Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon
Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.
Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.
The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.
What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.
For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Monday, 14 March 2011
Review: Battle: Los Angeles
Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez
Synopsis is here:
One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.
Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.
One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.
Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.
In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care.
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez
Synopsis is here:
One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.
Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.
One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.
Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.
In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Review: Unknown
Year: 2011
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Screenplay: Oliver Butcher, Stephen Cornwell
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones
Synopsis is here:
If films could fight, I'm guessing Unknown would be the blood stained aftermath of Total Recall and Frantic smacking each other for almost two hours. The problem is as much as that as much as I wouldn't mind this idea in my own twisted mind; Unknown is too sanitized for it's own good. Oh the violence is there but while Frantic had a certain sense of despair throughout; and Total Recall's OTT story was matched by it's ambiguity. Unknown slips through those gaps leaving us with quite a mediocre affair. The marketing/casting suggests a follow on to Taken, however, Unknown is no way near as kinetic, nor as fun. It is twice as ludicrous though so there's that.
I had two problems with Taken. The first is the pacing, which is not quick enough to wrap someone up into the film's character, his situation or any of the red herrings put in place. Unknown runs (quite slowly) on rails and it doesn't help that it borrows way too much off Frantic (which I had unfortunately seen quite recently) to not only make its thrills its own but to actually distract you. If you do thrillers well then you know exactly where this film is going...before the characters. Far too often people were introduced into the mix and I had their conclusions planned out way before they said their first line.
The second issue is I kept asking why. Too many times things just didn't add up and the script and the direction do nothing to not only wrap the right elements up (there is a BIG change of heart that really doesn't ring true) but do nothing to make you forget these lapses in logic. Nor does the film patch over them. If your thinking there's enough action to help you brush past such things, your wrong. So when everything builds to it's climax I found myself laughing my backside off.
What I didn't find funny however is the wastefulness of the cast on screen. Everyone on screen aren't bad, but they bring nothing to the material. It's almost as if they are just as dissatisfied with the script as I was. The biggest upset for me was January Jones; an actress that's starting to make waves due to Mad Men, who've I've not seen in any substantial role as of yet. Unknown makes sure that I still have not.
As mentioned before, Unknown reminded me more of Frantic than Taken. However, Frantic was a film placed in the hands of a man who made two men, one woman, a boat and a knife thrilling. Unknown doesn't really care about turning the screw and it really shows.
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Screenplay: Oliver Butcher, Stephen Cornwell
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones
Synopsis is here:
If films could fight, I'm guessing Unknown would be the blood stained aftermath of Total Recall and Frantic smacking each other for almost two hours. The problem is as much as that as much as I wouldn't mind this idea in my own twisted mind; Unknown is too sanitized for it's own good. Oh the violence is there but while Frantic had a certain sense of despair throughout; and Total Recall's OTT story was matched by it's ambiguity. Unknown slips through those gaps leaving us with quite a mediocre affair. The marketing/casting suggests a follow on to Taken, however, Unknown is no way near as kinetic, nor as fun. It is twice as ludicrous though so there's that.
I had two problems with Taken. The first is the pacing, which is not quick enough to wrap someone up into the film's character, his situation or any of the red herrings put in place. Unknown runs (quite slowly) on rails and it doesn't help that it borrows way too much off Frantic (which I had unfortunately seen quite recently) to not only make its thrills its own but to actually distract you. If you do thrillers well then you know exactly where this film is going...before the characters. Far too often people were introduced into the mix and I had their conclusions planned out way before they said their first line.
The second issue is I kept asking why. Too many times things just didn't add up and the script and the direction do nothing to not only wrap the right elements up (there is a BIG change of heart that really doesn't ring true) but do nothing to make you forget these lapses in logic. Nor does the film patch over them. If your thinking there's enough action to help you brush past such things, your wrong. So when everything builds to it's climax I found myself laughing my backside off.
What I didn't find funny however is the wastefulness of the cast on screen. Everyone on screen aren't bad, but they bring nothing to the material. It's almost as if they are just as dissatisfied with the script as I was. The biggest upset for me was January Jones; an actress that's starting to make waves due to Mad Men, who've I've not seen in any substantial role as of yet. Unknown makes sure that I still have not.
As mentioned before, Unknown reminded me more of Frantic than Taken. However, Frantic was a film placed in the hands of a man who made two men, one woman, a boat and a knife thrilling. Unknown doesn't really care about turning the screw and it really shows.
Link: 10 Best Movie Dream Sequences
I received a lovely email from Miss Jessica Lynch (not that one) who works with Top Online Colleges.com asking me if I could share a link for them as it movies. The link (10 Best Movie Dream Sequences) is a nice mixture of dream scenes old and new (with a great shout to Wild Strawberries) and defiantly worth a look and a comment. HOWEVER...
Where is Un Chien Andalou?
You know I'm right on this!
Where is Un Chien Andalou?
You know I'm right on this!
Review: The Adjustment Bureau
Year: 2011
Director: George Nolfi
Screenplay: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie
Synopsis is here
Is awards season over for another year? Because here's a late entry for "most misguided film comparison". The Adjustment Bureau (based in Phillip K Dick's The Adjustment Team) has had a quote plastered on the posters (attributed to Total Film) labeling the film "Inception meets Bourne". Regardless of whether or not it was a hasty quote slapped on by the mag because of what they knew at the time (I do not have the issue and I ain't looking for it) or it was a a touch of lazy writing picked up by lazy marketing people, it's clear to most people that the quote is WRONG.
Such dodgy wordsmithery (copyright LBP) can cause frustration because it paints the wrong picture of the film. However, in terms of much of the film's marketing, we can clearly see that painting a true portrayal doesn't appear to be a high on the list. Sure enough, checking out some of my friends facebook status over the weekend roused alarm bells.
The only ties to Bourne is that the film has Matt Damon claiming an aspect of his life (Nolfi also wrote Ultimatum). There is little to no relationship with Nolan's extravagant feature; however, one of the most fascinating aspects of The Adjustment Bureau is that it has grander themes than Inception. Dreamworlds are one thing, but fatalism? The film may have the upper hand.
Despite this, The Adjustment Bureau is mostly confined to the frames of romance. In watching the film, it appeared to be more of a melding of A Life less ordinary, Serendipity and Minority Report than anything else. Those who have looked that mesh of films in disgust/confusion shouldn't click close on your windows just yet as despite being softer than one may expect from it's trailers and tv spots, The Adjustment Bureau is an enjoyably lighthearted piece of fluff. One that has funnier than it should be and has a romance more palatable than a thousand Katherine Heigl/Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey (delete where appropriate) features. Inception is way more effective with it's beefed up sci-fi action and mind breaking visuals/effects. What TAB has however is warmth.
The center of the feature has a relationship that not only feels tangible (the chemistry between Damon and Blunt is smooth and natural.), but due to the sci-fi element put in place (with it's explanations rightly placed in the shade) we are able to get over certain tropes that can often derail cinematic romances. The film does have that "movie love" touch to it, however, the way it's is placed as part of the films universe works.
In fact much of the movie works. Despite the fact that the last third comes off as quite trite, the film rolls by at a pace brisker than the running time suggests and holds a core relationship that's worth bothering about on a Friday night out. Nolfis climatic scenes have a great energy to them that unfortunately goes limp with it's last moments but it's not enough to truly deter the film as a whole.
Those looking for something more substantial with the ideas of fate and free will, may be very put off by the light touch placed on such deep themes. However The Adjustment Bureau is a fun distraction which once again reminds me that Anthony Mackie needs to be given something substantial in the future.
Director: George Nolfi
Screenplay: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie
Synopsis is here
Is awards season over for another year? Because here's a late entry for "most misguided film comparison". The Adjustment Bureau (based in Phillip K Dick's The Adjustment Team) has had a quote plastered on the posters (attributed to Total Film) labeling the film "Inception meets Bourne". Regardless of whether or not it was a hasty quote slapped on by the mag because of what they knew at the time (I do not have the issue and I ain't looking for it) or it was a a touch of lazy writing picked up by lazy marketing people, it's clear to most people that the quote is WRONG.
Such dodgy wordsmithery (copyright LBP) can cause frustration because it paints the wrong picture of the film. However, in terms of much of the film's marketing, we can clearly see that painting a true portrayal doesn't appear to be a high on the list. Sure enough, checking out some of my friends facebook status over the weekend roused alarm bells.
The only ties to Bourne is that the film has Matt Damon claiming an aspect of his life (Nolfi also wrote Ultimatum). There is little to no relationship with Nolan's extravagant feature; however, one of the most fascinating aspects of The Adjustment Bureau is that it has grander themes than Inception. Dreamworlds are one thing, but fatalism? The film may have the upper hand.
Despite this, The Adjustment Bureau is mostly confined to the frames of romance. In watching the film, it appeared to be more of a melding of A Life less ordinary, Serendipity and Minority Report than anything else. Those who have looked that mesh of films in disgust/confusion shouldn't click close on your windows just yet as despite being softer than one may expect from it's trailers and tv spots, The Adjustment Bureau is an enjoyably lighthearted piece of fluff. One that has funnier than it should be and has a romance more palatable than a thousand Katherine Heigl/Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey (delete where appropriate) features. Inception is way more effective with it's beefed up sci-fi action and mind breaking visuals/effects. What TAB has however is warmth.
The center of the feature has a relationship that not only feels tangible (the chemistry between Damon and Blunt is smooth and natural.), but due to the sci-fi element put in place (with it's explanations rightly placed in the shade) we are able to get over certain tropes that can often derail cinematic romances. The film does have that "movie love" touch to it, however, the way it's is placed as part of the films universe works.
In fact much of the movie works. Despite the fact that the last third comes off as quite trite, the film rolls by at a pace brisker than the running time suggests and holds a core relationship that's worth bothering about on a Friday night out. Nolfis climatic scenes have a great energy to them that unfortunately goes limp with it's last moments but it's not enough to truly deter the film as a whole.
Those looking for something more substantial with the ideas of fate and free will, may be very put off by the light touch placed on such deep themes. However The Adjustment Bureau is a fun distraction which once again reminds me that Anthony Mackie needs to be given something substantial in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)