Year: 2010
Director: The Hughes Brothers
Screenplay: Gary Whitta
Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
You could say that The Book of Eli is the "louder" cousin to The Road. But whereas The road was a meditation on the very morals that make us human, The Book of Eli is about Denzel Washington kick ass and taking names. It also has a plot moment that shouldn't work if you think about it for more than one second, however the slick direction from The Hughes Brothers manage to distract me enough that I didn't notice how dumb said plot point was until I had left the cinema.
The film has other issues, there's far too much slow motion, it's slightly over long and none of the performances are any of the actors best. With all that said, I found something to enjoy within the movie. One of the main things being that after 8 years, the Hughes bros' can still infuse a film with a vigorous energy. It's not as immediate and hard hitting as their still superb debut (Menace 2 Society) but it shows that they still have the talent for directing set pieces. In fact despite the fact that the films best action sequence owes a lot to Bad Boys 2, it just so happens they nicked the best part of that movie and almost made it their own.
And it's not just moments of action. The brothers still have a knack for making a story engaging. Despite the aforementioned mis-steps, The Book of Eli still makes for a mostly engrossing watch. It helps that the siblings are directing the likes of Washington and Oldman (despite both actors being not at their best, they still bring a certain something to the parts), but the film also has some great visuals. and the underlying themes are interesting ones if not subtle.
Subtlety is not the films strong point. Not that it matters because like I mentioned before, this is a film about Denzel kicking ass. However it is that lack of subtlety that makes John Hillcoat's The Road the better view for me. There are images within Eli that almost mimic The Road but they lack the subtext that is loaded within the latter film. To put it simply; the reason it's a Coke can is important, the reason why it's a Motorola loudspeaker is money.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Monday, 11 January 2010
Review: The Road
Year: 2010
Director: John Hillcoat
Screenplay: Joe Penhall
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee
Synopsis is here
Like the fans who will never believe that a remake can be better than the original. Film adaptations from books face a similar scrutiny from people who find it hard to separate the two mediums. When a book you love is turned into a movie, it's very hard to get those images the pages have burned into your memory, So much so that everything, EVERYTHING that isn't in place in the film, even the elements that just wouldn't fit in a cinematic way become a flaw.
As an avid movie viewer I realize that trying to fit all the nuances that a book can carry, into a consumable two hour movie is more than a little difficult. One must also remember that even how a book is WRITTEN concocts a mental picture completely unique to the reader.
This brings me to Cormac McCathy's hard going but stunning 2006 novel The Road, a book that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with a healthy interest in reading. With this said I will say that the novel is at times a difficult read. When I heard about the movie, I was instantly intrigued. After the film being pushed back for various reasons The Road is finally released to maybe perhaps contend with the 2010 Oscars. But despite this does it manage to do what adaptations should do and evoke the spirit of the book?
In my opinion The film does extremely well although it has its flaws. Case in point: The Infamous coke scene in which The Boy is given a can of coke by the father and told to drink it. In the book we understand that this the first time the boy has even heard of coke let alone drank the stuff. It's a small moment but the poignancy behind it has hidden depths. Despite it being a basic hypothesis (No more coke) it can hard to fathom, particularly when we take such things for granted. This incident in the film doesn't come across right. There's something about McCathy's prose that gets under the skin. Tapping into that feeling is so very difficult. This brings me to my other example, being the final scenes, which are so close to my imagination it feels like director John Hillcoat opened my brain and rummaged through my skull to pick out the mental pictures. They were exactly how I imagined them to be.
It's understandable to see why certain aspects of the film are executed in the way they were and while it's clearly obvious that The filmmakers need to stay as faithful to the novel as possible. The Road still kinda needs to be a marketable mainstream film. So while it's a little frustrating that the film feels more "action packed" (I use that in the loosest term) than the book, Hillcoat still manages to bring across so much of the same emotional tug that resides in the book, and while the narration of the father's is quite clunky (I understand why it's used but show not tell) Hillcoat manages to combine create the stark imagery dreamed by the author and is still able to get the novel's message across.
That message is of course the frailty of humanity. When the chips are really down, and the shit has hit the fan and is beginning to stink, it's not likely that we will act like the stereotypes we see in a film like 2012, it's going to be a downward spiral in which we wouldn't be able to recognize ourselves in the mirror. The central relationship between the boy and his father is one which states that even when we reach the end of civilization; hope and compassion will still be taught and learned. Not only will the older generation try and teach, but the younger breed will also help to install in life lessons.
To make sure this is communicated as thoroughly as possible, Hillcoat has placed his faith in the hands of the the experienced method actor that is Viggo Mortensen and the upcoming youth; Kodi Smit-McPhee. This combination not only puts a face to the "names" (they are unnamed throughout) but fill every frame they're in with raw emotion. With Mortensen, the work he puts into this is almost too easy for him, Smit-McPhee however, is the revelation here. The bonding they had in pre-production clearly shows through here as they carry the movie from struggle to struggle. One of the reasons the film is just as hard to sit though as the book, is because the leads on screen manage to describe how difficult the situation really is with each look, glance and stare.
Hillcoat who was also director of the equally blunt western The Proposition directs the plot efficiently and keeps the pacing tight. No watch watching here, I found myself at times truly lost in the films images and performances and despite some changes Hillcoat's vision is so very close to the book it made me fall in love with the original material again. That's what I feel an adaptation should be about, not straying so far away from the premise that it's a completely new entity, but not hugging the material so tight that the film becomes turgid. It's about finding the balance. A difficult goal to achieve but one that Hillcoat aims for and hits the mark often.
Delays may have kept it from reaching our shores sooner, but once it got here I was happy it didn't disappoint. The Road for me was not only worth a watch but worth checking McCarthy's prose once more. and for those who know how hard that book can be, it says a lot about how I felt about the film.
Director: John Hillcoat
Screenplay: Joe Penhall
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee
Synopsis is here
Like the fans who will never believe that a remake can be better than the original. Film adaptations from books face a similar scrutiny from people who find it hard to separate the two mediums. When a book you love is turned into a movie, it's very hard to get those images the pages have burned into your memory, So much so that everything, EVERYTHING that isn't in place in the film, even the elements that just wouldn't fit in a cinematic way become a flaw.
As an avid movie viewer I realize that trying to fit all the nuances that a book can carry, into a consumable two hour movie is more than a little difficult. One must also remember that even how a book is WRITTEN concocts a mental picture completely unique to the reader.
This brings me to Cormac McCathy's hard going but stunning 2006 novel The Road, a book that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with a healthy interest in reading. With this said I will say that the novel is at times a difficult read. When I heard about the movie, I was instantly intrigued. After the film being pushed back for various reasons The Road is finally released to maybe perhaps contend with the 2010 Oscars. But despite this does it manage to do what adaptations should do and evoke the spirit of the book?
In my opinion The film does extremely well although it has its flaws. Case in point: The Infamous coke scene in which The Boy is given a can of coke by the father and told to drink it. In the book we understand that this the first time the boy has even heard of coke let alone drank the stuff. It's a small moment but the poignancy behind it has hidden depths. Despite it being a basic hypothesis (No more coke) it can hard to fathom, particularly when we take such things for granted. This incident in the film doesn't come across right. There's something about McCathy's prose that gets under the skin. Tapping into that feeling is so very difficult. This brings me to my other example, being the final scenes, which are so close to my imagination it feels like director John Hillcoat opened my brain and rummaged through my skull to pick out the mental pictures. They were exactly how I imagined them to be.
It's understandable to see why certain aspects of the film are executed in the way they were and while it's clearly obvious that The filmmakers need to stay as faithful to the novel as possible. The Road still kinda needs to be a marketable mainstream film. So while it's a little frustrating that the film feels more "action packed" (I use that in the loosest term) than the book, Hillcoat still manages to bring across so much of the same emotional tug that resides in the book, and while the narration of the father's is quite clunky (I understand why it's used but show not tell) Hillcoat manages to combine create the stark imagery dreamed by the author and is still able to get the novel's message across.
That message is of course the frailty of humanity. When the chips are really down, and the shit has hit the fan and is beginning to stink, it's not likely that we will act like the stereotypes we see in a film like 2012, it's going to be a downward spiral in which we wouldn't be able to recognize ourselves in the mirror. The central relationship between the boy and his father is one which states that even when we reach the end of civilization; hope and compassion will still be taught and learned. Not only will the older generation try and teach, but the younger breed will also help to install in life lessons.
To make sure this is communicated as thoroughly as possible, Hillcoat has placed his faith in the hands of the the experienced method actor that is Viggo Mortensen and the upcoming youth; Kodi Smit-McPhee. This combination not only puts a face to the "names" (they are unnamed throughout) but fill every frame they're in with raw emotion. With Mortensen, the work he puts into this is almost too easy for him, Smit-McPhee however, is the revelation here. The bonding they had in pre-production clearly shows through here as they carry the movie from struggle to struggle. One of the reasons the film is just as hard to sit though as the book, is because the leads on screen manage to describe how difficult the situation really is with each look, glance and stare.
Hillcoat who was also director of the equally blunt western The Proposition directs the plot efficiently and keeps the pacing tight. No watch watching here, I found myself at times truly lost in the films images and performances and despite some changes Hillcoat's vision is so very close to the book it made me fall in love with the original material again. That's what I feel an adaptation should be about, not straying so far away from the premise that it's a completely new entity, but not hugging the material so tight that the film becomes turgid. It's about finding the balance. A difficult goal to achieve but one that Hillcoat aims for and hits the mark often.
Delays may have kept it from reaching our shores sooner, but once it got here I was happy it didn't disappoint. The Road for me was not only worth a watch but worth checking McCarthy's prose once more. and for those who know how hard that book can be, it says a lot about how I felt about the film.
Review: Daybreakers
Year: 2010
Director: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Screenplay: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Starring: Ethan Hawke , Sam Neill, Willam Defoe,
Synopsis is here
I will try and be as quick as possible with this because I really do not wish to waste words on this film.
Daybreakers wishes to be a snappy little genre piece but despite an intriguing twist on vampires (yes another fang flick) and some appealing visuals (including one particularly memorable night time action sequence involving exploding vamps at night), there is nothing here that you haven't seen before.
It's characters? Annoying. It's story? Predictable. It's action and scare sequences? (expect the aforementioned scene) Pedestrian Sometimes unintentionally funny. The film was a forgettable viewing that I won't care about seeing again.
It's a shame because vampires at this current moment in time really need a shot in the arm. Ethan Hawkes character is so wet I found it almost impossible to root for him. Sam Neill plays one of the most toothless capitalists I've ever seen, while Willem Defoe is in a role he could do in his sleep. A film like this could really do with something ANYTHING with some verve. Even the films talks about new ways of curing vampirism the ideas feel half baked. It doesn't help that the film has an background allegory towards immigration which is far more interesting than what's happening in the forefront.
It's only been a few hours since I've watched Daybreakers and already I have nothing else to say about it because the film is so faceless.
The Spierig brothers clearly have an astute visual style that will evolve and mature as they make more films. However I hope for their next trick they come up with something that I can "take home with me".
Director: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Screenplay: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Starring: Ethan Hawke , Sam Neill, Willam Defoe,
Synopsis is here
I will try and be as quick as possible with this because I really do not wish to waste words on this film.
Daybreakers wishes to be a snappy little genre piece but despite an intriguing twist on vampires (yes another fang flick) and some appealing visuals (including one particularly memorable night time action sequence involving exploding vamps at night), there is nothing here that you haven't seen before.
It's characters? Annoying. It's story? Predictable. It's action and scare sequences? (expect the aforementioned scene) Pedestrian Sometimes unintentionally funny. The film was a forgettable viewing that I won't care about seeing again.
It's a shame because vampires at this current moment in time really need a shot in the arm. Ethan Hawkes character is so wet I found it almost impossible to root for him. Sam Neill plays one of the most toothless capitalists I've ever seen, while Willem Defoe is in a role he could do in his sleep. A film like this could really do with something ANYTHING with some verve. Even the films talks about new ways of curing vampirism the ideas feel half baked. It doesn't help that the film has an background allegory towards immigration which is far more interesting than what's happening in the forefront.
It's only been a few hours since I've watched Daybreakers and already I have nothing else to say about it because the film is so faceless.
The Spierig brothers clearly have an astute visual style that will evolve and mature as they make more films. However I hope for their next trick they come up with something that I can "take home with me".
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Review: Nine
Year: 2009 (2010 U.K Release)
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenplay: Michael Tolkin and Anthony Minghella
Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penople Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren
Frederico Fellini's 8 1/2 is a wonderful, abstract film which shows a director at his most playful. Nine is another bland musical from Rob Marshall which is based on a theater show, which liberally borrows (i.e nicks) from Fellini's feature. While I haven't seen the stage musical, if this is anything to go by I'm happy I saw 8 1/2 first.
Fellini's film was sexy without being overtly sexual, stylish without being overly stylized and filled with content that melded dreamscapes with reality in a blink of an eye. It's a film that just washed over me and not only left me entertained but inspired (not that I could write anything as lucid as Fellini). Nine lacks the joy of the film that came before it, in fact the film is merely a pre-meditated attack on the awards season, stuffing the film with statue winners while neglecting everything else.
As a musical, it has no memorable songs. In fact they're not even interesting songs. The tunes are more likely to have aficionados ho-humming than just humming. As a regular film, it lacks the subtly that resided within the original film, with any poignant moments cut short by these musical numbers. These numbers are jarring, state the obvious and desperately try and hide the fact that Nine is trying to make a surreal film more conventional. Marshall's overall direction of the story is mediocre to say the least and the mixture of the unengaged drama and music don't mesh as well as they should. In fact I'm struggling now to remember any worth while scenes, such is the unremarkable telling of story.
It's not all bad I guess, there's some cute references to Fellini and his legacy and the performances by anyone with more than five minutes screen time do their best with the material. In fact, despite only being in the film for about ten minutes, Kate Hudson puts in a turn with more verve than anything she's done in the last ten years.
Unfortunately, it was all at a loss for me. In my opinion Nine lacked the energy as well as the mischievous of it's cinematic origin. Hell, it didn't even have the kinetic flair of Baz Luhrmann's far superior Moulin Rouge whose combination of romance, pop songs and dance number is still a spectacle to behold. Nine asked me to be Italian. Unfortunately for Marshall, the Italians were much better at the questioning.
Note: While I know that the film is based on a stage musical,however, during the credits, I don't remember the film saying anything about Frederico Fellini or 8 1/2. This says a lot about how Hollywood views film history at the best of times, taking imagery and reference from a filmmaker and not even crediting him in the main credits. It your going to mangle a man's film at least state who he is.
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenplay: Michael Tolkin and Anthony Minghella
Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penople Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren
Frederico Fellini's 8 1/2 is a wonderful, abstract film which shows a director at his most playful. Nine is another bland musical from Rob Marshall which is based on a theater show, which liberally borrows (i.e nicks) from Fellini's feature. While I haven't seen the stage musical, if this is anything to go by I'm happy I saw 8 1/2 first.
Fellini's film was sexy without being overtly sexual, stylish without being overly stylized and filled with content that melded dreamscapes with reality in a blink of an eye. It's a film that just washed over me and not only left me entertained but inspired (not that I could write anything as lucid as Fellini). Nine lacks the joy of the film that came before it, in fact the film is merely a pre-meditated attack on the awards season, stuffing the film with statue winners while neglecting everything else.
As a musical, it has no memorable songs. In fact they're not even interesting songs. The tunes are more likely to have aficionados ho-humming than just humming. As a regular film, it lacks the subtly that resided within the original film, with any poignant moments cut short by these musical numbers. These numbers are jarring, state the obvious and desperately try and hide the fact that Nine is trying to make a surreal film more conventional. Marshall's overall direction of the story is mediocre to say the least and the mixture of the unengaged drama and music don't mesh as well as they should. In fact I'm struggling now to remember any worth while scenes, such is the unremarkable telling of story.
It's not all bad I guess, there's some cute references to Fellini and his legacy and the performances by anyone with more than five minutes screen time do their best with the material. In fact, despite only being in the film for about ten minutes, Kate Hudson puts in a turn with more verve than anything she's done in the last ten years.
Unfortunately, it was all at a loss for me. In my opinion Nine lacked the energy as well as the mischievous of it's cinematic origin. Hell, it didn't even have the kinetic flair of Baz Luhrmann's far superior Moulin Rouge whose combination of romance, pop songs and dance number is still a spectacle to behold. Nine asked me to be Italian. Unfortunately for Marshall, the Italians were much better at the questioning.
Note: While I know that the film is based on a stage musical,however, during the credits, I don't remember the film saying anything about Frederico Fellini or 8 1/2. This says a lot about how Hollywood views film history at the best of times, taking imagery and reference from a filmmaker and not even crediting him in the main credits. It your going to mangle a man's film at least state who he is.
Thursday, 31 December 2009
THE YEAR THAT WAS 2009
It was a shit year for movies...
I heard this ever so much. It was a phase that rang through my ears constantly. However, my fellow readers, you will not hear it from me. In fact I don’t fully believe in “bad years” for movies. My reasoning isn’t great but hear me out:
This year I watched over 80 movies at the cinema, and had more than enough movies to make a shortlist for my top ten. Of course there were the other movies that I found not so hot but as always the Bad didn’t outweigh the good, and until the day I struggle to create a top ten list of favourites (which I doubt considering how many films I watch) then I can’t see there ever being a “bad year”.
Of course not everyone has the time or wish to watch as many movies as myself and may only get to watch what really interests them. The problem I find however seems to be that so many people don’t truly search out films that could interest them, or films that could SURPRISE them. I mean what’s so wrong with watching something a little different?
So to those who were “disappointed” with the year I say this: It’s not always the filmmakers fault that you picked more movies that you disliked than liked. These days over 40 films are released during a month and yes, it is difficult for people to pick out some of the most independent titles, but the internet has opened up so many more outlets for people to watch, download (not illegally), stream and rent movies that it’s coming more and more impossible for a cinephile NOT have a bad year.
We as consumers have the choice to seek out a range of films that we can enjoy as opposed to being spoon fed with say another Hollywood remake or Comic Book sequel. For me, I had a blast. I haven’t seen so many movies in years and if I can equal or beat that amount next year that will be grand. If by some unfortunate circumstances I see more bad films than good I still won’t care. Why?
The Good movies will be brought, re-watched and live within my memory forever. The bad will be forgotten as soon as I leave the cinema (after the review). So without further ado shall we get on to the list?
My Ten Favourite Films of the year (No Order):
Note that I use the term favourite as these films are personal to me and not the “best” of the year. To claim that the movies that affected me the most, when discussing something as subjective as film is extremely pompous.
Note that I use the term favourite as these films are personal to me and not the “best” of the year. To claim that the movies that affected me the most, when discussing something as subjective as film is extremely pompous.
Horror comedy is difficult to do well and easy to fail at. Rami is of course an old hand at this and his rollercoaster ride of tension and laughs beat out any horror entry that poke it’s head out during 2009. Hated by many expecting a different beast entirely...Those who remember and loved the lighter side of Ash Williams and Co were completely down with this horror with humor combo. Also Possessed Goats are made of win.
Cynicism is rife with me when it comes to the Romantic Comedy. Quite simply, the genre doesn’t try hard enough and insults the intelligence of its fans constantly. Here however, was a quick shot in the arm of the bride wars, bridget jones and the sex in the citys that we constantly witness. Humor that stems from the characters, feelings that come from a truth place and characters that I can root for. The date movie never had it so good.
Quite simply the gutsiest movie of the year. Cameron’s Avatar may have the visuals but his ex-wife Bigalow has the tension and the drama. A sublimely crafted action feature.
Many have bemoaned that the motormouth “can’t write” any more. I don’t think it’s that, I think his writing is evolving and just not appealing to the people who are looking for pulp fiction 2. Tarantino’s film is in love with language, movies and storytelling. He also adds to this some of his best scenes this side of Pulp fiction and one of the writer directors best characters (handsomely played by Christopher Waltz) to date. Not only War as fiction but war as fun, something that shouldn’t be able to be done considering the connotations...and yet he surprised me again.
The pulsing soundtrack, the claustrophobic visuals, its grand themes and a lead performance from Sam Rockwell that would get awards if I could rig the ceremonies. Duncan Jones brings us Sci-fi that the 70’s used to make. An arresting film that well and truly knocked me for six. Somewhere Stanley Kubrick is Smiling.
With scenes that carry more pathos than many of the movies I watched this year. Pixar once again bring us a family film with thought. Ratatouille, Wall-e and now UP have made sure that Pixar make the leap from best animated film contenders....to best picture contenders.
The Coens are having yet another fabulous run of movies, playing with the ideals of fate. This movie decides that even God great plan should be knocked about for a laugh. Full of Coen’s black humour, great performances from a relatively unknown cast and a plot that plays with fatalism in a way that only these two bothers can.
Due to Hollywood’s dominance in the U.K we often forget that we Brits even make movies let alone good ones, Andrea Arnold (and Moon’s Duncan Jones) wishes to change all that. With her kinetic kitchen sink-esque Drama that many have felt evoked the spirit of Loach (not that he’s dead). Arnold’s film is culturally astute, beautifully realised and features the combustible chemistry of Newcomer Katie Jarvis and Irish chameleon Michael Fassbender (also great in Basterds). A mesmerising second feature.
Problems overcome and emotions found in Spike Jonez once troubled feature. A film with not only a wonderful looks but a true nostalgic feel of childhood. Max Record’s difficult character is easy to love while the fantastically created wild things reminded me of those conflicting issues that I had as a child. The film brings a nostalgic feeling given without the need for branded toys or well known television characters, but with the fact that everyone is bigger than you and can change their emotions in a blink of an eye from fun to dangerous without you knowing why. To capture this mixture of fear, joy and amazement is a difficult one but it's one that Jonez handles with aplomb.
Likened to Spinal Tap but could really be a companion piece to Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, Anvil is a loving tribute to following your dreams no matter what. Many have watch these two aging rockers playing young ‘uns and considered them sad. But if other Musicians still had has much hunger and passion as these guys at the age they are there’s be even more great music going. The film also has one of the most loving relationships I saw captured this year. How the wives cope with these two is beyond me.
HONOURABLE MENTIONS
The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Observe and Report, District 9, Me and Orson Welles
Sherlock Holmes, Fantastic Mr Fox
HONOURABLE MENTIONS
The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Observe and Report, District 9, Me and Orson Welles
Sherlock Holmes, Fantastic Mr Fox
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)