuttles and viruses no doubt) we get to see the sociological aspects build within the society of the apes and it's already interesting to see the friendships created and where the cracks will show. Not only that, but the film's visuals of the apes may show how heavily the film relies upon CGI, but the wide open spaces and forest surroundings that allow the apes to run rampant is exhilarating. The set pieces are vigorous with their pace and the film may be light on more complex politics, its heavy on delivering an exciting blockbuster about nature going awry. When things kick off, I was never disinterested. This combined with the films decent storytelling has made for me ROTPOTA one of the more compelling blockbusters this year.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
Review: Essential Killing
Year: 2010 (UK Release 2011)
Director: Jerzy Skolimowski
Screenplay: Ewa Piaskowska, Jerzy Skolimowski
Starring: Vincent Gallo
The synopsis is here
Writer, Director, Painter, Musican and resident nutjob Vincent Gallo reminds me of Roman Polanski; in that despite some of his more bizarre actions (also includes hexing Roger Ebert and now no longer showing his films to a public audience), his talent is something I cannot ignore. As a writer/director his indie feature Buffalo 66 (1998) is one of the most alluring American independents of recent times. To me Gallo is that worst type of person in which his ego is only matched by his talent....and his ego is pretty huge.
Essential Killing has an extreme person like Gallo running through the wilds of an unnamed European country, trying desperately to escape his captors and survive the harsh terrain ahead of him. It's quite obvious with a little knowledge of the man and the way this film starts; with Gallo's character blowing three U.S soldiers sky high with a rocket launcher mounted on his shoulder, the man is clearly in his element.
Essential Killing is all about Gallos favourite subject, himself. This isn't a bad thing however because his prize winning performance is one of knife edge intensity. Gallo's sharp features and could-be-from-anywhere face only bolster his compelling (yet muted) display. I love watching acting like this as to me it truly becomes about the performance. The setting, the situation, the desperation and the unbridled need to continue on, is played out within the face and not with trite dialogue. It's great to cleanse the palate with a film like Essential Killing; as while the character is not complex in the slightest (the streamlined plot restricts this), the expressions speak volumes. It reminds me how often I'm trying to keep up with "lets do this to do that" strands of dialogue.
Jerzy Skolimowski complements Gallo's performance with crisp cinematography which highlights the unforgiving landscape as the bright blue skies of an unknown area of the middle east gave way to a vast blanketed winterland scenery of white. the only food appears to be bark and berries and almost any interaction with other people alludes to the films title, although the film isn't as gruesome as you would expect. Skolimowski's wisest decision is to keep the film as apolitical as he could. We merely observe an Arab insurgent trying to survive in alien surrounding and the lack of a agenda illustrates the fight or flee nature we are all hardwired into and yet take for granted.
The film does spill over into abstract weirdness at times, and we are given prolonged moose shots, hallucinations of dogs (appearing almost like nightmarish echoes of Guantanamo) and at one point the lead character having to suckle a woman's breast at gunpoint for the milk that she was feeding her child. Despite this, the tale of extreme survival of this foreign "alien" in a no man's land (no real geography places us in the same disorientated state as the lead character) kept me at attention. The films foreshadowing brings forth a feel of doom (maybe) but at no point do we feel this man's tale is truly on tracks.
The films abrupt climax will madden some and attract others but in order to get the most out of it, and the film as a whole, one must remember the old cliché that it may not be about the destination but the journey. While I may revel in such commonplace writings, Essential Killing and Gallo's intense performance remind us that cliché is definitely not what the man's about.
Director: Jerzy Skolimowski
Screenplay: Ewa Piaskowska, Jerzy Skolimowski
Starring: Vincent Gallo
The synopsis is here
Writer, Director, Painter, Musican and resident nutjob Vincent Gallo reminds me of Roman Polanski; in that despite some of his more bizarre actions (also includes hexing Roger Ebert and now no longer showing his films to a public audience), his talent is something I cannot ignore. As a writer/director his indie feature Buffalo 66 (1998) is one of the most alluring American independents of recent times. To me Gallo is that worst type of person in which his ego is only matched by his talent....and his ego is pretty huge.
Essential Killing has an extreme person like Gallo running through the wilds of an unnamed European country, trying desperately to escape his captors and survive the harsh terrain ahead of him. It's quite obvious with a little knowledge of the man and the way this film starts; with Gallo's character blowing three U.S soldiers sky high with a rocket launcher mounted on his shoulder, the man is clearly in his element.
Essential Killing is all about Gallos favourite subject, himself. This isn't a bad thing however because his prize winning performance is one of knife edge intensity. Gallo's sharp features and could-be-from-anywhere face only bolster his compelling (yet muted) display. I love watching acting like this as to me it truly becomes about the performance. The setting, the situation, the desperation and the unbridled need to continue on, is played out within the face and not with trite dialogue. It's great to cleanse the palate with a film like Essential Killing; as while the character is not complex in the slightest (the streamlined plot restricts this), the expressions speak volumes. It reminds me how often I'm trying to keep up with "lets do this to do that" strands of dialogue.
Jerzy Skolimowski complements Gallo's performance with crisp cinematography which highlights the unforgiving landscape as the bright blue skies of an unknown area of the middle east gave way to a vast blanketed winterland scenery of white. the only food appears to be bark and berries and almost any interaction with other people alludes to the films title, although the film isn't as gruesome as you would expect. Skolimowski's wisest decision is to keep the film as apolitical as he could. We merely observe an Arab insurgent trying to survive in alien surrounding and the lack of a agenda illustrates the fight or flee nature we are all hardwired into and yet take for granted.
The film does spill over into abstract weirdness at times, and we are given prolonged moose shots, hallucinations of dogs (appearing almost like nightmarish echoes of Guantanamo) and at one point the lead character having to suckle a woman's breast at gunpoint for the milk that she was feeding her child. Despite this, the tale of extreme survival of this foreign "alien" in a no man's land (no real geography places us in the same disorientated state as the lead character) kept me at attention. The films foreshadowing brings forth a feel of doom (maybe) but at no point do we feel this man's tale is truly on tracks.
The films abrupt climax will madden some and attract others but in order to get the most out of it, and the film as a whole, one must remember the old cliché that it may not be about the destination but the journey. While I may revel in such commonplace writings, Essential Killing and Gallo's intense performance remind us that cliché is definitely not what the man's about.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Review: Super 8
Year: 2011
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: JJ Abrams
Starring: Amanda Michalka, Elle Fanning, Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Noah Emmerich, Riley Griffiths, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills
Synopsis is here:
Note: A part of my review doesn't reveal any plot points but it does give a slight description of the films creature. Might spoil. Been Warned
Maybe it's the amount of expectation that Super 8 (one of them there original screenplays) brought with it, once people knew of it's conception. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm the kind of Spielberg fan that has no problem with Tom Hanks and his dodgy accent (The Terminal), or the general oddball awkwardness of a grown up Pan (Hook). However something with Super 8 doesn't sit right. The films mixture of JJ Abrams and Spielberg sensibilities don't quite gel completely for me.
I didn't not dislike the film as there's a lot of fun to be had with the films dialogue, the chemistry of the young cast and a bit of the mystery, but Abrams stylistic ticks (think lens flare), a meandering second act (12 minutes shorter than Captain America but strangely feels longer) and the films wish to be a Spielberg movie so much that it almost feels slightly too conscious of the fact, somewhat damage the affair slightly. I am reminded of Paul whose pop culture references to the movie brat are plenty but are utilised in a far more playful matter. Super 8's DNA is almost inherently Spielberg from the Single minded, stubborn, and/or separated father figures to the gang of kids and their Goonie like manner.
And yet something is missing slightly. The family relationships are the same in structure but don't feel as developed in their scenes. The kids (one or two feeling a tad more one-note than even their 80's counterparts) look the part but seem to be missing that little touch that Spielberg films have. I am definitely in the minority here but these guys over Thud Butt, Rufio and rest of the lost boys? Not so sure.
It's definitely not all bad as the cast that's put in place are certainly fun to be with. Abrams introduces us to these guys well enough and they may not be the most remarkable pre-teens in a Spielberg universe but they have the right amount of energy. It also helps that any time love interest Elle Fanning (also brilliant in Somewhere) is on screen, she shines. The cast help set up the films exciting first act a treat, with Abrams giving us a chaotic train crash that doesn't better the destruction of Hogwarts but does well to show the intent.
It's unfortunate that nothing matches this opening gambit. It's a big way to open the film and the material struggles to to maintain the momentum. The second act is patchy in it's pacing and features the kind of cliffhangers that persuaded me to stop wondering about the those Oceanic guys who crashed on that crazy island. Abrams tries hard to keep us on tenderhooks with some decent enough 12a scares and some neat moments but as we make our way towards the finishing point the end of the mystery and the emotional payoff is weak. When I think of the aliens that have appeared in Spielberg movies, I'm always reminded of how memorable that are, through sound (Close encounters) or look (ET, War of the worlds). The revelation we see here feels much like a left over design of a certain other Abrams involved feature.
But this is the hand we are dealt. The Amblin sign crops up cheerfully at the beginning of the movie but nothing comes up as strong. Everything is competent and faithful and that seems to be enough here. Super 8's ending belies my main problem with the film that although everything seems to be in the right place, the heart isn't given the emotional twack that you'd get if the executive producer was the director.
Despite my issues with the film there is an innocence within the film that a miserable blogger like I really cannot knock. When asked what he's doing; the wide eyed lead proclaims as clear as day "I'm trying my best to save your life". When Super 8 falls on those little moments you can feel the 'berg watching over
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: JJ Abrams
Starring: Amanda Michalka, Elle Fanning, Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Noah Emmerich, Riley Griffiths, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills
Synopsis is here:
Note: A part of my review doesn't reveal any plot points but it does give a slight description of the films creature. Might spoil. Been Warned
Maybe it's the amount of expectation that Super 8 (one of them there original screenplays) brought with it, once people knew of it's conception. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm the kind of Spielberg fan that has no problem with Tom Hanks and his dodgy accent (The Terminal), or the general oddball awkwardness of a grown up Pan (Hook). However something with Super 8 doesn't sit right. The films mixture of JJ Abrams and Spielberg sensibilities don't quite gel completely for me.
I didn't not dislike the film as there's a lot of fun to be had with the films dialogue, the chemistry of the young cast and a bit of the mystery, but Abrams stylistic ticks (think lens flare), a meandering second act (12 minutes shorter than Captain America but strangely feels longer) and the films wish to be a Spielberg movie so much that it almost feels slightly too conscious of the fact, somewhat damage the affair slightly. I am reminded of Paul whose pop culture references to the movie brat are plenty but are utilised in a far more playful matter. Super 8's DNA is almost inherently Spielberg from the Single minded, stubborn, and/or separated father figures to the gang of kids and their Goonie like manner.
And yet something is missing slightly. The family relationships are the same in structure but don't feel as developed in their scenes. The kids (one or two feeling a tad more one-note than even their 80's counterparts) look the part but seem to be missing that little touch that Spielberg films have. I am definitely in the minority here but these guys over Thud Butt, Rufio and rest of the lost boys? Not so sure.
It's definitely not all bad as the cast that's put in place are certainly fun to be with. Abrams introduces us to these guys well enough and they may not be the most remarkable pre-teens in a Spielberg universe but they have the right amount of energy. It also helps that any time love interest Elle Fanning (also brilliant in Somewhere) is on screen, she shines. The cast help set up the films exciting first act a treat, with Abrams giving us a chaotic train crash that doesn't better the destruction of Hogwarts but does well to show the intent.
It's unfortunate that nothing matches this opening gambit. It's a big way to open the film and the material struggles to to maintain the momentum. The second act is patchy in it's pacing and features the kind of cliffhangers that persuaded me to stop wondering about the those Oceanic guys who crashed on that crazy island. Abrams tries hard to keep us on tenderhooks with some decent enough 12a scares and some neat moments but as we make our way towards the finishing point the end of the mystery and the emotional payoff is weak. When I think of the aliens that have appeared in Spielberg movies, I'm always reminded of how memorable that are, through sound (Close encounters) or look (ET, War of the worlds). The revelation we see here feels much like a left over design of a certain other Abrams involved feature.
But this is the hand we are dealt. The Amblin sign crops up cheerfully at the beginning of the movie but nothing comes up as strong. Everything is competent and faithful and that seems to be enough here. Super 8's ending belies my main problem with the film that although everything seems to be in the right place, the heart isn't given the emotional twack that you'd get if the executive producer was the director.
Despite my issues with the film there is an innocence within the film that a miserable blogger like I really cannot knock. When asked what he's doing; the wide eyed lead proclaims as clear as day "I'm trying my best to save your life". When Super 8 falls on those little moments you can feel the 'berg watching over
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Review: Captain America: The First Avenger
Year: 2011
Director: Joe Johnston
Screenplay: Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci
Synopsis is here:
Captain America brought a warming sensation to me after I watched it. Here is a movie that is just as earnest as Tree of Life, but this is no art-house feature. No, this is a comic book movie in which you'd think some audiences are probably getting slightly tired of seeing. There's the origin story here, the fresh faced hero there and everything else that comes pre packaged with these marvel flicks.
The interesting prospect here is that this not only a film that feels more well rounded than some of it's brothers and sisters (although it clearly has an eye on the upcoming avengers movie next year), but the films innocence in it's portrayal of it's character and the telling of his plight is so fresh at a time where we're now seeing all our heroes being "dark" "gritty" and more importantly, cynical. I won't be surprised if the biggest defenders of the Transformers movies sneer at the old fashioned aw shucks nature of the Capts exploits, but there's something joyfully upstanding seeing this heroes pluck over the wise ass antics of Sam Witwicky or even The Dark Knights angst.
The reason the film work for me is that the storytelling, set pieces and cast were as straight forward as the Captain himself. It's a shame that the spectacle aren't as big or memorable as one would have hoped, but that's not really the point. Here we're given a righteous and mature hero who is willing to pull us through his adventure. His guts are what makes the character raise above so many of the reluctant protagonists that have plodded through their tales, generally being told what to do and how to do it. The fact that Captain America places his life in his own hands as much as he does is invigorating. It helps that Chris Evans' honest and hopeful portrayal of the character is one that Henry Cavill and the DC camp may do well with pinching. Evans sells truth, justice and the american way well. He also sells some decent chemistry with the spunky Hayley Atwell whose role of love interest is part of her but doesn't define her (compare her character to poor Blake Lively's in Green Lantern) . Although she and the some of the supporting cast (a criminally wasted Neal McDonough) don't get enough time to truly show themselves off.
It is a shame that despite all the good that the Capt does, with the wonderful sepia toned 1940's setting and Joe Johnston's pulpy execution of it all, that the Captain's villain isn't as villainous as he is virtuous. Due to the Captain's commitments to The Avengers movie we get an evil doer whose more of a figurehead than a fully formed character.The Red Skull has the right look and actor (A delectably scene chewing Weaving) behind him but hardly any anything else. We sense Captain Americas heart and by the films last words I was right behind him However will it comes to the evil he has to face I was severely underwhelmed. I understand that this is the beginnings of a regime that should be more evil than the Nazis, but why don't we see it? They have the power but there's very little demonstration. But then I say this about a film that has two montages of Captain America in action to substitute more intricate set pieces. Why? Because Capt's big film will be The Avengers. With such a cloud looming over the film we see a Captain America film that shoots from the hip but is also streamlined due to other commitments.
It seems that much of what Matt Singer (IFC) says is right. Marvel seem far to bothered about what's next to truly invest on the singular efforts. This is not to say that Captain America isn't good. It's bold, brash, old serial way of film making is refreshing and fun and I can't say I didn't leave with a smile on my face (I even didn't mind it in 3D and that says a lot) The problem is Marvels constant Brand pushing short changes a film which is entertaining on its own right. Unfortunately the movie is held back from truly being the best it can be. Captain America himself, really would expect more.
Director: Joe Johnston
Screenplay: Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci
Synopsis is here:
Captain America brought a warming sensation to me after I watched it. Here is a movie that is just as earnest as Tree of Life, but this is no art-house feature. No, this is a comic book movie in which you'd think some audiences are probably getting slightly tired of seeing. There's the origin story here, the fresh faced hero there and everything else that comes pre packaged with these marvel flicks.
The interesting prospect here is that this not only a film that feels more well rounded than some of it's brothers and sisters (although it clearly has an eye on the upcoming avengers movie next year), but the films innocence in it's portrayal of it's character and the telling of his plight is so fresh at a time where we're now seeing all our heroes being "dark" "gritty" and more importantly, cynical. I won't be surprised if the biggest defenders of the Transformers movies sneer at the old fashioned aw shucks nature of the Capts exploits, but there's something joyfully upstanding seeing this heroes pluck over the wise ass antics of Sam Witwicky or even The Dark Knights angst.
The reason the film work for me is that the storytelling, set pieces and cast were as straight forward as the Captain himself. It's a shame that the spectacle aren't as big or memorable as one would have hoped, but that's not really the point. Here we're given a righteous and mature hero who is willing to pull us through his adventure. His guts are what makes the character raise above so many of the reluctant protagonists that have plodded through their tales, generally being told what to do and how to do it. The fact that Captain America places his life in his own hands as much as he does is invigorating. It helps that Chris Evans' honest and hopeful portrayal of the character is one that Henry Cavill and the DC camp may do well with pinching. Evans sells truth, justice and the american way well. He also sells some decent chemistry with the spunky Hayley Atwell whose role of love interest is part of her but doesn't define her (compare her character to poor Blake Lively's in Green Lantern) . Although she and the some of the supporting cast (a criminally wasted Neal McDonough) don't get enough time to truly show themselves off.
It is a shame that despite all the good that the Capt does, with the wonderful sepia toned 1940's setting and Joe Johnston's pulpy execution of it all, that the Captain's villain isn't as villainous as he is virtuous. Due to the Captain's commitments to The Avengers movie we get an evil doer whose more of a figurehead than a fully formed character.The Red Skull has the right look and actor (A delectably scene chewing Weaving) behind him but hardly any anything else. We sense Captain Americas heart and by the films last words I was right behind him However will it comes to the evil he has to face I was severely underwhelmed. I understand that this is the beginnings of a regime that should be more evil than the Nazis, but why don't we see it? They have the power but there's very little demonstration. But then I say this about a film that has two montages of Captain America in action to substitute more intricate set pieces. Why? Because Capt's big film will be The Avengers. With such a cloud looming over the film we see a Captain America film that shoots from the hip but is also streamlined due to other commitments.
It seems that much of what Matt Singer (IFC) says is right. Marvel seem far to bothered about what's next to truly invest on the singular efforts. This is not to say that Captain America isn't good. It's bold, brash, old serial way of film making is refreshing and fun and I can't say I didn't leave with a smile on my face (I even didn't mind it in 3D and that says a lot) The problem is Marvels constant Brand pushing short changes a film which is entertaining on its own right. Unfortunately the movie is held back from truly being the best it can be. Captain America himself, really would expect more.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Review: Tree of Life
Year: 2011
Director: Terrence Malick
Screenplay: Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn
Synopsis is here
Tree of life is not a movie.Not in the conventional sense anyway. A friend of mine went to see it and absolutely hated it* and I can fully appreciate and understand why. I did wonder why she went to see it in the first place. She has a distinct dislike for most art house films and has found herself burned on many occasions due to having one of those fancy pants view as much as you want cards. My argument to that is if your allergic to shellfish, then it's best to avoid the prawns even if it is all you can eat.
I digress and so does Tree of Life which is an epic, sprawling mosaic of a film, fuelled by an ambition that many would like to see again in more modern movies. It wants to ask the big questions and does so with a boldness that has reminded many of Kubrick's 2001. Nature versus nurture, loss, grief, disappointment in father figures, disappointment in living up to father figures, the search of god, the search for meaning, all of this is placed on the backdrop of the very creation of life itself. This is deployed with a fractured, non-liner narrative fuelled with expressionistic close-ups and rhythmic jump cuts.
The outcome of this is a film likened more to an art installation more than anything else. It's also a big ask of the audience to follow Malick down the rabbit hole, as the film is executed in such a way it demands you to make your own assumptions about what you see. The first impression is likely to be one of pretension. With everything the film wishes to say, its whispered word narration which questions the whereabouts of God (the film also starts with a biblical quote from Job) and it's classical music soundtrack. While grandstanding I didn't feel that the ideas put forth were above it's station so to speak. The film has an earnestness that is so hard to come by. The childhood scenes invoke those memories of identity and that trying to figure everything out that every child goes through. The moment we discover that Jack's brother has died** instead of drawn out overwrought scenes of pain that we see in many movies (see say Mystic River) we see the disjointed response that is remembered and considered through memory. What makes these scene work for me is how they call upon my own memories of family and loss. There's something in the film's combination of visuals and music that managed to tap into something within my own psyche and burrowed itself under my skin. Mr O' Brian (a subdued yet commanding performance by Pitt) has elements that mirror my own father to such a point it's frightening while Jessica Chastain's angelic Mrs O'Brien is filmed in a way which reminds me of how I view my grandmother. There's a personal and emotional resonance that comes with the film that effected me deeply. I strongest suspect that not everyone will feel this and I also don't believe everyone will want it either, but all in all it is that aspect that drove the film home for me.
Reviews for Tree of Life have been using the words hymn, operatic and symphony to describe it and that alone should help a doubting viewer decided on if it is the film for them. This isn't a film that entertains and that will put off many who may have paid money to see the new Brad Pitt movie. The fragmented collection of images are more like a piece of music than any typical movie we usually see. I fully understand why some will hate it, more than any other film but for me generates an unbelievably personal response and I also believe it won't be the same for everyone. The film is at times unbelievably grandstanding, and at times a much of a muchness. It meanders and anyone who mostly watches more Hollywood based affair will probably be driven mad with it's construction.
I however found the film deeply involving and visually sublime (I can't think of another film that looks this good), the film performances are brilliant (although one may ask Sean Penn...why exactly?) the big questions are asked with earnestness and honestly and those who are willing to give it time and space and allow the film to wash over you (pompous I know) may find themselves being effected by it in some way. An art film in the purest form I found The Tree of Life an absorbing artistic statement
*She only saw one third of the film due to a tech error so her opinion is void
**We find this out early and is the main drive for the film's "plot"
Director: Terrence Malick
Screenplay: Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn
Synopsis is here
Tree of life is not a movie.Not in the conventional sense anyway. A friend of mine went to see it and absolutely hated it* and I can fully appreciate and understand why. I did wonder why she went to see it in the first place. She has a distinct dislike for most art house films and has found herself burned on many occasions due to having one of those fancy pants view as much as you want cards. My argument to that is if your allergic to shellfish, then it's best to avoid the prawns even if it is all you can eat.
I digress and so does Tree of Life which is an epic, sprawling mosaic of a film, fuelled by an ambition that many would like to see again in more modern movies. It wants to ask the big questions and does so with a boldness that has reminded many of Kubrick's 2001. Nature versus nurture, loss, grief, disappointment in father figures, disappointment in living up to father figures, the search of god, the search for meaning, all of this is placed on the backdrop of the very creation of life itself. This is deployed with a fractured, non-liner narrative fuelled with expressionistic close-ups and rhythmic jump cuts.
The outcome of this is a film likened more to an art installation more than anything else. It's also a big ask of the audience to follow Malick down the rabbit hole, as the film is executed in such a way it demands you to make your own assumptions about what you see. The first impression is likely to be one of pretension. With everything the film wishes to say, its whispered word narration which questions the whereabouts of God (the film also starts with a biblical quote from Job) and it's classical music soundtrack. While grandstanding I didn't feel that the ideas put forth were above it's station so to speak. The film has an earnestness that is so hard to come by. The childhood scenes invoke those memories of identity and that trying to figure everything out that every child goes through. The moment we discover that Jack's brother has died** instead of drawn out overwrought scenes of pain that we see in many movies (see say Mystic River) we see the disjointed response that is remembered and considered through memory. What makes these scene work for me is how they call upon my own memories of family and loss. There's something in the film's combination of visuals and music that managed to tap into something within my own psyche and burrowed itself under my skin. Mr O' Brian (a subdued yet commanding performance by Pitt) has elements that mirror my own father to such a point it's frightening while Jessica Chastain's angelic Mrs O'Brien is filmed in a way which reminds me of how I view my grandmother. There's a personal and emotional resonance that comes with the film that effected me deeply. I strongest suspect that not everyone will feel this and I also don't believe everyone will want it either, but all in all it is that aspect that drove the film home for me.
Reviews for Tree of Life have been using the words hymn, operatic and symphony to describe it and that alone should help a doubting viewer decided on if it is the film for them. This isn't a film that entertains and that will put off many who may have paid money to see the new Brad Pitt movie. The fragmented collection of images are more like a piece of music than any typical movie we usually see. I fully understand why some will hate it, more than any other film but for me generates an unbelievably personal response and I also believe it won't be the same for everyone. The film is at times unbelievably grandstanding, and at times a much of a muchness. It meanders and anyone who mostly watches more Hollywood based affair will probably be driven mad with it's construction.
I however found the film deeply involving and visually sublime (I can't think of another film that looks this good), the film performances are brilliant (although one may ask Sean Penn...why exactly?) the big questions are asked with earnestness and honestly and those who are willing to give it time and space and allow the film to wash over you (pompous I know) may find themselves being effected by it in some way. An art film in the purest form I found The Tree of Life an absorbing artistic statement
*She only saw one third of the film due to a tech error so her opinion is void
**We find this out early and is the main drive for the film's "plot"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)