Year: 2008 (U.K release 2009)
Director: Woody Allen
Screenplay: Woody Allen
Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, Rebecca Hall
Synopsis is here
Woody Allen is a director I admire for a few reasons, but one thing that always gets me is effort. Now, drifting into his 70's Allen is still consistently making product (still one film a year) drenched in themes that mean the most to him. However, the successful merge of critical and commercial plaudits have managed to escape him for the most part. With Vicky Christina Barcelona Allen manages to grab back some of the praise that has been missing for the most part of his latter career (not like that's what drives him of course.).
Picking up an Oscar (Penelope Cruz in a spicy supporting role), Vicky Christina Barcalona is a bright and breezy affair that once again delves into the complexities of love and logic that Allen enjoys toying with. It's a film that's relatively sharp and is in love with it's surrounding. For the most part, it's an entertaining movie. It's a pity that Allen has decided to go with the idea of having the story narrated throughout the whole movie. The narration (Voiced by Christopher Evan Welch) is one of the worst decisions considered by a filmmaker who is usually a little more savvy in his judgment.
The film's narration brings down a lot of what makes the film interesting. Instead of characters displaying their emotions, we are patronizingly told by a narrator who has no qualms about stating the obvious as well as ruining the films more delicate moments. This turns the movie into a kind of "Woody Allen for dummies" in which you don't have to use your brain to process the movie as everything is laid out on a plate. The drab statements made on the films scenes are made worse due to the fact that they're not even amusing. It's bad enough that they wreck some of the character interplay but at least be funny!
It's not all bad as Allen fills the screen not only with the gorgeous scenery but with attractive performances from the films leads. The film plays with the idea that we as human beings may not be as grounded in our monogamous lifestyles as we think. While on paper the peculiar love square comes across as ridiculous but the choice of cast and their charm make it work. Bardem's voice is full of seductive promise, while Cruz is the perfect destructive foil for their relationships gone wrong. My favorite performance comes from Rebecca Hall who manages to sneak in the "Allen" neurotic turn under the guise of an uptight culture student. Placing all the hang-ups upon her is the best move of the film. Scarlett Johansson whose been slowly picking some dubious choices as of late (He's not that into you, The fucking Spirit) picks up her game slightly but unfortunately seems to be resigned to merely being the eye candy.
Direction-wise Allen is still a solid craftsman, with the films story being an entertaining (if a little fluffy) one. It's also good to see the director branching out to different locations in his later years (I haven't seen his London excursions as of yet) as the change of scenery really does his ideas good. From a writing point of view his screenplay (narration aside) still has an ear for what sounds good in peoples mouths and while some may complain that these characters are "wordy", the actors once again make sure it doesn't sound too out of place.
Despite having the film speaking to me as if I'm some sort of child, Vicky Christina Barcelona is still a lively piece of work from a man who will never stop to take a break. Lets hope that his upcoming "whatever works" manages to keep up the trend. Lets just hope that we get show and not tell.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Monday, 2 November 2009
Best Person to play Sinatra?
So the reports are flying in that Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney are fighting it out for the role of Frank Sinatra in Marty Scorsese's biopic... Right ok. I don't know about you but what I wouldn't do for a talented unknown who ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE OL' BLUE EYES to jump ahead of them and get the part..
Just a thought.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Review: My Bloody Valentine
Year: 2009
Director: Patrick Lussier
Screenplay: Todd Farmer, Zane Smith
Starring: Jensen Ackles, Jamie King, Kerr Smith
Synopsis is here
If you also happen to listen to the podcast that I co-host with my movie pal Iain, you will know that I've been avoiding 3-d for quite a while. I have many reasons why I've discouraged the idea to friends, readers and listeners ranging from the inflated price to not being able to take my girlfriend due an issue with her eyes. I've never seen the point of it and even made sure I watched UP in 2-d so I could concentrate on the film and not the gimmick.
However, this Halloween I went to a cinema all-nighter with the geekplanet crew (the people who host the podcast among other things) and unfortunately one of the movies on the 4 film program was Patrick Lussier's remake of a 1981 slasher film and it was only in 3-d.
After watching this dreadful entry into the over stuffed genre of the slasher 3-d finally nailed a coffin into my thoughts of 3-d; it is a gimmick that is only being used to try and stop pirating and to get you to pay more for films. It adds nothing to the experience of the film and doesn't draw a viewer into what they're watching. Too make matters worse, Lussier's movie is a cliche ridden, poorly acted, badly realized slasher movie with nothing going for it except it's gimmick...which doesn't work.
There is no point in talking about the film's aesthetics because they only exist to push the idea of 3-d. Unfortunately this is a technology that hasn't evolved since the 50's and this third attempt at selling the idea still suffers from the same problems that stop it before. I usually sit about 5 to 6 rows up in the middle of the cinema depending on what I'm watching and this position for 3'd is nothing short of useless. I have no doubt the film would put an annoying strain on my eyes no matter where i sat, but the problem is for those people sitting anywhere other than the middle of the back row, the 3-d element is incredibly uncomfortable to watch.
Throughout the experience my eyes ached, watered and lost focus of what I was supposed to be watching. Due to most horror filmmakers being addicted to the idea of over cutting movies, the MTV-style method of editing made watching certain aspects intolerable. The glasses itched and I found myself removing them every so often in fear of an epileptic fit. This may be construed as overreacting, however I found this movie difficult to watch because of the gimmick it's pushing and there's nothing else found within the screen worth recommending to anyone.
Yes this is a poorly veiled rant at 3-d films, but unfortunately there is nothing else to say about this film. The transparent narrative makes the plots Scooby Doo appear to be masterpieces. The glazed look of all the actors communicate nothing other than the word "paycheck", the violence is uninspiring and the entire film is about as scary as sack of kittens. You will miss nothing if you avoid this movie. A naff time had by all.
Director: Patrick Lussier
Screenplay: Todd Farmer, Zane Smith
Starring: Jensen Ackles, Jamie King, Kerr Smith
Synopsis is here
If you also happen to listen to the podcast that I co-host with my movie pal Iain, you will know that I've been avoiding 3-d for quite a while. I have many reasons why I've discouraged the idea to friends, readers and listeners ranging from the inflated price to not being able to take my girlfriend due an issue with her eyes. I've never seen the point of it and even made sure I watched UP in 2-d so I could concentrate on the film and not the gimmick.
However, this Halloween I went to a cinema all-nighter with the geekplanet crew (the people who host the podcast among other things) and unfortunately one of the movies on the 4 film program was Patrick Lussier's remake of a 1981 slasher film and it was only in 3-d.
After watching this dreadful entry into the over stuffed genre of the slasher 3-d finally nailed a coffin into my thoughts of 3-d; it is a gimmick that is only being used to try and stop pirating and to get you to pay more for films. It adds nothing to the experience of the film and doesn't draw a viewer into what they're watching. Too make matters worse, Lussier's movie is a cliche ridden, poorly acted, badly realized slasher movie with nothing going for it except it's gimmick...which doesn't work.
There is no point in talking about the film's aesthetics because they only exist to push the idea of 3-d. Unfortunately this is a technology that hasn't evolved since the 50's and this third attempt at selling the idea still suffers from the same problems that stop it before. I usually sit about 5 to 6 rows up in the middle of the cinema depending on what I'm watching and this position for 3'd is nothing short of useless. I have no doubt the film would put an annoying strain on my eyes no matter where i sat, but the problem is for those people sitting anywhere other than the middle of the back row, the 3-d element is incredibly uncomfortable to watch.
Throughout the experience my eyes ached, watered and lost focus of what I was supposed to be watching. Due to most horror filmmakers being addicted to the idea of over cutting movies, the MTV-style method of editing made watching certain aspects intolerable. The glasses itched and I found myself removing them every so often in fear of an epileptic fit. This may be construed as overreacting, however I found this movie difficult to watch because of the gimmick it's pushing and there's nothing else found within the screen worth recommending to anyone.
Yes this is a poorly veiled rant at 3-d films, but unfortunately there is nothing else to say about this film. The transparent narrative makes the plots Scooby Doo appear to be masterpieces. The glazed look of all the actors communicate nothing other than the word "paycheck", the violence is uninspiring and the entire film is about as scary as sack of kittens. You will miss nothing if you avoid this movie. A naff time had by all.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Review: Starsuckers
Year: 2009
Director: Chris Akins
Screenplay: Chris Akins
My last excursion to the London Film festival was Chris Akins attack on media all consuming quest to entrap us in it's dazzling glare. The festival's organizer made a joke by mentioning that the some of the very newspapers that are being hit on are suddenly giving the film a quite a bit of column space. I do however worry that the joke may be on the filmmakers with it's lack of providing answers to clear us from the murky quagmire that is the media outlets have become.
The film is frustrating, frightening, troubling and yet constantly entertaining. It's annoyingly flawed but greatly important within our climate. It is essential viewing but will the right people see it? Like all good documentaries Starsuckers has stained my mind and has constantly had me questioning things since I've seen it. Akins' second documentary feature is not only good humored but well informative, hitting home with revealing information on such historic media events such as Live 8, or the disturbing moral ground that is creating fake celebrity stories for money. Such aspects of the film are not only funny but arouse important question about what we read and how our opinions is hijacked and reformed for consumption. Although much of this may not be new to a few people (read some Chomsky maybe) but I still found myself shocked by how deep the rabbit hole goes. So so twisted are the mechanics that I suddenly found myself feeling pretty helpless about how the media manipulates us.
But is this what Akins wants? For the viewer to like they can do nothing but succumb to global media domination? Akins taking liberties was a much more calculated attack on how Labour may have almost effectively stop Britain's right to free speech, which despite it's depressing outlook, still managed to have information on how to react to what you saw if one felt strong enough. Starsuckers lacks positive outcomes and by the end of the film, one may feel more than a little entrenched.
The film also attacks the Internet and bloggers such as myself which is fine, however when looking at the films difficulty in getting made by biting the hand that feeds, it's the honesty of certain bloggers and web writers that will allow this movie to thrive because it will be extremely difficult to go though more traditional outlets.
The film works best when it's kept simple. Akin employ high jinks that would have the likes of Bruno and Borat blushing while Micheal Moore nods in approval. In fact judging by the films reaction with the cinema, Akins effective (if slightly smug) methods not only garner great laughs but manage to get many of the films important points across, even if the film is slightly over reaching.
Starsuckers may have many liberals nodding and winking at the screen, hurriedly agreeing with the films views, but the films lack of positives and over reliance on humor had me worry that maybe we've gone beyond the point of no return when it comes to finding a way out. Where have our reliable sources gone for instance? While we are not in the days of Bernstein and Woodward any more, but isn't there anyone out there to save us? Starsuckers is funny, effective and scary but the question it should but doesn't ask is "what are we going to do?"
More Starsuckers talk at Geekplanetonline
Director: Chris Akins
Screenplay: Chris Akins
My last excursion to the London Film festival was Chris Akins attack on media all consuming quest to entrap us in it's dazzling glare. The festival's organizer made a joke by mentioning that the some of the very newspapers that are being hit on are suddenly giving the film a quite a bit of column space. I do however worry that the joke may be on the filmmakers with it's lack of providing answers to clear us from the murky quagmire that is the media outlets have become.
The film is frustrating, frightening, troubling and yet constantly entertaining. It's annoyingly flawed but greatly important within our climate. It is essential viewing but will the right people see it? Like all good documentaries Starsuckers has stained my mind and has constantly had me questioning things since I've seen it. Akins' second documentary feature is not only good humored but well informative, hitting home with revealing information on such historic media events such as Live 8, or the disturbing moral ground that is creating fake celebrity stories for money. Such aspects of the film are not only funny but arouse important question about what we read and how our opinions is hijacked and reformed for consumption. Although much of this may not be new to a few people (read some Chomsky maybe) but I still found myself shocked by how deep the rabbit hole goes. So so twisted are the mechanics that I suddenly found myself feeling pretty helpless about how the media manipulates us.
But is this what Akins wants? For the viewer to like they can do nothing but succumb to global media domination? Akins taking liberties was a much more calculated attack on how Labour may have almost effectively stop Britain's right to free speech, which despite it's depressing outlook, still managed to have information on how to react to what you saw if one felt strong enough. Starsuckers lacks positive outcomes and by the end of the film, one may feel more than a little entrenched.
The film also attacks the Internet and bloggers such as myself which is fine, however when looking at the films difficulty in getting made by biting the hand that feeds, it's the honesty of certain bloggers and web writers that will allow this movie to thrive because it will be extremely difficult to go though more traditional outlets.
The film works best when it's kept simple. Akin employ high jinks that would have the likes of Bruno and Borat blushing while Micheal Moore nods in approval. In fact judging by the films reaction with the cinema, Akins effective (if slightly smug) methods not only garner great laughs but manage to get many of the films important points across, even if the film is slightly over reaching.
Starsuckers may have many liberals nodding and winking at the screen, hurriedly agreeing with the films views, but the films lack of positives and over reliance on humor had me worry that maybe we've gone beyond the point of no return when it comes to finding a way out. Where have our reliable sources gone for instance? While we are not in the days of Bernstein and Woodward any more, but isn't there anyone out there to save us? Starsuckers is funny, effective and scary but the question it should but doesn't ask is "what are we going to do?"
More Starsuckers talk at Geekplanetonline
Review: Taking Woodstock
Year: 2009
Director: Ang Lee
Screenplay: James Schamus
Starring: Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton, Henry Goodman, Liev Schreiber
Plot Synopsis is here
It's interesting to see that both taking woodstock and a serious man are about good natured protagonists who are beginning to buckle under the amount of pressure that is heaped upon them. However while The Coens have a sympathetic yet unfortunate character, a strong back catalogue of themes and a genuinely intriguing story to fall back on. Woodstock has nothing but the fading glory of the festival to prop itself up....oh wait none of the festival is seen.
From the off the path, of Taking Woodstock is a gentle and at first an amusing one. As the characters get introduced, it's clear to see that it wishes to be a film that doesn't want to rock the boat to much. Considering the controversies of lee's recent entries (Lust, Caution and Brokeback Mountain), this is almost a complete turn around and one that many could find quite pleasing. The problem is with a film subject as well documented and volatile as this one, Lee does nothing to fully engage myself as a viewer. The drama is bland, with little or no strong conflict to speak of. In fact, compared to the much maligned Hulk movie (also by Lee) it's quite surprising that Hulk wins out in the dramatic stakes.
When the idea of actually getting the characters to butt heads actually rears it's head, you realize the screenplays lack of character background hampered it yonks ago when you were laughing at the one dimensional money hungry Russian Jewish mother character that was thrown in your face. In a supposed coming of age film like this, sometimes humor can only take you so far, and by the time Demetri Martin's lead character of Elliot has missed a day of the festival due to an acid trip, you've discovered that the film is not really interested in his plight. Sprinklings of what the film could be appear in places but lacks the verve and passion that usually comes with Lee's films.
The films sense of place is also patchy, the idea of having a film about Woodstock without showing any of it is a novel and brave idea. But compare this to Almost Famous and you realise how lost in time the film really is. Crowe's crowd pleaser also doesn't have famous names playing either, but Crowe's story feels so much closer to the era than James Schamus screenplay.
Some Performances are amusing in the film (Imelda Staunton, Henry Goodman and Liev Schreiber being standouts) but these are hampered by an uneven lead who seems overwhelmed by the films (perceived) scope and the simply brutal Emile Hirsch, whose ott performance is nabbed from every nam veteran part ever known.
Considered to be a coming of age tale, this doesn't come close as we should connect with the trails and tribulations of character as the arc raises and reaches a climax. But everything is held at a distance while Martin's Elliot drifts out of one of the most important moments of his generation. Also considering Lee's Brokeback Mountain, the films homosexual subtext is badly handled and almost non-existent, as if Lee decided that "going gay" again would be a bad idea. It wouldn't if it were dealt as tenderly as Lee's neo-western.
Taking Woodstock pitters out of stream by the last act and by the time the film clumsily inserts some tame drama it's too late. The characters haven't been sympathetic enough for us to care and the films real story as been lost amid the Woodstock background. So much is put upon the planning of the event but nothing on why you should care about the players positions.
A rear miss from a more than capable director, it's easy to see why Lee does some of the things he does and it's good to see something not as forced as say Benjamin Button, with this said, more assertiveness was needed to make the drama interesting while I wouldn't minded a more focused screenplay. Cest la vie.
Hear me talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Director: Ang Lee
Screenplay: James Schamus
Starring: Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton, Henry Goodman, Liev Schreiber
Plot Synopsis is here
It's interesting to see that both taking woodstock and a serious man are about good natured protagonists who are beginning to buckle under the amount of pressure that is heaped upon them. However while The Coens have a sympathetic yet unfortunate character, a strong back catalogue of themes and a genuinely intriguing story to fall back on. Woodstock has nothing but the fading glory of the festival to prop itself up....oh wait none of the festival is seen.
From the off the path, of Taking Woodstock is a gentle and at first an amusing one. As the characters get introduced, it's clear to see that it wishes to be a film that doesn't want to rock the boat to much. Considering the controversies of lee's recent entries (Lust, Caution and Brokeback Mountain), this is almost a complete turn around and one that many could find quite pleasing. The problem is with a film subject as well documented and volatile as this one, Lee does nothing to fully engage myself as a viewer. The drama is bland, with little or no strong conflict to speak of. In fact, compared to the much maligned Hulk movie (also by Lee) it's quite surprising that Hulk wins out in the dramatic stakes.
When the idea of actually getting the characters to butt heads actually rears it's head, you realize the screenplays lack of character background hampered it yonks ago when you were laughing at the one dimensional money hungry Russian Jewish mother character that was thrown in your face. In a supposed coming of age film like this, sometimes humor can only take you so far, and by the time Demetri Martin's lead character of Elliot has missed a day of the festival due to an acid trip, you've discovered that the film is not really interested in his plight. Sprinklings of what the film could be appear in places but lacks the verve and passion that usually comes with Lee's films.
The films sense of place is also patchy, the idea of having a film about Woodstock without showing any of it is a novel and brave idea. But compare this to Almost Famous and you realise how lost in time the film really is. Crowe's crowd pleaser also doesn't have famous names playing either, but Crowe's story feels so much closer to the era than James Schamus screenplay.
Some Performances are amusing in the film (Imelda Staunton, Henry Goodman and Liev Schreiber being standouts) but these are hampered by an uneven lead who seems overwhelmed by the films (perceived) scope and the simply brutal Emile Hirsch, whose ott performance is nabbed from every nam veteran part ever known.
Considered to be a coming of age tale, this doesn't come close as we should connect with the trails and tribulations of character as the arc raises and reaches a climax. But everything is held at a distance while Martin's Elliot drifts out of one of the most important moments of his generation. Also considering Lee's Brokeback Mountain, the films homosexual subtext is badly handled and almost non-existent, as if Lee decided that "going gay" again would be a bad idea. It wouldn't if it were dealt as tenderly as Lee's neo-western.
Taking Woodstock pitters out of stream by the last act and by the time the film clumsily inserts some tame drama it's too late. The characters haven't been sympathetic enough for us to care and the films real story as been lost amid the Woodstock background. So much is put upon the planning of the event but nothing on why you should care about the players positions.
A rear miss from a more than capable director, it's easy to see why Lee does some of the things he does and it's good to see something not as forced as say Benjamin Button, with this said, more assertiveness was needed to make the drama interesting while I wouldn't minded a more focused screenplay. Cest la vie.
Hear me talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)