Year: 2010
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joesph Gordon Levitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cilian Murphy, Marion Cotillard
Synopsis would ruin the fun.
Well what can I say? I'll be blunt: A film like this reminds me that it's worth wading through the all the crap (I'm looking at you Legion) to get something so rewarding. A film like this is one that I asked to watch again straight after watching it. Bloggers like myself moan and complain about lack of creativity. Reviewers like me bitch about reboots, sequels and the rest of them. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan seem to be born to slap us around the face and tell us to shut the fuck up. What we have here is what self-important attention seeking twats like me want; the holy grail itself, the intelligent blockbuster.
I loved Inception, truly savored every moment. I found myself completely engrossed the films narrative. Completely wrapped up in every shot, every moment, every detail. Gushing? Just a little but I feel I have to. This is a film that has enough ideas to greenlight ten lesser films, you could create movies based on just one of the characters alone. I spoke to a work colleague about the film afterwards who claimed the film isn't as clever as it thinks it is. I disagree. To craft something as fresh and creative as this, while keeping it as accessible is where the smarts lie. It doesn't talk down to you just because it's a blockbuster, although it's a film that requires attention. There is a lot of information to take in (especially in the films first half) but to make it so engaging, keeping track of the spectacle is what made the film so special for me. It's a sign of a commercial director hitting a peak of his craft.
Early reviews look set to be calling this the next Matrix, however to me, Inception owes much more to Alex Proyas' bewitching Dark City than anything the Wachowski brothers have come up with. If Dark City was the Noir, then Inception is the Heist movie, it's expressionistic dreamscapes and architecture not only had me fully absorbed into the world but slowly belie the emotions and mindstate of each sub-conscious we enter. While the Matrix's world (a well realised one) allows one or two characters to obtain a certain amount of power, Nolan's film suggests that every mind-state IS it's own Matrix with any character being able to become a commander. This idea allows Inception to have a scope as board as an imagination can be.
This is not to say that the film hasn't got rules, but Nolan incorporates the exposition wonderfully into the movie. Characters talk (often) about the worlds and how to intact within them, but the talk is always engaging, always appealing. We learn enough too whet our appetite about the construct but not too much that we spoke holes or become bored. With this said however it's not like the characters we watch would allow this to happen.
Like I said, this is a heist movie and Nolan creates heist characters that make Danny Ocean's team look like the fucking wombles. The arrogance they exude is only matched by the bubbling tension that lays within the job they have to do. All have their role to play (I LOVE the idea of the "forger") and everyone manages to put their own feel into their types. It's a great ensemble cast. Tom Hardy's Eames is a tough guy channeling Alan Rickman, Ellen Page's Ariadne once again highlights the young actress' ability to enhance female characters of purpose. Joesph Gordon Levitt meanwhile, plays the sidekick position of Arthur the way I would love Robin to be portrayed if he existed in Nolan's Gotham. Cilian Murphy may be the mark, however he helps ground the film along with Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard. I love the confidence man cool that this ensemble bring to the picture. I'm sure detractors will state that these characters are cold, but they have to be, otherwise their minds will quite literally ran away with them.
It is this conflict (carried with deceptive skill by DiCaprio) that weights the movie and gives it the emotional punch. DiCaprio's Cobb has once let the power of dreams and his sub-conscious overcome him and now it threatens to crush him once and for all. We watch as his projections and memories begin to bleed into the shared lucid dreams, taking over and corrupting the perfect "last job" has been set in play. His tense relationship with his wife Mal (Cotillard once again oozing screen presence) begins to bubble, and the themes of Insomnia and Memento appear (fractured memories, guilt), before Inception begins to cross into areas that films like Vanilla Sky and Shutter Island touched on. Nolan however, wishes to take it up a notch not only by balancing more than one consciousness, but by setting up layers of structure for the films rampant third act.
Borrowing liberally from one of the best Bonds (Hans Zimmers exhilarating score and snowy setting will fill you in) Nolan's climax is a superbly executed, multi-leveled piece of spectacle, combining not only the rules of the world but the emotional pull of DiCaprio's character as well just blowing stuff up...incredibility well. What was seen in the T.V spots and Trailers don't give the film justice. How Nolan brings it together, is not only exciting visually but compelling from a dramatic point of view. You want to know what happens next and you fear for what may happen to these people. How Nolan did this to me is deceptive. I honestly don't know how it unlocked it out of me, but by the films final ambiguous shot I was reeling.
After the end of the screen I had only one question to ask the people I watched it with: When can I see it again? It's visuals are stunning, it's themes are almost operatic, and it's spectacle is truly stimulating. A film I cannot wait to watch again, to pick it's brains, to observe it's beauty, to dissect it's narrative and digest it's themes fully. Hyperbole? Yes. I'm not ashamed to say it is. It's a movie that reminds me why I watch movies.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
Review: Predators
Year: 2010
Director: Nimrod Antal
Screenplay: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch
Starring: Adrian Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Laurence Fishburne
Synopsis is here
The original Predator is one of those 80's action milestones that certain film geeks absolutely love. It had everything that people needed at the time. Arnie, Wrestlers holding huge freaking guns, Arnie, Aliens, Arnie, Carl Weathers, Arnie, Violence and er...Arnie. It was a very simple premise but it's one crafted with quite a bit of skill by John McTiernan (Die Hard). It's a dumb movie, but a fun one. It has just the right combination of silliness, action and comradery to hit the mark. Many have tried to imitate the vibe, but just don't hit that mark. Maybe because it involves a mud-encrusted Arnold Schwarzenegger and alien nuke at the films climax, I don't know. There's just something about it. Predators, with it's winking (and awesome) score and replicated imagery tries it's best to bring about the same feel, but despite it's adequate technical craft, there's not too much to write home about.
Ignoring the dubious AvP movies and advancing past Danny Glover's urban jungle (Pred 2), Predators jumps straight into the action B movie, with it's characters freefalling into an alien jungle without a clue what the hell was going on. I had to admit at the beginning, it reminded me more of Cube than the original Predator, as these various hardheaded lunkheads try and figure out what the hell is going on. From the start you can tell whose fodder, who will stay alive and who will die, and like the original film, that's not the point. However, unlike the first film these characters are less than one note. Represented only by their clothes and not any real characterization. They are now less defined than their 1987 counterparts, which is pretty tough considering all you needed to know about Billy could be written on a napkin.
By having no real character, the actors don't have much else to work with. We have a better pool of talent here than what's previously featured, but there's none of the chemistry that have fellow geeks picking their favorite character moments. In 87, the actors were limited, but they had just a presence that kept you going, be it Dillon or be it Mac, fodder they were but identikit they weren't. You really feel the blandness when the semi cameo that appears through the second act. The loopy turn that a certain actor puts in are a bit left field, but his company is sorely missed once he's gone.
The lack of presence also helps display a pedestrian screenplay. Stilted dialogue and very random leaps of faith are abound. If the narrative suddenly decides that someone should have a change of heart completely against type, then that's what will happen. The worst thing about this is it feels scripted, there's nothing organic about what takes place. It feels very written, very implausible and very worn. It's frustrating to see a character with no actual character suddenly become heroic for no other reason other than to A: Get rid of him because he's been around too long doing not much and B: Give us a slightly above average fight sequence that has taken far too long to get to.
Which brings me to why most people will see the film: The action. Antal's scenes aren't terrible in a directional sense, in fact they have a nice retro feel to them, but they're not particularly thrilling in anyway. The film does little to utilize the antagonists well, and despite this film having more predators, they don't hold the same suspense that one of them did way back when.
I keep referencing the first film and for that I am sorry, however, it just doesn't have that same sense of fun. It has a very mechanical feel throughout, and did little to raise my spirits after a stressful day at work. There is a knock around feel to some of the scenes of the film, the acting isn't awful, and many die hards will just be happy enough that this ignores the AvP films. But just like those films, this will be left right next to them when I'm scouring the shelves of HMV.
Director: Nimrod Antal
Screenplay: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch
Starring: Adrian Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Laurence Fishburne
Synopsis is here
The original Predator is one of those 80's action milestones that certain film geeks absolutely love. It had everything that people needed at the time. Arnie, Wrestlers holding huge freaking guns, Arnie, Aliens, Arnie, Carl Weathers, Arnie, Violence and er...Arnie. It was a very simple premise but it's one crafted with quite a bit of skill by John McTiernan (Die Hard). It's a dumb movie, but a fun one. It has just the right combination of silliness, action and comradery to hit the mark. Many have tried to imitate the vibe, but just don't hit that mark. Maybe because it involves a mud-encrusted Arnold Schwarzenegger and alien nuke at the films climax, I don't know. There's just something about it. Predators, with it's winking (and awesome) score and replicated imagery tries it's best to bring about the same feel, but despite it's adequate technical craft, there's not too much to write home about.
Ignoring the dubious AvP movies and advancing past Danny Glover's urban jungle (Pred 2), Predators jumps straight into the action B movie, with it's characters freefalling into an alien jungle without a clue what the hell was going on. I had to admit at the beginning, it reminded me more of Cube than the original Predator, as these various hardheaded lunkheads try and figure out what the hell is going on. From the start you can tell whose fodder, who will stay alive and who will die, and like the original film, that's not the point. However, unlike the first film these characters are less than one note. Represented only by their clothes and not any real characterization. They are now less defined than their 1987 counterparts, which is pretty tough considering all you needed to know about Billy could be written on a napkin.
By having no real character, the actors don't have much else to work with. We have a better pool of talent here than what's previously featured, but there's none of the chemistry that have fellow geeks picking their favorite character moments. In 87, the actors were limited, but they had just a presence that kept you going, be it Dillon or be it Mac, fodder they were but identikit they weren't. You really feel the blandness when the semi cameo that appears through the second act. The loopy turn that a certain actor puts in are a bit left field, but his company is sorely missed once he's gone.
The lack of presence also helps display a pedestrian screenplay. Stilted dialogue and very random leaps of faith are abound. If the narrative suddenly decides that someone should have a change of heart completely against type, then that's what will happen. The worst thing about this is it feels scripted, there's nothing organic about what takes place. It feels very written, very implausible and very worn. It's frustrating to see a character with no actual character suddenly become heroic for no other reason other than to A: Get rid of him because he's been around too long doing not much and B: Give us a slightly above average fight sequence that has taken far too long to get to.
Which brings me to why most people will see the film: The action. Antal's scenes aren't terrible in a directional sense, in fact they have a nice retro feel to them, but they're not particularly thrilling in anyway. The film does little to utilize the antagonists well, and despite this film having more predators, they don't hold the same suspense that one of them did way back when.
I keep referencing the first film and for that I am sorry, however, it just doesn't have that same sense of fun. It has a very mechanical feel throughout, and did little to raise my spirits after a stressful day at work. There is a knock around feel to some of the scenes of the film, the acting isn't awful, and many die hards will just be happy enough that this ignores the AvP films. But just like those films, this will be left right next to them when I'm scouring the shelves of HMV.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Review: Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Year: 2010
Director: David Slade
Screenplay: Melissa Rosenberg
Starring: Robert Patterson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
Tell a fan of the twilight saga you don't dig the films and they're likely to say: "You need to read the books." Now while I understand that in reading the source material, it may enhance certain aspects of story, character, themes etc, a good cinematic adaptation will still have a certain appeal. The idea of having the read the book to "get" the film is folly and there's many great movies adapted from books that I feel have bucked the trend.
Like it's predecessors, I found Eclipse to be a naff film. I understand the superficial appeal to the proceedings, the idea of having two good looking guys fighting over one girl clearly has it's charms. Especially if one is doing the James Dean thing while the other is cut and exotic. But the problem I still have with this film is quite simple. You have to like the lovers in order to care for the plight. Not only must you like them, you have to believe the love. I may have said this before about New Moon before but if the franchise wants to regurgitate the same old arguments, then I'm sure I can too.
The film consistently, nay incessantly talks about choices and decisions throughout it's running time, unfortunately it doesn't get that the choice would be interesting if the protagonists choice was difficult. The problem is, looks aside, I see no point in Bella's relationship with Edward. Eclipse tells us that being a vampire is shit, like fucking awful. It's nothing but pain, loss and longing. The vampires themselves are cold, emotionless and devoid of personality (they also have stilted dialogue and stiff acting issues) and yet Bella (an utterly selfish cow who really has it in for her loving dad) believes this is the life for her. The character of Edward doesn't help matters, he's still manipulative, possessive and mopey. In real life, this guy would have had a restraining order, in the movie world he's the main prize...such is life. With this said, Bella is an ignorant tease that doesn't seem to register (read care) that all the casualties and pain that occurs in this saga is down to her. The script may have dialogue that allude to idea that she gets it, but her blank facial expressions (great acting Miss Stewart) say otherwise. With characters so selfish and annoying maybe they are right for each other.
I've mentioned the emotional disconnect the vampires have to fans who merely point out: "they're supposed to be like that" so I ask myself why should a emotional teenage girl want this so much? Especially when the girls other choice is so perfect? The character of Jacob is a tragic one (although not as bad as the long suffering father) because not only is he perfect, everything he does has no consequence. A passionate kiss between him and Bella should spark a hint of change and highlight the difficulty of the situation, but does nothing of the sort. This seems to be explained way by the fact that she is "drawn" to him. That's it. No need for Edward to have any other positive aspects of character when girls are just drawn to you. Such a stupid deux ex like trait makes the idea of the love triangle more than a little ridiculous. it's certainly unbalanced.
There are good points. David Slade, director behind the vicious vamp piece 30 days of night, does well with the film's action. He does enough to distract the viewer from the terrible CGI and gives a nice PG-13 battle to awaken any poor boyfriends who have been dragged by their significant others. He also does his best to add one or two interesting visuals, but this is merely a passing fancy as just like the franchise's previous directors (Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz) he doesn't do much to place his own stamp on the film. Another element of interest is Taylor Lautner who does his best to inject energy into his performance. He is far more watchable than the apathetic performances from everyone else. However this is a film franchise that shoehorns Anna Kendrick (who was superb in Up in the air) into two or three bland scenes. The same goes for the needless cast change of Bryce Dallas Howard. I understand that she is better known than Rachelle Lefevre, but if your going to "upgrade" your actors....give them something to do.
I know this will fall on deaf fan girl ears, but please understand that I have tried with this. Three films in and these people are still recycling the same two conversations as before. From the eye candy aspect, I get it. Two attractive men. Enjoy it while it lasts. I'll wait for them to take up interesting, serious future projects like Leo did.
Director: David Slade
Screenplay: Melissa Rosenberg
Starring: Robert Patterson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
Tell a fan of the twilight saga you don't dig the films and they're likely to say: "You need to read the books." Now while I understand that in reading the source material, it may enhance certain aspects of story, character, themes etc, a good cinematic adaptation will still have a certain appeal. The idea of having the read the book to "get" the film is folly and there's many great movies adapted from books that I feel have bucked the trend.
Like it's predecessors, I found Eclipse to be a naff film. I understand the superficial appeal to the proceedings, the idea of having two good looking guys fighting over one girl clearly has it's charms. Especially if one is doing the James Dean thing while the other is cut and exotic. But the problem I still have with this film is quite simple. You have to like the lovers in order to care for the plight. Not only must you like them, you have to believe the love. I may have said this before about New Moon before but if the franchise wants to regurgitate the same old arguments, then I'm sure I can too.
The film consistently, nay incessantly talks about choices and decisions throughout it's running time, unfortunately it doesn't get that the choice would be interesting if the protagonists choice was difficult. The problem is, looks aside, I see no point in Bella's relationship with Edward. Eclipse tells us that being a vampire is shit, like fucking awful. It's nothing but pain, loss and longing. The vampires themselves are cold, emotionless and devoid of personality (they also have stilted dialogue and stiff acting issues) and yet Bella (an utterly selfish cow who really has it in for her loving dad) believes this is the life for her. The character of Edward doesn't help matters, he's still manipulative, possessive and mopey. In real life, this guy would have had a restraining order, in the movie world he's the main prize...such is life. With this said, Bella is an ignorant tease that doesn't seem to register (read care) that all the casualties and pain that occurs in this saga is down to her. The script may have dialogue that allude to idea that she gets it, but her blank facial expressions (great acting Miss Stewart) say otherwise. With characters so selfish and annoying maybe they are right for each other.
I've mentioned the emotional disconnect the vampires have to fans who merely point out: "they're supposed to be like that" so I ask myself why should a emotional teenage girl want this so much? Especially when the girls other choice is so perfect? The character of Jacob is a tragic one (although not as bad as the long suffering father) because not only is he perfect, everything he does has no consequence. A passionate kiss between him and Bella should spark a hint of change and highlight the difficulty of the situation, but does nothing of the sort. This seems to be explained way by the fact that she is "drawn" to him. That's it. No need for Edward to have any other positive aspects of character when girls are just drawn to you. Such a stupid deux ex like trait makes the idea of the love triangle more than a little ridiculous. it's certainly unbalanced.
There are good points. David Slade, director behind the vicious vamp piece 30 days of night, does well with the film's action. He does enough to distract the viewer from the terrible CGI and gives a nice PG-13 battle to awaken any poor boyfriends who have been dragged by their significant others. He also does his best to add one or two interesting visuals, but this is merely a passing fancy as just like the franchise's previous directors (Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz) he doesn't do much to place his own stamp on the film. Another element of interest is Taylor Lautner who does his best to inject energy into his performance. He is far more watchable than the apathetic performances from everyone else. However this is a film franchise that shoehorns Anna Kendrick (who was superb in Up in the air) into two or three bland scenes. The same goes for the needless cast change of Bryce Dallas Howard. I understand that she is better known than Rachelle Lefevre, but if your going to "upgrade" your actors....give them something to do.
I know this will fall on deaf fan girl ears, but please understand that I have tried with this. Three films in and these people are still recycling the same two conversations as before. From the eye candy aspect, I get it. Two attractive men. Enjoy it while it lasts. I'll wait for them to take up interesting, serious future projects like Leo did.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Review: Dogtooth AKA Kynodontas
Year: 2009 (UK release 2010)
Director: Giorgos Lanthimos
Screenplay: Efthymis Filippou, Giorgos Lanthimos
Starring: Christos Stergioglou, Michele Valley, Aggeliki Papoulia, Mary Tsoni, Hristos Passalis, Anna Kalaitzidou
I'll try and set the scene quickly:
Coming out of the screen; one women stated that the film was horrific. My girlfriend didn't speak to me until we got to the car. I still found myself cackling to myself a little until I got to my laptop. Despite the films bright lighting, Dogtooth is pitch black dark, with aesthetics which could reminded one of Hanke and a morbid sense of humor that would lend itself to the more absurd aspects of author Chuck Palahniuk. Taking Larkins "This Be The Verse" most famous line to extremes, to say these parents have "fucked up" their kids isn't saying enough.
What made Dogtooth so appealing to me, is it's stance on parenting and conditioning. With it's precise play of taboos; to show this to the hilariously reactionary British tabloids would have the screaming at the top of their voice that this film would have to be banned to "save the children". They would be clearly missing the message, as Dogtooth's satirical point is to remind us that it goes both ways. The unnamed father of the piece does everything to dilute and askew his children's preception of reality...however by the time the fearful trio kill "the most dangerous animal in the world" you see that his method of safety has gone too far. What's the animal? Watch the film.
The film takes a while to get going; highlighting the altered facets of family life piece by piece, we slowly beginning to release the bizarre and perverse methods that the parents have taken to keep their kids "pure". Suddenly an outside characters almost senseless meddling slowly creeps in and infects the children's perceived "innocence". The changes become as unsettling as the over-protective parenting, because as the kids up the ante with their naive actions, the punishments become more ghoulish. While it takes a while for Dogtooth to hit the right stride, once it gets there, it becomes a fascinating feature. The more absurd the scenes get, the absorbing the film becomes.
I'm restraining from saying too much about what happens in the actual film itself, as this is a something that is more effective the less you know. Other reviews have mentioned the aspects of American culture it's taken to help push forward the film's themes of total isolation, but it's part of the fun when you find out for yourself. It's also best to keep the films most extreme moments hidden as it it's all a fanatically crafted build up to the films abrupt (and yet perfectly unsettling) ending which stuck with me on the way home.
From a technical aspect, this is a stunningly beautiful film, filled with that lovely visual symbolism that film nerds will enjoy pompously pondering over at coffee houses, while wearing black polo necks and berets. Many of the scenes filmed in clear sunny daylight to go against the utter pitch black madness we see happening infront of us. The family's pool is another wonderfully utilized element, taking a harmless moment of play and crafting it into a sly double meaning of literally still being in utero. This moment alone makes the films last shot all the more dark. Dogtooth is also fantastically performed, with the trio of kids playing up to the naivety of their situation while the father figure (Christos Stergioglou) gives a magnificent deadpan display that only enhances the abstract humor of the film.
With all this said, who could I recommend this film to? I know a few people...but it's a small few. Remember what I said before, my girlfriend didn't talk to me, the woman who stated it was horrific? To say this film isn't for everyone is stating the bleeding obvious. But to those who like their films dark, oddball and European...you shouldn't go wrong with this.
Director: Giorgos Lanthimos
Screenplay: Efthymis Filippou, Giorgos Lanthimos
Starring: Christos Stergioglou, Michele Valley, Aggeliki Papoulia, Mary Tsoni, Hristos Passalis, Anna Kalaitzidou
I'll try and set the scene quickly:
Coming out of the screen; one women stated that the film was horrific. My girlfriend didn't speak to me until we got to the car. I still found myself cackling to myself a little until I got to my laptop. Despite the films bright lighting, Dogtooth is pitch black dark, with aesthetics which could reminded one of Hanke and a morbid sense of humor that would lend itself to the more absurd aspects of author Chuck Palahniuk. Taking Larkins "This Be The Verse" most famous line to extremes, to say these parents have "fucked up" their kids isn't saying enough.
What made Dogtooth so appealing to me, is it's stance on parenting and conditioning. With it's precise play of taboos; to show this to the hilariously reactionary British tabloids would have the screaming at the top of their voice that this film would have to be banned to "save the children". They would be clearly missing the message, as Dogtooth's satirical point is to remind us that it goes both ways. The unnamed father of the piece does everything to dilute and askew his children's preception of reality...however by the time the fearful trio kill "the most dangerous animal in the world" you see that his method of safety has gone too far. What's the animal? Watch the film.
The film takes a while to get going; highlighting the altered facets of family life piece by piece, we slowly beginning to release the bizarre and perverse methods that the parents have taken to keep their kids "pure". Suddenly an outside characters almost senseless meddling slowly creeps in and infects the children's perceived "innocence". The changes become as unsettling as the over-protective parenting, because as the kids up the ante with their naive actions, the punishments become more ghoulish. While it takes a while for Dogtooth to hit the right stride, once it gets there, it becomes a fascinating feature. The more absurd the scenes get, the absorbing the film becomes.
I'm restraining from saying too much about what happens in the actual film itself, as this is a something that is more effective the less you know. Other reviews have mentioned the aspects of American culture it's taken to help push forward the film's themes of total isolation, but it's part of the fun when you find out for yourself. It's also best to keep the films most extreme moments hidden as it it's all a fanatically crafted build up to the films abrupt (and yet perfectly unsettling) ending which stuck with me on the way home.
From a technical aspect, this is a stunningly beautiful film, filled with that lovely visual symbolism that film nerds will enjoy pompously pondering over at coffee houses, while wearing black polo necks and berets. Many of the scenes filmed in clear sunny daylight to go against the utter pitch black madness we see happening infront of us. The family's pool is another wonderfully utilized element, taking a harmless moment of play and crafting it into a sly double meaning of literally still being in utero. This moment alone makes the films last shot all the more dark. Dogtooth is also fantastically performed, with the trio of kids playing up to the naivety of their situation while the father figure (Christos Stergioglou) gives a magnificent deadpan display that only enhances the abstract humor of the film.
With all this said, who could I recommend this film to? I know a few people...but it's a small few. Remember what I said before, my girlfriend didn't talk to me, the woman who stated it was horrific? To say this film isn't for everyone is stating the bleeding obvious. But to those who like their films dark, oddball and European...you shouldn't go wrong with this.
Friday, 25 June 2010
Review: Get Him to the Greek
Year: 2010
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Screenplay: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, Sean Combs
The synopsis is here.
Me and my girlfriend have very different opinions on movies. Her favorite movie is the Notebook/Serendipity, whereas I bum almost everything that has the name Paul Thomas Anderson on it. She will never EVER watch a zombie film while I own several in my collection. There are times where our views on movies cause clashes. I didn't want to speak to her after her analysis of Annie Hall was merely "it's ok...not that great". Now all fair in love and cinema...and I can take a differing opinion, but don't bring that to the table when I know you watch the hills... Anyway, despite our tastes we both came out of separate viewings of Get him to the Greek (I went straight out of work, she was catching up with a friend) feeling the same thing: I laughed a lot.
I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall but a spin off of the one note Brit Rock Star character? With Jonha Hill as the straight guy? And Sean "P Diddy/Puff Daddy" Combs in a large acting role? GET OUTTA HERE! I remember hearing about the film a while back not holding out hope.
The afrofilmviewer enjoys a good shock from time to time and this hilarious (I embarrassed myself with laughter again - see Four Lions) movie was one of the biggest shocks of the year for me. It's a movie that I personally couldn't have seen work, that worked. A film I immediately wanted to own straight after watching. Yes it's as vulgar as that piece of crap MacGruber which I watched a week ago, the difference here however is simple: Character, Comic Timing and a strong grasp of the material it's drawing from.
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Screenplay: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, Sean Combs
The synopsis is here.
Me and my girlfriend have very different opinions on movies. Her favorite movie is the Notebook/Serendipity, whereas I bum almost everything that has the name Paul Thomas Anderson on it. She will never EVER watch a zombie film while I own several in my collection. There are times where our views on movies cause clashes. I didn't want to speak to her after her analysis of Annie Hall was merely "it's ok...not that great". Now all fair in love and cinema...and I can take a differing opinion, but don't bring that to the table when I know you watch the hills... Anyway, despite our tastes we both came out of separate viewings of Get him to the Greek (I went straight out of work, she was catching up with a friend) feeling the same thing: I laughed a lot.
I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall but a spin off of the one note Brit Rock Star character? With Jonha Hill as the straight guy? And Sean "P Diddy/Puff Daddy" Combs in a large acting role? GET OUTTA HERE! I remember hearing about the film a while back not holding out hope.
The afrofilmviewer enjoys a good shock from time to time and this hilarious (I embarrassed myself with laughter again - see Four Lions) movie was one of the biggest shocks of the year for me. It's a movie that I personally couldn't have seen work, that worked. A film I immediately wanted to own straight after watching. Yes it's as vulgar as that piece of crap MacGruber which I watched a week ago, the difference here however is simple: Character, Comic Timing and a strong grasp of the material it's drawing from.
Coming off like warped mixture of Planes, Trains and Automobiles meets Spinal Tap (with more puke), Get him to the Greek gets it's laughs with cheap pops at the music industry, vulgar man-child humor and a sticky situation that gets increasingly more bizarre and harder to manage. While that doesn't sound that interesting, it's the likability of the double act in front of me that spurred on. The worse the circumstance becomes, the more I wanted to see what these guys would do with what's handed to them. It's that element that was missing for me from recent viewings (Death at a Funeral, the aforementioned MacGruber).
Brand's Snow is an acerbic and corrosive personality with a hidden sensitivity that always plays well in these Apatow productions, while Hill's Arron is the straighter of the two but is running on the fumes of a mere mortal. He's no way use to the heights of excess on display here. It's simple, but it binds well. Brand doesn't need to stretch any complex acting muscles but he did have to win myself over as an engaging Rock Star who really believes he's worth his weight in gold as well as a man to hang out with. Extending the one note (but amusing) role that was placed in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Brand gives the role more than enough charm and energy to keep the film from going stale. For Hill, it's great to see him in a less combustible role (see Superbad). He does the straight role well and hints that he could probably handle something a bit more dramatic as well as his slapsthick here.
Did I say combustible? Great. It would be a good word to describe the role of Sergio Roma played by Sean "Puffy" Combs. He isn't the worlds greatest actor, however, his stilted delivery and stiff performance gives the character of Roma a life of it's own. In the world that's as aware as Strollers (Writer/Director) with amusing asides to the original film this was a spin off of, the use of P Diddy in a nutjob CEO role with most if not all the best lines/moments...it just works. The man behind shiny suit rap throwing crockery at Colm Meany while laughing manically? I can dig it.
If I were to say there's a down side to the proceedings? I'd say that the film is a bit obvious. It's clear that they didn't have mine hard for jokes. Some lines tried hard while others clearly don't . I mean the two Metallica jibes (due to a cameo) really didn't take much brain power. Get him to the Greek's timing and execution however were more than effective enough for me. I loved the cheap shots and the vulgarity because the director and actors knew how to wear them on their sleeves. I haven't mentioned too much of the films gags here. But like reading the airplane script it's best not reading them but seeing them in action. It won't gain the "classic" status of Spinal Tap...but it is because it would rather hang out with Farrellys. It's good to be wrong.
Brand's Snow is an acerbic and corrosive personality with a hidden sensitivity that always plays well in these Apatow productions, while Hill's Arron is the straighter of the two but is running on the fumes of a mere mortal. He's no way use to the heights of excess on display here. It's simple, but it binds well. Brand doesn't need to stretch any complex acting muscles but he did have to win myself over as an engaging Rock Star who really believes he's worth his weight in gold as well as a man to hang out with. Extending the one note (but amusing) role that was placed in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Brand gives the role more than enough charm and energy to keep the film from going stale. For Hill, it's great to see him in a less combustible role (see Superbad). He does the straight role well and hints that he could probably handle something a bit more dramatic as well as his slapsthick here.
Did I say combustible? Great. It would be a good word to describe the role of Sergio Roma played by Sean "Puffy" Combs. He isn't the worlds greatest actor, however, his stilted delivery and stiff performance gives the character of Roma a life of it's own. In the world that's as aware as Strollers (Writer/Director) with amusing asides to the original film this was a spin off of, the use of P Diddy in a nutjob CEO role with most if not all the best lines/moments...it just works. The man behind shiny suit rap throwing crockery at Colm Meany while laughing manically? I can dig it.
If I were to say there's a down side to the proceedings? I'd say that the film is a bit obvious. It's clear that they didn't have mine hard for jokes. Some lines tried hard while others clearly don't . I mean the two Metallica jibes (due to a cameo) really didn't take much brain power. Get him to the Greek's timing and execution however were more than effective enough for me. I loved the cheap shots and the vulgarity because the director and actors knew how to wear them on their sleeves. I haven't mentioned too much of the films gags here. But like reading the airplane script it's best not reading them but seeing them in action. It won't gain the "classic" status of Spinal Tap...but it is because it would rather hang out with Farrellys. It's good to be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)