Year: 2009
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, Til Schweiger, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent
Don't tell any one but I liked, nay loved a movie. Yes, if your a regular reader of my poorly spelt, miserable reviews, you may see a distinct patten of apathy towards this years films. Once again we are given romantic comedies that abuse our ideals of actual romance, remakes and rehashes of slasher flicks that are still warm in their grave and a truck load of films that are only built around childhood nostalgia than any real form of creativity.
Then we get Quentin Tarantino a filmmaker whose ego is getting rapidly larger with every film that he directs (this is his 6th). A director who is equally despised as he is loved. A guy whose motormouth antics can have cinephiles whooping with joy or puking up bile. He is all these things but most of all he's a lover of cinema.
Hyperbole? Yes perhaps, but it's the best way to explain his new film. A film which clearly shows a filmmaker in love with what he does. I love films like this because when the directors having a blast then usually so am I and with Inglourious Basterds I was having the best time I've had in a cinema this year.
Sometimes it takes me a bit of time for me to be armoured with a film, Inglourious Basterds got me from the first beautiful shot. Riffing from the great westerns (Once upon a time in the west, The Searchers) Tarantino opens his film with a sequence filled to the brim with pent up tension. It is here we are introduced to two characters that will quickly be entered as favorites in the QT universe. The delectably devilish Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and the real protagonist of the film(yet the marketing says Brad Pitt), the beautiful Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent).
The scene is a brilliant mixture of discomfort and black humor as Hans "The Jew hunter" Landa interrogates a french framer who is hiding a jewish family (including Shosanna) somewhere in the house. I won't say too much as not to spoil it but it is an amazing scene, shot beautifully and setting up the pace and tone of the rest of the film perfectly. The folly of Tarantino's Deathproof is gone, this is a far more focused affair.
Broken down into 5 chapters, IB reminds me of a graphic novel. Like Watchmen, the film is set in an alternative timeline to what you and me would consider fact. This allows Tarantino to liberally play with historical events at his will. "This is not your Daddy's World War 2 film" states the director and he's not wrong here. Not content with distorting history, Tarantino uses his various trademarks (particularly in his writing) to change the audience's perspective on storytelling. Syd Field can fuck off, because the three act structure is thrown out the window. Characters come and go at will and the film comes together more like novel than a traditional movie. It's a bold move, but one that works as we then spend the right time with all these characters and I was left craving more.
With this however the story (weighing in at almost 3 hours) is quite light on plot, but unlike other films which can't justify such a long running time but have one anyway, Inglourious Basterds is never boring. The trailers make out that the film is an all out action movie, but it's not. It's very talkative, however, Tarantino's love for language and ear for dialogue is back to it's best so all the words are so delectable (and superbly lyrical) that it kept me enthralled throughout. The characters and dialogue distracted me (in a good way) from how basic the plot actually is. But lets not get it twisted, because Tarantino's direction of the story is brilliant, so even though it's not the most complex narrative ever written, the film is still unpredictable till the very end.
Speaking of direction, this is some of the man's best work, as it's unbelievably stunning visually. Many (including me) talk about the man's screenwriting constantly but here we are given an unbelievably mature (at times, he still loves being playful with the camera) visual style. As the language jumps from German, to English, to French to Italian (lol you'll see), the look of the film slips from epic to intimate to claustrophobic seamlessly with some to the shots, the best that the man has ever filmed.
Marketing has fucked up (again) and portrayed the film as not only an all out action epic but as a Brad Pitt movie. Here's the thing, it's a ensemble piece of the truest word. Everyone has their moment and all the performances are fun too watch. Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz are fantastic and I will not be surprised if we start seeing them in more American Movies. Waltz turns Hans Landa into one of QT's most memorable antagonists yet. Laurent's display is one of film noir cool and restraint emotions. She's strong, independent and clearly not the sort female character you'd see in your usual mainstream American movie.
The Basterd's themselves will be a mixed bag to most I feel. Eli Roth is clearly not an actor, but I enjoyed his OTT all American joe thing that he did. Til Schweiger is all scowls and sneers (it's great fun) while the twisted popeye-esque face of Brad Pitt is one note but hilarious throughout. Pitt's accent and performance fits Tarantino's dialogue perfectly and his (limited) screen time makes sure that you don't get sick of him too easily (there will be people who will hate him as well as Roth.)
Delibraly paced, visually striking and of course very witty, Inglourous Basterds is one of my favorite films of the year. I didn't expect it to be. After Deathproof I was worried that this would be equally as frustrating. However IB reminds me of the more assured writing and direction that was seen in Jackie Brown than in the horrid overt self-indulgence shown in Deathproof. Those who dislike QT need not apply as the film will say nothing new to you, but those seeking something a little bizarre but extremely entertaining and can't see Moon anywhere should try to check this out.
Listen to the podcast here
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Friday, 14 August 2009
Review: A Perfect Getaway
Year: 2009
Director: David Twohy
Screenplay: David Twohy
Starring: Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, Timothy Olyphant
After leaving the cinema all i had to say was hummmmm. I guess I'll give A Perfect Getaway an A for effort as for the most part the film is well acted and the setting is perfect for the film. It's a shame that A Perfect Getaway has a third act that disrupts the tone far too much to be satisfying. Many will complain about the films twist (which Twohy placed a lot on) but the revel doesn't bother me, it's everything after said reveal that annoys.
When the films opening titles came up I took a shot about the films twist and because I watch too many movies I was right. This wasn't too much of an issue because David Twohy's (Pitch Black) script is snappy, and his direction does just enough to distract me from my smugness. Since Eli Roth's Hostel, horror and thriller have been doing the rounds in various tourist traps and Twohy makes sure that Hawaii is shot the best. A Perfect Getaway reminds me of films like The Decent, in which the films surroundings become part of the film. It subtly shows how easily something bad could happen in such a place and how simple it could be to disappear. Twohy balances this with playful character interaction drawing up some smart performances from the leads, with Steve Zahn in particular looking the most grateful, finally being allowed to have some range and not play the Zany sidekick.
For the most part this is all well crafted and while other reviews have claimed that the films build up is boring, I was having a blast. That is, until the films climax. Twohy's suddenly shoves the film into overdrive and once the films pulls the rug from under you, it decides that character motivations are no longer important, and contrivance is far more interesting than anything that happened before hand. It's clear that Twohy wants to play around with the "tourist torture" sub-genre, but if that's the case why does everything fall apart after the reveal? It's at this point that the film should tighten it's grip, instead the film becomes more flimsy in logic.
The film becomes more violent but not for the better because I don't buy what the characters do after the rug pull. Actions just don't ring true and the high amount of violence does nothing to distract the fact that Twohy kills the films rhythm and pace by placing an overlong flashback explaining the ins and outs of said twist. It doesn't help that more characters are introduced for no reason other then to up the body count, but by the time this happens I've already lost interest.
Twohy once again shows that he is a solid enough genre filmmaker, however A Perfect Getaway takes a wrong turn before the final hurdle and with that fails to finish satisfyingly. The holiday hell thriller still has legs in it before it gets stale, but those looking for something a little fresher may need to look elsewhere.
Listen to the podcast here
Director: David Twohy
Screenplay: David Twohy
Starring: Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, Timothy Olyphant
After leaving the cinema all i had to say was hummmmm. I guess I'll give A Perfect Getaway an A for effort as for the most part the film is well acted and the setting is perfect for the film. It's a shame that A Perfect Getaway has a third act that disrupts the tone far too much to be satisfying. Many will complain about the films twist (which Twohy placed a lot on) but the revel doesn't bother me, it's everything after said reveal that annoys.
When the films opening titles came up I took a shot about the films twist and because I watch too many movies I was right. This wasn't too much of an issue because David Twohy's (Pitch Black) script is snappy, and his direction does just enough to distract me from my smugness. Since Eli Roth's Hostel, horror and thriller have been doing the rounds in various tourist traps and Twohy makes sure that Hawaii is shot the best. A Perfect Getaway reminds me of films like The Decent, in which the films surroundings become part of the film. It subtly shows how easily something bad could happen in such a place and how simple it could be to disappear. Twohy balances this with playful character interaction drawing up some smart performances from the leads, with Steve Zahn in particular looking the most grateful, finally being allowed to have some range and not play the Zany sidekick.
For the most part this is all well crafted and while other reviews have claimed that the films build up is boring, I was having a blast. That is, until the films climax. Twohy's suddenly shoves the film into overdrive and once the films pulls the rug from under you, it decides that character motivations are no longer important, and contrivance is far more interesting than anything that happened before hand. It's clear that Twohy wants to play around with the "tourist torture" sub-genre, but if that's the case why does everything fall apart after the reveal? It's at this point that the film should tighten it's grip, instead the film becomes more flimsy in logic.
The film becomes more violent but not for the better because I don't buy what the characters do after the rug pull. Actions just don't ring true and the high amount of violence does nothing to distract the fact that Twohy kills the films rhythm and pace by placing an overlong flashback explaining the ins and outs of said twist. It doesn't help that more characters are introduced for no reason other then to up the body count, but by the time this happens I've already lost interest.
Twohy once again shows that he is a solid enough genre filmmaker, however A Perfect Getaway takes a wrong turn before the final hurdle and with that fails to finish satisfyingly. The holiday hell thriller still has legs in it before it gets stale, but those looking for something a little fresher may need to look elsewhere.
Listen to the podcast here
Monday, 10 August 2009
Review: Lesbian Vampire Killers
Year: 2009
Director: Phil Claydon
Screenplay: Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield
Starring: James Corden, Matthew Horne
In 2003 Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield (both MTV producers at the time) were challenged to think up of the dumbest and yet most commercial film title they could think of before going off and writing the script. Lesbian Vampire Killers is what they came up with. Intended to be a straight to DVD B movie with Williams intended to play one of the parts, six years on it becomes an upcoming vehicle for a comic double act (soon to be vilified due to overexposure) who have been gaining rave reviews for their BBC Three sitcom. The film is released to a shed load of piss poor critical reviews and pretty much bombing at the box office.
I feel my little history lesson helps show the wealth of problems Lesbian Vampire Killers has before I even try tackling the movie. Think of a stupid commercial title first before any sort of real idea, a straight to DVD B movie given a theatrical release because Horne and Corden are in it. MTV PRODUCERS WRITING A SCREENPLAY OF ANY KIND. The film was almost pretty much doomed to fail before it started.
Obviously, the film is clearly tongue in cheek, a spoof of the old school hammer horror/B movies that people hold dear. However, LVK fails because it seems that the filmmakers haven't even watched the films that they are trying to take the piss out of. Death Proof has it's fair share of distractors but you can't say that Tarantino doesn't love the movies he's homaging. The same goes for Planet Terror which revels in it's exploitative nature. LVK plays it safe throughout as if the BBFC had bulked on the films name and did it's best to clamp down any extreme elements during filming. A film like this should be cheeky not sanitised, however LVK does little to truly cash in on it's name. It's not very gory, nor is it that sexy and that's bad enough. It doesn't help that it's not very funny either.
Director Phil Claydon does his best to fill the large cracks by making the film visually interesting. While he should stay away from gimmicky effects, the film looks good. In fact it looks better than it should. It's a shame the script can't match up to the director's eye. The screenplay is shoddy work, with no real humor to speak of. In fact the only real reason any of the film is amusing is due to the hard work James Corden puts in. Corden gets all the "best lines" and is clearly comfortable in the film atmosphere. Matthew Horne however, clearly shows he's not ready to carry a film with a performance as awkward as it is bland. Paul McGann is roped in to give "British cinema a hand" while all the female parts are not worth talking about. Reason? They're are only here to look good. But when a film called Lesbian Vampire Killers has hardly any sex in it...what's the point?
Lesbian Vampire Killers is one of the weakest entries into the film cannon I've seen this year. A feminist view of the film would be disastrous as the film is littered with casual misogyny. Fans of the genre will be disappointed due to the films lack of spine and casual viewers may get nothing out of it either. All in all a waste of time for all involved.
Director: Phil Claydon
Screenplay: Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield
Starring: James Corden, Matthew Horne
In 2003 Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield (both MTV producers at the time) were challenged to think up of the dumbest and yet most commercial film title they could think of before going off and writing the script. Lesbian Vampire Killers is what they came up with. Intended to be a straight to DVD B movie with Williams intended to play one of the parts, six years on it becomes an upcoming vehicle for a comic double act (soon to be vilified due to overexposure) who have been gaining rave reviews for their BBC Three sitcom. The film is released to a shed load of piss poor critical reviews and pretty much bombing at the box office.
I feel my little history lesson helps show the wealth of problems Lesbian Vampire Killers has before I even try tackling the movie. Think of a stupid commercial title first before any sort of real idea, a straight to DVD B movie given a theatrical release because Horne and Corden are in it. MTV PRODUCERS WRITING A SCREENPLAY OF ANY KIND. The film was almost pretty much doomed to fail before it started.
Obviously, the film is clearly tongue in cheek, a spoof of the old school hammer horror/B movies that people hold dear. However, LVK fails because it seems that the filmmakers haven't even watched the films that they are trying to take the piss out of. Death Proof has it's fair share of distractors but you can't say that Tarantino doesn't love the movies he's homaging. The same goes for Planet Terror which revels in it's exploitative nature. LVK plays it safe throughout as if the BBFC had bulked on the films name and did it's best to clamp down any extreme elements during filming. A film like this should be cheeky not sanitised, however LVK does little to truly cash in on it's name. It's not very gory, nor is it that sexy and that's bad enough. It doesn't help that it's not very funny either.
Director Phil Claydon does his best to fill the large cracks by making the film visually interesting. While he should stay away from gimmicky effects, the film looks good. In fact it looks better than it should. It's a shame the script can't match up to the director's eye. The screenplay is shoddy work, with no real humor to speak of. In fact the only real reason any of the film is amusing is due to the hard work James Corden puts in. Corden gets all the "best lines" and is clearly comfortable in the film atmosphere. Matthew Horne however, clearly shows he's not ready to carry a film with a performance as awkward as it is bland. Paul McGann is roped in to give "British cinema a hand" while all the female parts are not worth talking about. Reason? They're are only here to look good. But when a film called Lesbian Vampire Killers has hardly any sex in it...what's the point?
Lesbian Vampire Killers is one of the weakest entries into the film cannon I've seen this year. A feminist view of the film would be disastrous as the film is littered with casual misogyny. Fans of the genre will be disappointed due to the films lack of spine and casual viewers may get nothing out of it either. All in all a waste of time for all involved.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
RIP: John Hughes: 1950 - 2009
Voice of a generationSo many words have been spoken so I'm merely adding to the mass. People have been talking
about the man over the weekend and the words have been so tender and sweet that anything I would say would pale in comparison. The best thing I can do is show my favorite Hughes scene:
Two words: Unbridled Joy
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Review: Moon
Year: 2009
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Nathan Parker
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Here's the thing. I live in a medium sized town which has two cinemas. Sounds great for a guy like me yeah? Well not quite. Both are multiplexes and we're still in the summer blockbuster season. And with that, smaller films like Moon will be pushed out in order to have another screen of Harry Potter, despite the fact it's playing in the other five cinemas. So how did I get to see Moon? I got my ass off the sofa and got on a train. Pricey? Little bit. Worth it? Defiantly.
If you (read: anyone) reads this blog on somewhat of a regular basis, then you may have heard me signing the praises of Johnny Depp in Public Enemies. It was a performance I considered one of the best (if not the best) of the year. Well sorry Johnny and shut the fuck up Byron, Sam Rockwell film carrying display in Moon was quite simply stunning. Rockwell hasn't been this engaging since his remarkable performance in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), and here in this film he shows once again why he's so watchable.
It's hard to truly talk about how good Rockwell is in the role without letting out some of Moon's deeper secrets and because of that I will only say this: It's varied. This is a film that relies (almost solely) on Rockwell carrying it and he does so with ease. One plot moment is shown in the trailer but it doesn't tell you how fragmented the role Rockwell plays is. This is not the (intentionally) flat performance by Keir Dullea in 2001 (a film which Moon riffs on consantly) but a complicated, nuanced display of isolation, fear and deterioration.
Rockwell's performance helps bring about the larger arguments that Duncan Jones wishes to bring forth in the movie: what does it mean to be human? Is it our works? our memories? Jones delivers the films themes with such a sobering it hits you in the gut. Sci-fi films often deal with the ideals of spirituality, not here. Moon has been talked about as a film dealing with loneliness and this is true, but it's not just about the one man on the moon, but us as a race. This is hard sci-fi that isn't scared to remind us that we may only be an accident or a mistake and that we're doing everything to keep us occupied. It's scary thought but more which is much more interesting than the hackneyed alien god hodgepodge that lies at the end of Knowing.
It is this bold and adult look at story telling that makes Moon stand out. Jones, making his first feature length film, keeps the effects simple (and effective), while the pace and tone of the film will remind people of Alien. Jones' homages so many classic sci-fi films (Solaris, Silent Running etc) but refuses to merely ape them and brings about a film with it's own sense of being and relevance. The brilliant score from Clint Mansell (as always) only help seals the vision completely with the music managing to be both ominous and emotional at various points.
For me I found Moon to be beautiful, stunning and brilliant. It's fantastic central performance, deep themes and involving story make it one of the best I've seen this year. It's a shame that many won't get to see it until DVD next year, I however am happy to have seen it when I did.
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Nathan Parker
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Here's the thing. I live in a medium sized town which has two cinemas. Sounds great for a guy like me yeah? Well not quite. Both are multiplexes and we're still in the summer blockbuster season. And with that, smaller films like Moon will be pushed out in order to have another screen of Harry Potter, despite the fact it's playing in the other five cinemas. So how did I get to see Moon? I got my ass off the sofa and got on a train. Pricey? Little bit. Worth it? Defiantly.
If you (read: anyone) reads this blog on somewhat of a regular basis, then you may have heard me signing the praises of Johnny Depp in Public Enemies. It was a performance I considered one of the best (if not the best) of the year. Well sorry Johnny and shut the fuck up Byron, Sam Rockwell film carrying display in Moon was quite simply stunning. Rockwell hasn't been this engaging since his remarkable performance in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), and here in this film he shows once again why he's so watchable.
It's hard to truly talk about how good Rockwell is in the role without letting out some of Moon's deeper secrets and because of that I will only say this: It's varied. This is a film that relies (almost solely) on Rockwell carrying it and he does so with ease. One plot moment is shown in the trailer but it doesn't tell you how fragmented the role Rockwell plays is. This is not the (intentionally) flat performance by Keir Dullea in 2001 (a film which Moon riffs on consantly) but a complicated, nuanced display of isolation, fear and deterioration.
Rockwell's performance helps bring about the larger arguments that Duncan Jones wishes to bring forth in the movie: what does it mean to be human? Is it our works? our memories? Jones delivers the films themes with such a sobering it hits you in the gut. Sci-fi films often deal with the ideals of spirituality, not here. Moon has been talked about as a film dealing with loneliness and this is true, but it's not just about the one man on the moon, but us as a race. This is hard sci-fi that isn't scared to remind us that we may only be an accident or a mistake and that we're doing everything to keep us occupied. It's scary thought but more which is much more interesting than the hackneyed alien god hodgepodge that lies at the end of Knowing.
It is this bold and adult look at story telling that makes Moon stand out. Jones, making his first feature length film, keeps the effects simple (and effective), while the pace and tone of the film will remind people of Alien. Jones' homages so many classic sci-fi films (Solaris, Silent Running etc) but refuses to merely ape them and brings about a film with it's own sense of being and relevance. The brilliant score from Clint Mansell (as always) only help seals the vision completely with the music managing to be both ominous and emotional at various points.
For me I found Moon to be beautiful, stunning and brilliant. It's fantastic central performance, deep themes and involving story make it one of the best I've seen this year. It's a shame that many won't get to see it until DVD next year, I however am happy to have seen it when I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)