I was going to write a ill-written ranting article about horror films or something to that effect, however I find myself writing a small note of remembance for two people who made very different waves in the media world.
I wasn't a fan of the Anthony Minghella films I saw, however one must show respect for someone who created artistic visions that were enjoyed by many others and will continue to be for many years to come.
Authur C. Clarke's "The Sentinal" influenced one of the most hypnotic and beautful films in the first hundard years of cinema. Cliche I know but it was Clarke's words that allowed us to enjoy one of Kubrick's best known films and one of the best films I feel I've ever seen.
R.I.P. Both will be sorely missed by those close to them.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Rosemary's Baby is reborn...
..and already I wish for an abortion. Micheal Bays Platinum Dunes seems to be hellbent on re-making horror film that don't really need to be touched.
Rosemary's Baby
I usually don't mind about most remakes. As long as the makers can take the original idea and rearrange it into an interesting way I'm game. The new Hills have eyes had an intensity that I found missing in the original, while The U.S. Grudge had it's moments (definitely better than the remake of Ringu).
However Hollywood is constantly churning out remakes that many are considering sub-par. Hell, I'm sure the two remakes I used as examples are disliked by many.
What many people hate about these remakes is simply the lack of understand on what made the original movies so creepy to them. Those tiny little nuances that have kept films into peoples minds and/or nightmares will be lost.
Which leads me to the article about Rosemary's Baby. Considered a classic to many and well revered in horror circles. While melodramatic and dated by today's standards, Rosemary's Baby is still a great 70's tale of paranoia and fear. It's not like most horror films and its main theme is something that will scare soon to be parents until we are long gone; "Is there something wrong with my child?".
A film like Rosemary's Baby deals with it's characters and their story more than anything else. It's back story whispering cultural dealings of the day (Is god dead?) while telling a disturbing story about a young mother whose moved to a place where she knows hardly anybody and fears not only for her child but her own well being.
It's a grown up horror movie. Something we do see less of in these days of so called "torture porn" and self referential "satire". It is also something I don't think Micheal "maker of that toy movie" Bay's production company is up for. After watching how The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was slickly "re-imagined" I can't see Rosemary's Remake being a subtle re-working of anything at all.
Remakes, Re-imaging, Rip offs, Whatever. Like I said before I don't think there's anything wrong with a good re-vamp of something. Without Hidden Fortress there's be no Star Wars etc. But I don't feel that Platinum Dunes current style of glossy, MTV edited re-makes, filled with dirtied up beautiful people are the right to go for a film made by a director whose well know for his intelligent psychological movies.
Rosemary's Baby
I usually don't mind about most remakes. As long as the makers can take the original idea and rearrange it into an interesting way I'm game. The new Hills have eyes had an intensity that I found missing in the original, while The U.S. Grudge had it's moments (definitely better than the remake of Ringu).
However Hollywood is constantly churning out remakes that many are considering sub-par. Hell, I'm sure the two remakes I used as examples are disliked by many.
What many people hate about these remakes is simply the lack of understand on what made the original movies so creepy to them. Those tiny little nuances that have kept films into peoples minds and/or nightmares will be lost.
Which leads me to the article about Rosemary's Baby. Considered a classic to many and well revered in horror circles. While melodramatic and dated by today's standards, Rosemary's Baby is still a great 70's tale of paranoia and fear. It's not like most horror films and its main theme is something that will scare soon to be parents until we are long gone; "Is there something wrong with my child?".
A film like Rosemary's Baby deals with it's characters and their story more than anything else. It's back story whispering cultural dealings of the day (Is god dead?) while telling a disturbing story about a young mother whose moved to a place where she knows hardly anybody and fears not only for her child but her own well being.
It's a grown up horror movie. Something we do see less of in these days of so called "torture porn" and self referential "satire". It is also something I don't think Micheal "maker of that toy movie" Bay's production company is up for. After watching how The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was slickly "re-imagined" I can't see Rosemary's Remake being a subtle re-working of anything at all.
Remakes, Re-imaging, Rip offs, Whatever. Like I said before I don't think there's anything wrong with a good re-vamp of something. Without Hidden Fortress there's be no Star Wars etc. But I don't feel that Platinum Dunes current style of glossy, MTV edited re-makes, filled with dirtied up beautiful people are the right to go for a film made by a director whose well know for his intelligent psychological movies.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Review: Jumper
Year: 2008
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Diane Lane
Screenwriters:David S. Goyer and Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg
Director:Doug Liman
What if you could go anywhere you want in the blink of an eye? That's what Doug Limans latest film is about. Welcome to the world of Jumper. Christensen plays David who after a near death experience, discovers a genetic anomaly that allows him to "jump" to anywhere he wishes (think Nightcrawler in X-men). However Roland (Jackson) is an agent of a secret society that believes that only God may have the sort of power David has. To add to the proceedings David hooks up with an old flame named Mille (Bilson) and meets another jumper (Bell) and lands them into trouble as well.
Jumper is lazy. It's plot is thinly spread, the characters are two dimensional and the acting is is half baked. I shouldn't ask for too much for a February release but after following and enjoying the other movies of Doug Liman I could see me really enjoying this. Unfortunately Jumper is a movie only looking for one thing...."franchise".
Jumper should have been a movie that could stand on it's own two feet. Instead Liman's film leaves half the story unsettled and open ended with all of it's plot strands unexplored in any sort of depth. It's running time is short, but only because it seems half the film is on the cutting room floor....so it can all be explained in the next film.
The films corner cutting fucks up the storytelling so much it's distracting. An example would be the "relationship" between the films leads. Despite what the characters say, for no moment at all do we believe these two people have cared about each other since they were five. After not seeing each other for almost a decade the "Reunion" scene is pretty much this:
"hey how you doing?"
"Alright"
"Wanna go to rome?"
"Sure ok!"
This happens so often in the movie it becomes annoying. Everything is rushed and glossed over to push the viewer towards a anti-climatic cliff hanger. Characters are left inexplicable positions and never seen again, reasoning behind people's actions are never truly explained. Scenes literally "jump" (sorry pun not intended) to the next with no true story logic and it's a damn shame because when Liman directs the action the viewer has an ok time.
While not as brutal and intense as some of Limans other movies, Jumper's action set pieces are bring about a moderate amount of fun to the proceedings. Liman almost manages to gives a tasty glimpse into an intriguing idea but is let down by quality control. Screenwriters Goyer and Uhls have given us stronger scripts in the past but it seems that this film was written in between others project that they have more interest in.
The films casting also becomes a hindrance. Christensen and Bilson are attractive people but bland actors. Their chemistry is almost non-existent throughout the movie. Their dialogue does nothing to help them but they constantly play out their roles like two strangers that have just met.
Samuel L Jackson is once again on auto pilot. I can't remember the last time I saw him in a recent movie that I've truly enjoyed him in. With this said however, Jamie Bell injects some much needed humor and energy into the film. But by the time his character is allowed to do anything, the film is almost finished. Same goes for the cameo that is Diane Lanes role. Also Michel Rooker is in this and is hardly utilised and that my friends sucks balls.
I have no problems with films wanting to be franchises. However compare this to something like say The Matrix which can stand alone and become part of a three very easily. Jumper restricts itself so much it takes away everything that would make it a fun franchise to begin with.
It's a shame when a director you enjoy creates something that disappoints you, however it makes you go back to the movies that you loved before and that can only be a bad thing.
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Diane Lane
Screenwriters:David S. Goyer and Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg
Director:Doug Liman
What if you could go anywhere you want in the blink of an eye? That's what Doug Limans latest film is about. Welcome to the world of Jumper. Christensen plays David who after a near death experience, discovers a genetic anomaly that allows him to "jump" to anywhere he wishes (think Nightcrawler in X-men). However Roland (Jackson) is an agent of a secret society that believes that only God may have the sort of power David has. To add to the proceedings David hooks up with an old flame named Mille (Bilson) and meets another jumper (Bell) and lands them into trouble as well.
Jumper is lazy. It's plot is thinly spread, the characters are two dimensional and the acting is is half baked. I shouldn't ask for too much for a February release but after following and enjoying the other movies of Doug Liman I could see me really enjoying this. Unfortunately Jumper is a movie only looking for one thing...."franchise".
Jumper should have been a movie that could stand on it's own two feet. Instead Liman's film leaves half the story unsettled and open ended with all of it's plot strands unexplored in any sort of depth. It's running time is short, but only because it seems half the film is on the cutting room floor....so it can all be explained in the next film.
The films corner cutting fucks up the storytelling so much it's distracting. An example would be the "relationship" between the films leads. Despite what the characters say, for no moment at all do we believe these two people have cared about each other since they were five. After not seeing each other for almost a decade the "Reunion" scene is pretty much this:
"hey how you doing?"
"Alright"
"Wanna go to rome?"
"Sure ok!"
This happens so often in the movie it becomes annoying. Everything is rushed and glossed over to push the viewer towards a anti-climatic cliff hanger. Characters are left inexplicable positions and never seen again, reasoning behind people's actions are never truly explained. Scenes literally "jump" (sorry pun not intended) to the next with no true story logic and it's a damn shame because when Liman directs the action the viewer has an ok time.
While not as brutal and intense as some of Limans other movies, Jumper's action set pieces are bring about a moderate amount of fun to the proceedings. Liman almost manages to gives a tasty glimpse into an intriguing idea but is let down by quality control. Screenwriters Goyer and Uhls have given us stronger scripts in the past but it seems that this film was written in between others project that they have more interest in.
The films casting also becomes a hindrance. Christensen and Bilson are attractive people but bland actors. Their chemistry is almost non-existent throughout the movie. Their dialogue does nothing to help them but they constantly play out their roles like two strangers that have just met.
Samuel L Jackson is once again on auto pilot. I can't remember the last time I saw him in a recent movie that I've truly enjoyed him in. With this said however, Jamie Bell injects some much needed humor and energy into the film. But by the time his character is allowed to do anything, the film is almost finished. Same goes for the cameo that is Diane Lanes role. Also Michel Rooker is in this and is hardly utilised and that my friends sucks balls.
I have no problems with films wanting to be franchises. However compare this to something like say The Matrix which can stand alone and become part of a three very easily. Jumper restricts itself so much it takes away everything that would make it a fun franchise to begin with.
It's a shame when a director you enjoy creates something that disappoints you, however it makes you go back to the movies that you loved before and that can only be a bad thing.
Monday, 25 February 2008
Review: Juno
Year: 2008
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenwriter: Diablo Cody
Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, Jennifer Garner, Allison Janney, J.K Simmons
I was to say that this film is "the little movie that could" however this quote has already been taken by a fave reviewer of mine. However in looking at the Oscars in recent years you can see what people mean by said quote. Did you see Seabiscut winning anything? In the bedroom anyone?
It seems that every year a small film is aloud to come out of the underground and have a look around. It looks like this year it's Juno. It is this years Little Miss Sunshine which was last years Capote (that doesn't sound right but fuck semantics). It's up against the Coens and P.T Anderson and like their movies or not both movies look like shoe-ins for the big awards. Hell even Atonement looks like it has more of an outside chance (however it looks too English compared to the Western throwbacks it's up against).
Juno is unfortunately the "cute" film that makes the Academy Awards not look like a back slapping jerk off parade. It's a shame because politics aside Juno is a fine film from Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody. The film will always be considered "that little indie film" but don't let its unfortunate pigeon holing take anything away from it's refreshing sweetness and touching story. Juno has it's quirks but unlike many movies that this film will get lumped with those little touches will not be the only thing about it.
It seems that Reitman has no worries with taking difficult themes and breathing a light freshness to them. Teenage pregnancy can be touched upon in mainstream film but of course it's one of those issues that American film would like to keep in the unseen arthouses or bad T.V dramas along with realistic outcomes of violence (see elephant) and of course the oldest of chestnuts...race (don't let that Oscar win for Crash fool you, remember what I said about back slapping.)
Juno takes a hard subject and lightens it enough to be entertaining and funny but manages to keep that balance up to show an extremely emotional situation which would be hard to deal with some all sides. Juno hasn't has much upfront conflict as it's subject matter would suggest but Reitman keeps it simmering just under the surface. Juno is a sassy and tough teenage kid but passing moments in the film show the audience how fragile she is.
Juno reminds me of the film Igby goes down but Reitmans direction is stronger than Burr Steers and Diablo Cody looks to be a better writer. The manage to make the central character of the film three dimensional. Snuggled into that space between childhood and womanhood, her moments of immaturity are honest and natural, while her intelligence throughout the film is fierce but also believable. Despite her being outspoken and edgy she is also selfless and understanding. While all I say sounds like badly written pseudo, cinematic babble. It is hard to find young characters like this in mainstream film.
To play a part like Juno you need a damn fine young actor and Ellen Page is brilliant. Page is an actor that's not only showing alot of range at such a young age (watch Hard Candy and X men 3) but she manages to act with a humility that is missing from actresses the same age either that or she just fucking acts either way I'd rather her cop off with an Oscar than Keira Knightley (I'm I the only person who thinks she's a plank of wood?)
Page is joined by a brilliant cast. J.K Simmons, Jason Bateman and Allison Janney are great in roles that would be extremely thankless in lesser films. All three are great character actors that use their best attributes to each role. Bateman has a rouge charm about him which is hidden in many of his latest roles due to the need to be either a straight man or "zany". Simmons has great presence throughout and can command a scene if need be while Janney is a chameleon who can get lost in a role with ease. Cera is also great (although typecast) while Jenifer Garner is the most surprising entry. She needs to appear in more material like this as she standsout a hell of a lot more.
When I'm not watching big, hard, manly films, it's sweet soft films like Juno that reminds me how touching cinema can be. A film like this could take it's subject matter in many different ways and manages to give a the audience a tender tale subtly told by Reitman. A great ensemble cast, a script that feels fresh and funny, a great soundtrack and a story well told that doesn't feel manipulative and corny. Next year another Juno will be entered into the awards buzz and I'm sure it may have it's charms. However I do doubt it feel be a cute as Juno is.
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenwriter: Diablo Cody
Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, Jennifer Garner, Allison Janney, J.K Simmons
I was to say that this film is "the little movie that could" however this quote has already been taken by a fave reviewer of mine. However in looking at the Oscars in recent years you can see what people mean by said quote. Did you see Seabiscut winning anything? In the bedroom anyone?
It seems that every year a small film is aloud to come out of the underground and have a look around. It looks like this year it's Juno. It is this years Little Miss Sunshine which was last years Capote (that doesn't sound right but fuck semantics). It's up against the Coens and P.T Anderson and like their movies or not both movies look like shoe-ins for the big awards. Hell even Atonement looks like it has more of an outside chance (however it looks too English compared to the Western throwbacks it's up against).
Juno is unfortunately the "cute" film that makes the Academy Awards not look like a back slapping jerk off parade. It's a shame because politics aside Juno is a fine film from Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody. The film will always be considered "that little indie film" but don't let its unfortunate pigeon holing take anything away from it's refreshing sweetness and touching story. Juno has it's quirks but unlike many movies that this film will get lumped with those little touches will not be the only thing about it.
It seems that Reitman has no worries with taking difficult themes and breathing a light freshness to them. Teenage pregnancy can be touched upon in mainstream film but of course it's one of those issues that American film would like to keep in the unseen arthouses or bad T.V dramas along with realistic outcomes of violence (see elephant) and of course the oldest of chestnuts...race (don't let that Oscar win for Crash fool you, remember what I said about back slapping.)
Juno takes a hard subject and lightens it enough to be entertaining and funny but manages to keep that balance up to show an extremely emotional situation which would be hard to deal with some all sides. Juno hasn't has much upfront conflict as it's subject matter would suggest but Reitman keeps it simmering just under the surface. Juno is a sassy and tough teenage kid but passing moments in the film show the audience how fragile she is.
Juno reminds me of the film Igby goes down but Reitmans direction is stronger than Burr Steers and Diablo Cody looks to be a better writer. The manage to make the central character of the film three dimensional. Snuggled into that space between childhood and womanhood, her moments of immaturity are honest and natural, while her intelligence throughout the film is fierce but also believable. Despite her being outspoken and edgy she is also selfless and understanding. While all I say sounds like badly written pseudo, cinematic babble. It is hard to find young characters like this in mainstream film.
To play a part like Juno you need a damn fine young actor and Ellen Page is brilliant. Page is an actor that's not only showing alot of range at such a young age (watch Hard Candy and X men 3) but she manages to act with a humility that is missing from actresses the same age either that or she just fucking acts either way I'd rather her cop off with an Oscar than Keira Knightley (I'm I the only person who thinks she's a plank of wood?)
Page is joined by a brilliant cast. J.K Simmons, Jason Bateman and Allison Janney are great in roles that would be extremely thankless in lesser films. All three are great character actors that use their best attributes to each role. Bateman has a rouge charm about him which is hidden in many of his latest roles due to the need to be either a straight man or "zany". Simmons has great presence throughout and can command a scene if need be while Janney is a chameleon who can get lost in a role with ease. Cera is also great (although typecast) while Jenifer Garner is the most surprising entry. She needs to appear in more material like this as she standsout a hell of a lot more.
When I'm not watching big, hard, manly films, it's sweet soft films like Juno that reminds me how touching cinema can be. A film like this could take it's subject matter in many different ways and manages to give a the audience a tender tale subtly told by Reitman. A great ensemble cast, a script that feels fresh and funny, a great soundtrack and a story well told that doesn't feel manipulative and corny. Next year another Juno will be entered into the awards buzz and I'm sure it may have it's charms. However I do doubt it feel be a cute as Juno is.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
R.I.P Roy Scheider
Thoughts go out to the estate of Roy Scheider, who has past away from Cancer earlier this week.
To ignorant fools this man was the lead in Jaws. So even through this is a short obituary you should pay respects to a good man.
I know it's not a scene from Jaws but i loved him in this.
His later films my not have had the quality of his films of the 70's but Scheider was a consistant and solid preformer in everything he did.
To ignorant fools this man was the lead in Jaws. So even through this is a short obituary you should pay respects to a good man.
I know it's not a scene from Jaws but i loved him in this.
His later films my not have had the quality of his films of the 70's but Scheider was a consistant and solid preformer in everything he did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)