Year: 2011
Director: Seth Gordon
Screenplay: Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley, Jonathan M. Goldstein
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Colin Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey
Synopsis is here
As someone who is usually easily amused at pretty much everything, it's a shame that I'm so dismayed at the mainstream American comedy. Sitting through Horrible Bosses only confirmed my fears. Negative grumbling's have stated that the film is racist and homophobic. I didn't think so; and as a dark comedy, I expect a film like this to go down paths that are a little risky. The troubling thing about Horrible Bosses is it's not outrageous enough, from it's pretty bland straight characters to it's lacklustre, quickly hashed out ending, the film just doesn't push the bar high enough. I'm not the biggest Hangover 2 fan, but despite the spitefulness that infiltrates that movie, it gets the point.
Take in case the man eating, boss character of Jennifer Aniston. The film does well to show off how well Aniston looks after herself. In fact at points I found her more attractive here then when she was younger in friends. But her sexiness distracts from her point in the movie. In the same way you're not fooled when Rachel Leigh Cook puts on her hipster glasses and claims nerd, you find it near hard to believe that Day's character is completely turned off by Aniston's advances. It would be more entertaining if we had some one you could consider less attractive. I may be wrong in saying that but I do feel more comedy could be pulled from Charlie Days revulsion if the antagonist wasn't a smoking hot babe. Think Matt Lucas' Bubbles in Little Britain.
In fact I found myself relating Horrible Bosses to some of the brilliant comedies that grace our screens now. Shows that are quicker with the jokes, push the bars of taste and decency further and are generally more amusing than their cinematic counterparts. A barrage of shows including Charlie Day's own It's always sunny in Philadelphia, hit their comedic marks harder than this 9 to 5 update. I pick Day's show not only because of the connection of line crossing comedy, but because Day's Pilot for It's always sunny cost $200 and was far more amusing with it's envelope pushing.
This isn't to say the film has it's moments. Despite undermining the comedy somewhat, Aniston is clearly game for a laugh, as is Farrell who both make the best out of their somewhat marginalised plots. It's obvious however that it's Spacey who has the most fun however, as he eats up his ignorant, arrogant asshole character with an extra large spoon. The three antagonist are infinitely more entertaining than the straight men who are difficult to even picture as friends let alone anything else. It's not that Bateman, Sudeikis or Day are particularly bad, it's just that they are bland. Take away some admittedly amusing, awkward scenes involving a certain Oscar winning actor and you realise that there's not that much that the trio take to the party.
Horrible Bosses is underbaked and forgettable and unfortunately comes at a time in which Television is bringing stronger, more outlandish, dark humour which are better with the references and does nasty right. A night in with a good series weighs in far better than this weak entry.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Review: Melancholia
Year: 2011
Director: Lars Von Trier
Screenplay: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland
Synopsis is here
From nowhere; this celestial boulder, Melancholia appears from behind the sun and hurtles towards earth. When it connects, all life will be extinguished. Kirsten Dunst's Justine doesn't care, in fact for the most part this seems to be an afterthought. Reason being, it's clearly obvious that she's been dealing with a crushing pressure all her life.
Lars Von Triers' Antichrist was; for me, an excruciating bore. A beautiful; yet hideously unfocused piece, which tried too hard with it's Grand Guignol bloodletting and academic pandering to be involving in anyway. I still stand by my claim that many horror directors get slightest by some of the same things Von Trier placed on the table, and yet because of all the talk about thesis and the gorgeous visuals of the piece, the Dane gets a pass. Many will disagree with me there, but I'm digressing.
Melancholia is at times just as visually arresting as Antichrist, but is a far more precise being. Von Trier is far more accurate here and one of the reasons seems to be that the subject matter is closer to his heart. The dark clouds of depression loom large over both Antichrist and Melancholia but the latter shows a director whose far more in the mood to tackle (and even embrace) his demons then letting them run amok. Self absorption and pomp are still abound from the "best director in the world" but this is far more focused, far more at peace.
If Malick's Tree of Life was about the joy of life and the power of memory, Melancholia is the opposite. Tree of Life had Sean Penn's Jack reflecting on the various ways love was bestowed on him as a child. Here we are given a character in a deep state of depression (a subtle display by Dunst) whose hollowness clearly stems from a strained family relationship. An emasculated father (John Hurt in what appears to be a cameo), a scathingly bitchy and domineering mother (Charlotte Rampling) and a distraught sister Claire (Gainsbourg) who tries to care about her sister but is far too wrapped up by her own life. It is Claire and her husband John (a grumpy Sutherland) that has paid for Justine's wedding. Why isn't she happy? Why does she need to make a scene?
Much like Archipelago, the pain is hidden amongst the undergrowth as the family try and pain through a wedding that slowly detonates due to Justine's lack of well being. Told in two parts (named after the sisters) This half of the film is at times darkly amusing and appears to hark back to Festen (1995) by Domge 95 companion Thomas Vinterberg. Although; while visually more appealing, save for one moment, it's not nearly as scathing.
The second chapter, in which Melancholia becomes a stronger presence and begins to trouble Claire, is the stronger half of the story. As Justine becomes more depressed and yet more complacent about the end of the world, Claire becomes more anxious and worried. Von Trier's (and cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro) visual eye excel here. We watch as Justine lies naked bathed in the glow of the alien planet while Claire frets in the shadows. Another telling visual involves John; a man whose constant denial for nearly everything that's going on be it the idea of Melancholia crashing into earth or his sister in law's illness, wrapping his arm around Claire as they watch the planet come closer. Much like Defoe's character in Antichrist, is controlling and ignorant and fully wishes to dictate the women round him. The simple gesture of the embrace as Justine stand alone speaks volumes when observing his character as a whole.
It is films like this is why I can admire Von Trier at times, even if I do not appreciate everything he does. Here, his use of music (a beautiful prelude from Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde) and visual eye combine to make a lavish and dark insight to depression. While the sci-fi hook Melancholia may come across as gimmicky and trite to some, it does help accentuate the themes that Von Trier wishes to place across. I've never been as depressed as Justine within the film but there's an accuracy about it I find hard to deny. We emphasise with her emptiness at the wedding as everyone else only seems to care about the shiny glossy surface of everything. Even the end of the world means nothing to her. As the others realise this and lose their heads, her clam exterior states everything it needs to. She's stared into the abyss long before them and no one cared. Nothing is going to change now.
Director: Lars Von Trier
Screenplay: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland
Synopsis is here
From nowhere; this celestial boulder, Melancholia appears from behind the sun and hurtles towards earth. When it connects, all life will be extinguished. Kirsten Dunst's Justine doesn't care, in fact for the most part this seems to be an afterthought. Reason being, it's clearly obvious that she's been dealing with a crushing pressure all her life.
Lars Von Triers' Antichrist was; for me, an excruciating bore. A beautiful; yet hideously unfocused piece, which tried too hard with it's Grand Guignol bloodletting and academic pandering to be involving in anyway. I still stand by my claim that many horror directors get slightest by some of the same things Von Trier placed on the table, and yet because of all the talk about thesis and the gorgeous visuals of the piece, the Dane gets a pass. Many will disagree with me there, but I'm digressing.
Melancholia is at times just as visually arresting as Antichrist, but is a far more precise being. Von Trier is far more accurate here and one of the reasons seems to be that the subject matter is closer to his heart. The dark clouds of depression loom large over both Antichrist and Melancholia but the latter shows a director whose far more in the mood to tackle (and even embrace) his demons then letting them run amok. Self absorption and pomp are still abound from the "best director in the world" but this is far more focused, far more at peace.
If Malick's Tree of Life was about the joy of life and the power of memory, Melancholia is the opposite. Tree of Life had Sean Penn's Jack reflecting on the various ways love was bestowed on him as a child. Here we are given a character in a deep state of depression (a subtle display by Dunst) whose hollowness clearly stems from a strained family relationship. An emasculated father (John Hurt in what appears to be a cameo), a scathingly bitchy and domineering mother (Charlotte Rampling) and a distraught sister Claire (Gainsbourg) who tries to care about her sister but is far too wrapped up by her own life. It is Claire and her husband John (a grumpy Sutherland) that has paid for Justine's wedding. Why isn't she happy? Why does she need to make a scene?
Much like Archipelago, the pain is hidden amongst the undergrowth as the family try and pain through a wedding that slowly detonates due to Justine's lack of well being. Told in two parts (named after the sisters) This half of the film is at times darkly amusing and appears to hark back to Festen (1995) by Domge 95 companion Thomas Vinterberg. Although; while visually more appealing, save for one moment, it's not nearly as scathing.
The second chapter, in which Melancholia becomes a stronger presence and begins to trouble Claire, is the stronger half of the story. As Justine becomes more depressed and yet more complacent about the end of the world, Claire becomes more anxious and worried. Von Trier's (and cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro) visual eye excel here. We watch as Justine lies naked bathed in the glow of the alien planet while Claire frets in the shadows. Another telling visual involves John; a man whose constant denial for nearly everything that's going on be it the idea of Melancholia crashing into earth or his sister in law's illness, wrapping his arm around Claire as they watch the planet come closer. Much like Defoe's character in Antichrist, is controlling and ignorant and fully wishes to dictate the women round him. The simple gesture of the embrace as Justine stand alone speaks volumes when observing his character as a whole.
It is films like this is why I can admire Von Trier at times, even if I do not appreciate everything he does. Here, his use of music (a beautiful prelude from Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde) and visual eye combine to make a lavish and dark insight to depression. While the sci-fi hook Melancholia may come across as gimmicky and trite to some, it does help accentuate the themes that Von Trier wishes to place across. I've never been as depressed as Justine within the film but there's an accuracy about it I find hard to deny. We emphasise with her emptiness at the wedding as everyone else only seems to care about the shiny glossy surface of everything. Even the end of the world means nothing to her. As the others realise this and lose their heads, her clam exterior states everything it needs to. She's stared into the abyss long before them and no one cared. Nothing is going to change now.
Saturday, 10 December 2011
Review: Hugo
Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: John Logan
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Mortez, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee
Synopsis is here
To many people I know; Martin Scorsese is the "gangster guy". When the name comes up, most think Casino over The Age of innocence or Mean Streets over Kundun. So when Hugo was announced, the film was considered to some a major departure. It's not. In watching Hugo, I realise that this family film has Marty DNA richly ingrained. Those who know Marty from Goodfellas may feel a note get struck when The Great Train Robbery is referenced in the film. The sense of history and that roaming camera betrays the films position. Add to that the themes of film restoration and referencing and anyone whose read at least one interview of the man can see that this is Scorsese in personal mode. There's a lot in here that we've seen from the man before but under different guises. However this is not an ode to "trashy" genre like say Shutter Island, or a glitzy throwback to the golden age ( The Aviator) but a love letter to the very beginnings of cinema.
That Scorsese uses James Cameron's game changer (3D) to help construct this actually quite fascinating. The tool considered to some as the future of cinema (lets not bring up that 3D has been tried before in the past) is being utilised to help try and enrich the past. As a film viewer who doesn't have much time for 3D I will admit that the 3D is a vaguely interesting element of Hugo. Like so many (if not all) these 3D features I'm still not convinced of it's story telling aspects. I don't find putting on those ill fitting plastic glasses to watch a film helps make it a more immersed experience. However the 3D does enhance the Paris landscape somewhat. The thing is, I'd still be invested in the film's visuals, anyway as the film is gorgeous to look from the start. From the beautiful glass house "castle" of George Melies to the visual reference of Harold Lloyds Safety Last, to the set design of the station where most of the action is based. This a film that is beautiful to look at and very reminiscent of the jaunts of Jeunet
It is that beauty that kept me involved as the films first act is uncommonly unfocused and quite not very involving. From the opening prologue the film feels slightly disjointed and it's difficult to get a hold on the material. The film becomes much more comfortable in the second act when the film's plot and talk of silent cinema come into the foreground. This is great from a film student, cinephile, point of view. From a family film perspective however, the wish to combine the history of silent cinema into a film in which children are the main demographic places it in a similar place as fellow movie brat Spielberg with Tintin. We get a film which seems to be intended for children or family but seems to be more in touch with the geek crowd. Critics have given the film high praise and why wouldn't they, the history aspect caters to them. But the films awkward marketing and the U.S release of the film; placing it up against The Muppets when the week after had no wide releases, appears to betray a certain apprehension. In comparison to the opening act of Pixer's Wall-E which manages to combine aspects of early silent cinema, new age tech gimmicky and story and still keeps focus on the intended audience, I wouldn't be surprised if Hugo gets the same mixed response from kids that I saw from Rango this year.
While the film doesn't have as much charm as I expected, there's a sincerity that flows through the film constantly. The film (read Scorsese) is clearly in love with cinema. For someone like me it's hard not feel a chill as Ben Kingsley's Melies explaining a film set as thus: "If you ever wonder where your dreams come from, look around: this is where they're made." Hugo is a film that believes that cinema still has a certain power behind it. A highlight of this is a flashback situated in the middle of the film showing Melies creating one of his features and the ideals behind it. Similar scenes include the reacting of the first viewing of "Train arriving at a station" or when Chloe Mortez's character first witnesses a film for the first time. These moments seem lost and miles away when we now consider that we take the moving image for granted so easily nowadays. Hugo plays out like how those adverts which talk about "cinema only being worth seeing at the big screen" should play out. Scenes in which peoples love of cinema not only gets them to emote but come together are some of the films better moments.
This is fine for someone like me to go on about. Hugo tries to hack into that reason in why I love the cinema the way I do and to be honest I admire Scorsese's approach. The films lavish look, the nostalgic asides to story telling and dream making, the historical aspects that coincide with the story. It all falls into my romantic view of films and filmmaking; that it is more than just a happy go lucky diversion. That's fine for the 27 year old that I am now, but would the 8 year old approve? That I am not sure of.
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: John Logan
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Mortez, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee
Synopsis is here
To many people I know; Martin Scorsese is the "gangster guy". When the name comes up, most think Casino over The Age of innocence or Mean Streets over Kundun. So when Hugo was announced, the film was considered to some a major departure. It's not. In watching Hugo, I realise that this family film has Marty DNA richly ingrained. Those who know Marty from Goodfellas may feel a note get struck when The Great Train Robbery is referenced in the film. The sense of history and that roaming camera betrays the films position. Add to that the themes of film restoration and referencing and anyone whose read at least one interview of the man can see that this is Scorsese in personal mode. There's a lot in here that we've seen from the man before but under different guises. However this is not an ode to "trashy" genre like say Shutter Island, or a glitzy throwback to the golden age ( The Aviator) but a love letter to the very beginnings of cinema.
That Scorsese uses James Cameron's game changer (3D) to help construct this actually quite fascinating. The tool considered to some as the future of cinema (lets not bring up that 3D has been tried before in the past) is being utilised to help try and enrich the past. As a film viewer who doesn't have much time for 3D I will admit that the 3D is a vaguely interesting element of Hugo. Like so many (if not all) these 3D features I'm still not convinced of it's story telling aspects. I don't find putting on those ill fitting plastic glasses to watch a film helps make it a more immersed experience. However the 3D does enhance the Paris landscape somewhat. The thing is, I'd still be invested in the film's visuals, anyway as the film is gorgeous to look from the start. From the beautiful glass house "castle" of George Melies to the visual reference of Harold Lloyds Safety Last, to the set design of the station where most of the action is based. This a film that is beautiful to look at and very reminiscent of the jaunts of Jeunet
It is that beauty that kept me involved as the films first act is uncommonly unfocused and quite not very involving. From the opening prologue the film feels slightly disjointed and it's difficult to get a hold on the material. The film becomes much more comfortable in the second act when the film's plot and talk of silent cinema come into the foreground. This is great from a film student, cinephile, point of view. From a family film perspective however, the wish to combine the history of silent cinema into a film in which children are the main demographic places it in a similar place as fellow movie brat Spielberg with Tintin. We get a film which seems to be intended for children or family but seems to be more in touch with the geek crowd. Critics have given the film high praise and why wouldn't they, the history aspect caters to them. But the films awkward marketing and the U.S release of the film; placing it up against The Muppets when the week after had no wide releases, appears to betray a certain apprehension. In comparison to the opening act of Pixer's Wall-E which manages to combine aspects of early silent cinema, new age tech gimmicky and story and still keeps focus on the intended audience, I wouldn't be surprised if Hugo gets the same mixed response from kids that I saw from Rango this year.
While the film doesn't have as much charm as I expected, there's a sincerity that flows through the film constantly. The film (read Scorsese) is clearly in love with cinema. For someone like me it's hard not feel a chill as Ben Kingsley's Melies explaining a film set as thus: "If you ever wonder where your dreams come from, look around: this is where they're made." Hugo is a film that believes that cinema still has a certain power behind it. A highlight of this is a flashback situated in the middle of the film showing Melies creating one of his features and the ideals behind it. Similar scenes include the reacting of the first viewing of "Train arriving at a station" or when Chloe Mortez's character first witnesses a film for the first time. These moments seem lost and miles away when we now consider that we take the moving image for granted so easily nowadays. Hugo plays out like how those adverts which talk about "cinema only being worth seeing at the big screen" should play out. Scenes in which peoples love of cinema not only gets them to emote but come together are some of the films better moments.
This is fine for someone like me to go on about. Hugo tries to hack into that reason in why I love the cinema the way I do and to be honest I admire Scorsese's approach. The films lavish look, the nostalgic asides to story telling and dream making, the historical aspects that coincide with the story. It all falls into my romantic view of films and filmmaking; that it is more than just a happy go lucky diversion. That's fine for the 27 year old that I am now, but would the 8 year old approve? That I am not sure of.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Review: The Devil's Double
Year: 2011
Director: Lee Tamahori
Screenplay: Michael Thomas
Starring: Dominic Cooper, Ludivine Sagnier
Synopsis is here
The main hook of The Devils Double is almost too bizarre to be true but the more you put into consideration the type of tyrants that we follow in throughout the film, the more typical the idea seems. Members of Saddam's family having doubles for certain occasions? Why the hell not? You can't be everywhere at once. It's even more handy when you consider the the high risk of assassination.
Based on the true story of Latif Yahia, The Devil's Double is a mixture of psychotic prince and unfortunate pauper as Latif is forced against his will to become the double for Saddam's Son Uday. Both roles are played by Dominic Cooper (I have only seen him in this and as Tony Stark's Dad in Captain America) a la Parent Trap Trickery (possibly) and yet you will never gain a moments confusion. Latif is stoic, upstanding and decent (although weakly accented by Cooper), while Uday is the type of Satan's gremlin that resides in the campfire stories of lesser villains in the films more showy yet stronger role.
Images and ideas of duality are abound, but no one will be looking at this with the identity struggle that inflicted the likes of Bergman's Persona, as the film plays out more in of the style of "Scarface in Iraq". Uday's world is one of excess over decency. Tyranny roams the landscape and Latif unfortunately must live in it as his likeness has seemingly trapped him in a unique hurt locker. That is keeps his sanity so well is not only a slight weakness of the film. His common decency makes him sympathetic, but almost saintly in consideration. Latif only falls into temptation with the flat female fatale character Sarrab; played by Ludivine Sagnier, whose allure is clear from her sultry looks and curves in the right places. This element of the film is not only typical of the genre the film is rolling in but also the most transparent. Sagnier's Sarrab has little to do apart from get Latif hot under the collar and boy does she. When Sagnier is given more to do the audience will probably not be surprised by what happens. This could be said of most of the narrative which delves into scenes of gory violence, sexual depravity and excess that would make Tony Montana feel slightly enviousness.
However, the film never lets up in terms of entertainment. Much like the little seen The Lincoln Lawyer, The Devil's Double works because it's a straight up crime film. Lee Tamahori has stated that the film is not supposed to be a political statement into the Iraq war and the bunkum idea that the film should completely follow the tracks of the true story, makes sure that the film can concentrate in being an avalanche of excess and madness. Strangely in it's extremity the film help create a particular kind of insight.While everything may not happen as the film states, it highlights the decadence of the regime it follows. Nearly all of the craziness is compiled in Cooper's whiny, buck toothed, bug eyed performance of Uday, who is as vile as he is fascinating. The battle that Cooper manages to instigate with himself is itself the reason to watch this film. If not for journey man Tamahori's assured direction of both action and drama. Nasty images of the invisible car fade have been replaced for a particularly golden palette and neatly crafted set pieces.
The Devils Double has Dominic Cooper fighting himself in more ways than one but it's a shame that the film keeps the polar opposites exactly as they are and refuses to make them merge. It's the seductiveness of the dark side (no matter how chaotic) that is missing from what is an effective and stylish crime film.
Director: Lee Tamahori
Screenplay: Michael Thomas
Starring: Dominic Cooper, Ludivine Sagnier
Synopsis is here
The main hook of The Devils Double is almost too bizarre to be true but the more you put into consideration the type of tyrants that we follow in throughout the film, the more typical the idea seems. Members of Saddam's family having doubles for certain occasions? Why the hell not? You can't be everywhere at once. It's even more handy when you consider the the high risk of assassination.
Based on the true story of Latif Yahia, The Devil's Double is a mixture of psychotic prince and unfortunate pauper as Latif is forced against his will to become the double for Saddam's Son Uday. Both roles are played by Dominic Cooper (I have only seen him in this and as Tony Stark's Dad in Captain America) a la Parent Trap Trickery (possibly) and yet you will never gain a moments confusion. Latif is stoic, upstanding and decent (although weakly accented by Cooper), while Uday is the type of Satan's gremlin that resides in the campfire stories of lesser villains in the films more showy yet stronger role.
Images and ideas of duality are abound, but no one will be looking at this with the identity struggle that inflicted the likes of Bergman's Persona, as the film plays out more in of the style of "Scarface in Iraq". Uday's world is one of excess over decency. Tyranny roams the landscape and Latif unfortunately must live in it as his likeness has seemingly trapped him in a unique hurt locker. That is keeps his sanity so well is not only a slight weakness of the film. His common decency makes him sympathetic, but almost saintly in consideration. Latif only falls into temptation with the flat female fatale character Sarrab; played by Ludivine Sagnier, whose allure is clear from her sultry looks and curves in the right places. This element of the film is not only typical of the genre the film is rolling in but also the most transparent. Sagnier's Sarrab has little to do apart from get Latif hot under the collar and boy does she. When Sagnier is given more to do the audience will probably not be surprised by what happens. This could be said of most of the narrative which delves into scenes of gory violence, sexual depravity and excess that would make Tony Montana feel slightly enviousness.
However, the film never lets up in terms of entertainment. Much like the little seen The Lincoln Lawyer, The Devil's Double works because it's a straight up crime film. Lee Tamahori has stated that the film is not supposed to be a political statement into the Iraq war and the bunkum idea that the film should completely follow the tracks of the true story, makes sure that the film can concentrate in being an avalanche of excess and madness. Strangely in it's extremity the film help create a particular kind of insight.While everything may not happen as the film states, it highlights the decadence of the regime it follows. Nearly all of the craziness is compiled in Cooper's whiny, buck toothed, bug eyed performance of Uday, who is as vile as he is fascinating. The battle that Cooper manages to instigate with himself is itself the reason to watch this film. If not for journey man Tamahori's assured direction of both action and drama. Nasty images of the invisible car fade have been replaced for a particularly golden palette and neatly crafted set pieces.
The Devils Double has Dominic Cooper fighting himself in more ways than one but it's a shame that the film keeps the polar opposites exactly as they are and refuses to make them merge. It's the seductiveness of the dark side (no matter how chaotic) that is missing from what is an effective and stylish crime film.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Review: 50/50
Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Will Reiser
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anna Kendrick
Synopsis is here
There's always a chance that the something like 50/50 could have played out terribly. While I rather enjoyed Funny People I could easily see so many people viewing it as another typical Adam Sandler flick and avoid it like the plague. Sandler, Seth Rogan and Cancer? Not a what many are looking for in terms of films me thinks. While I did have a good time with that particular movie; the films humour being the most appealing to me, the characters were not as lucky. The film flip flopped in tone and there was an issue with length that should have been addressed.
50/50 has been labelled in certain areas as the "cancer comedy" in a similar, almost derogatory way that The Social Network was labelled "the facebook film". Such laziness explain the film in the most base manner and seem to actually do more to turn people off than get them to watch. It'll be a shame if people avoid 50/50 due to such simplistic descriptions (or a second appearance of Seth Rogan in a similar film) because the film's view of cancer is a sensitive one. It appears that a character (Rogan's) has a particularly vulgar attitude towards the whole thing and yet that ignoring his character arc due to taking everything he says at face value. A small but telling moment involving Rogan's Kyle says all you need to know abut his behaviour. While the role is slightly typecast, it is played out without some of the odd tonal shifts and expectations that some of the characters in Funny People. 50/50 works better as a comedy drama because it gets the balance right. When the film is funny (maybe save the trippy first chemo sequence) it's very funny. It notices the awkwardness of how we act in certain situations and grounds the humour well. It doesn't "go dark" for the sake of it, instead finding laughs in the people we see.
The smaller moments stand out in 50/50 a lot more than some of the more grand ones. A sequence involving a revel in a relationship is played out for awkward laughs and it does work (as do the various pop culture references within the film) but doesn't hit the same heights as the more intimate moment involving a fellow cancer sufferer (Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer no doubt) and his wife sharing a small kiss. It's not much, but there's a sincerity within those moments that seems to stem from a true place. Writer Will Reiser (the true story the film is inspired by) has a screenplay which features such slight observations that if one wasn't paying attention you could miss how they build the story. The film shows illness as what can be, a state of humdrum and limbo. A short montage of people asking those typical, basic questions and tending to the topic on eggshells is captured in perfect awkwardness. An unfortunate side plot involving Bryce Dallas Howard's Rachael (who seems to be getting some bitchy roles as of late) and Levitt's Adam character works not because Rachael is pompous and self centred (although there's more than a hint that she could be) but because when it comes to those tough moments where her role has to make more of a stand than is usually asked for, her age, emotions and reluctance appear to stem more from the difficulty of the situation above all else.
That the film suffers from the character of Adam being a tad too "fine" with everything, is an unfortunate aspect. When Levitt has to show true anguish, he does so well but the character at times feels quite laid back and the film itself feels slightly disjointed. While of course learning that one has cancer could perhaps give such a feeling, the film sometimes has the effect of small vignette's than a whole. I must also state that the feel nearly wastes the brilliance of the likes of Phillip Baker Hall and Anjelica Huston who light the screen with their small but perfectly formed performances.
Hollywood is an industry that loves to concentrate on youth. It's no surprise that we get films that seem to connect with the main target audience are ones such as Twilight (topping the charts as we speak). 50/50 asks us to stop and look at the briefness of our own mortality even at such a young age. That the film manages to do this well and provide some solids laughs without being truly offensive is a plus.
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Will Reiser
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anna Kendrick
Synopsis is here
There's always a chance that the something like 50/50 could have played out terribly. While I rather enjoyed Funny People I could easily see so many people viewing it as another typical Adam Sandler flick and avoid it like the plague. Sandler, Seth Rogan and Cancer? Not a what many are looking for in terms of films me thinks. While I did have a good time with that particular movie; the films humour being the most appealing to me, the characters were not as lucky. The film flip flopped in tone and there was an issue with length that should have been addressed.
50/50 has been labelled in certain areas as the "cancer comedy" in a similar, almost derogatory way that The Social Network was labelled "the facebook film". Such laziness explain the film in the most base manner and seem to actually do more to turn people off than get them to watch. It'll be a shame if people avoid 50/50 due to such simplistic descriptions (or a second appearance of Seth Rogan in a similar film) because the film's view of cancer is a sensitive one. It appears that a character (Rogan's) has a particularly vulgar attitude towards the whole thing and yet that ignoring his character arc due to taking everything he says at face value. A small but telling moment involving Rogan's Kyle says all you need to know abut his behaviour. While the role is slightly typecast, it is played out without some of the odd tonal shifts and expectations that some of the characters in Funny People. 50/50 works better as a comedy drama because it gets the balance right. When the film is funny (maybe save the trippy first chemo sequence) it's very funny. It notices the awkwardness of how we act in certain situations and grounds the humour well. It doesn't "go dark" for the sake of it, instead finding laughs in the people we see.
The smaller moments stand out in 50/50 a lot more than some of the more grand ones. A sequence involving a revel in a relationship is played out for awkward laughs and it does work (as do the various pop culture references within the film) but doesn't hit the same heights as the more intimate moment involving a fellow cancer sufferer (Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer no doubt) and his wife sharing a small kiss. It's not much, but there's a sincerity within those moments that seems to stem from a true place. Writer Will Reiser (the true story the film is inspired by) has a screenplay which features such slight observations that if one wasn't paying attention you could miss how they build the story. The film shows illness as what can be, a state of humdrum and limbo. A short montage of people asking those typical, basic questions and tending to the topic on eggshells is captured in perfect awkwardness. An unfortunate side plot involving Bryce Dallas Howard's Rachael (who seems to be getting some bitchy roles as of late) and Levitt's Adam character works not because Rachael is pompous and self centred (although there's more than a hint that she could be) but because when it comes to those tough moments where her role has to make more of a stand than is usually asked for, her age, emotions and reluctance appear to stem more from the difficulty of the situation above all else.
That the film suffers from the character of Adam being a tad too "fine" with everything, is an unfortunate aspect. When Levitt has to show true anguish, he does so well but the character at times feels quite laid back and the film itself feels slightly disjointed. While of course learning that one has cancer could perhaps give such a feeling, the film sometimes has the effect of small vignette's than a whole. I must also state that the feel nearly wastes the brilliance of the likes of Phillip Baker Hall and Anjelica Huston who light the screen with their small but perfectly formed performances.
Hollywood is an industry that loves to concentrate on youth. It's no surprise that we get films that seem to connect with the main target audience are ones such as Twilight (topping the charts as we speak). 50/50 asks us to stop and look at the briefness of our own mortality even at such a young age. That the film manages to do this well and provide some solids laughs without being truly offensive is a plus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)