|
 |
The Aviator (Dir: Martin Scorsese) 70/100
The new Martin Scorsese film and it's an improvement over his last - Gangs of New York. It's a biopic of Howard Hughes - aviator, film maker, and obsessive-compulsive sufferer, and Hughes did lead a very interesting life by all accounts. Although I enjoyed this film a lot it's not without its faults. It's by no means a bad film, but biopics by their nature tend to be problematic because it's easy to get wrapped up in whether or not the events depicted in the film really happened and in what way, which events the director has concentrated on, and which he's glossed over etc. etc. It's extremely difficult to get the whole truth of the man, and so while watching a biopic it's more helpful to forget the fact that it's a 'true story' and just watch it for the same reasons as you'd watch any other film. After all, it's not a documentary, and any information you already have on the subject came to you as second hand knowledge anyway, so you've no reliable way of knowing fact from fiction. The other problem people have complained about with this film is that it just seems to stop with no real conclusion, but I think that this is justified: DiCaprio is just too young to pull off the aging, reclusive Hughes successfully, and in any case no-one really knows much about the latter half of his life, so Scorsese rightly decided not to tackle that part. Having said all that, there is much to admire in this film; its rooted in a fantastic portrayal of Hughes's early life by Leonardo DiCaprio which alone is more than worth the price of admission. The other performances are all very good, especially Cate Blanchett, Alan Alda and a nice cameo from John C. Reilly. It looks great, with some snazzy cgi, nice cinematography and some entertainingly flambouyant camerawork. All things considered this is a very good effort. |
 |
Bombon, El Perro (Dir: Carlos Sorin) 75/100
A film from Argentina starring a pudgy, balding fifty-something and a dog. It doesn't sound like much and nothing much happens but this is a real winner. The pudgy man is Juan Villega - a man that life has been somewhat unkind to and finds himself out of work at a late stage in life. Undeterred he turns his hand to anything that can make him a living and becomes a knife seller. He's maybe not cut out to be a salesman as he's just too nice, and rather than turn a client without money away he accepts as payment a pitbull terrier who will become his companion through the rest of the film. The rest of the film is reminiscent of Vittorio DeSica's classic Umberto D. due to the touching relationship Juan develops with Bombon, played by Gregorio - a dog that is either highly trained or a complete natural. Juan Villegas is very watchable aswell. Again he doesn't do much, but I never tired of watching him plod along on his warily optimistic way through life. It's a wryly funny film and short by today's standards - just a shade over ninety minutes, and the pace is leisurely, but I for one would have been happy with another half hour or so of the same. A classy little feelgood movie that's hard not to like. |
 |
Collateral (Dir: Michael Mann) 70/100
I enjoyed this film quite a bit for about two thirds of its length. From about this point on though events get more and more unbelievable with each passing scene, and finally it all descends into silliness and relies heavily on unlikely coincidences. The biggest problem though is one of characterisation. We presumably are expected to identify with and root for Max (Jamie Foxx) and therefore by extension wish to see Vincent (Tom Cruise) fail, or in other words die. The problem is that most people would find it much easier to identify with Vincent as he's so much more charismatic, capable and driven, whereas Max is bland and inactive. So who are we supposed to root for when the two characters inevitably end up at odds with each other in a battle to the death? I for one would have appreciated Vincent getting the job done and walking away in the end, for the sake of consistency if nothing else, but whoever was responsible for how the final act pans out, just can't seem to stand the thought of a protagonist who does bad things getting away with it. So we have a schizophrenic film: On the one hand we're encouraged to identify with and admire Vincent (even though he's a cold-hearted killer). We're willing him to succeed. On the other hand the message seems to be that those who indulge in such behaviour must be punished. The problem is that you just can't have it both ways and still have a coherent and logically consistent film. If we're supposed to identify with Max he should have been more pro-active - or at least interesting, but the character as written isn't someone most people would gravitate towards. I didn't find him appealing at all, so was rather miffed at the unsatisfactory conclusion of the film. Collateral could have been great if it had kept up the tone of the first two thirds, and followed through with consistent characterisation and logical consequences to what's happening up on the screen. As it is though it can only be considered a missed opportunity. |
 |
Downfall (Dir: Oliver Hirschbiegel) 90/100
Powerful film detailing the unfolding of events in Hitler's inner sanctum during the final days of World War II as the Third Reich crumbles. Bruno Ganz is chillingly good as a Hitler who seems considerate and approachable at the start of the film but who becomes increasingly erratic and frenzied as events come to a head. This is professional filmmaking on a grand scale which tries to show not just the fuhrer's dilemma but each individual's plight and how they deal with events many of them have no control over. One of the few films to come out of Germany that tries to deal with the events of world war two with a degree of honesty and acceptance of the part it played in the war under the leadership of a charismatic but ultimately deeply flawed individual. The battle scenes are impressively staged and interesting in that they show Germany in its death throes, clinging to the last vestiges of hope amidst a growing realisation that all is lost. |
 |
Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (Dir: Michel Gondry) 85/100
This is bizarre. Written by the (surely unbalanced) Charlie Kaufman it'is the kind of film that will stand up to repeated viewings - if only to understand what the hell's happening most of the time. Kaufman's tales usually spiral off into odd, skewed situations that turn in on themselves, but there's always a thread of logic running through them guiding the way for the dedicated viewer. Patience and unflagging concentration will be rewarded in this tale of lost love, regret, and wiped memories which features some excellent performances - especially Kate Winslet, and Jim Carrey turns in a career best performance. The plot, involving an organisation which erases painful memories of people with whom clients have been involved is reminiscent of a lot of Philip K. Dick books and stories. Behind the veneer of a quirky reationship comedy there lurks themes - the nature of reality, the persistence of memory, and free will versus determinism - that wouldn't be out of place in a serious film from some of the more esteemed and cerebral directors. Director Michel Gondry tackles these issues with a lot of skill and originality, and pulls off the serious drama, and comedic elements equally well. But this is really Kaufman's show - the premise is brilliant, and the writing is imaginative. One of the most interesting and thought-provoking films I've seen in a long time. |
 |
Kinsey (Dir: Bill Condon) 60/100
Part biography of biology professor turned pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, and part chronicle of the controversial sex study Kinsey conducted in the years leading up to the now infamous 1948 publication "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male", which was one of the first published records dealing with human sexual behavior using the scientific method. With a tremendous amount of field work and years of tireless probing Kinsey compiled the most comprehensive record of human sexuality in America. Upon publication it caused an outcry among the public, and sexual behaviour previously thought to be rare or even non-existent amongst 'normal' people was suddenly revealed to be much more prevalent than anyone suspected, or at least would openly admit to. The film concentrates on Kinsey's struggles to find acceptance and funding for a project which many were reluctant to hear about let alone participate in. Kinsey is a man of science seemingly to the exclusion of everything else, which makes for some intriguing scenes in which the people around him are caught in a vortex of emotion and Kinsey, at the centre of it all, remains perplexed at the consternation he's caused by a few harmless questions about their sexual predilictions. This is an interesting premise for a film, and while the execution isn't particularly noteworthy the script is good, and there are some surprising scenes, and the performances are generally very good, with Neesan especially effective in the title role. |
 |
Million Dollar Baby (Dir: Clint Eastwood) 50/100
There are really two films here; one with Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) and Eddie 'Scrap-Iron' Dupris (Morgan Freeman) - which is very interesting, and another with Frankie Dunn and Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) which is predictable and hackneyed. The first film, which features Frankie and Scrap facing their respective demons and reflecting on their lives and what might have been is a classy and understated character study featuring dialogue and performances that are nuanced and touching. The Frankie Dunn character in particular is a fascinating meditation on regret, loss and redemption, and Eastwood's performance is probably the best of his career. However, the second film, which features Frankie training Maggie from eager beaver trailer trash kid with heart to seasoned professional to fame and fortune, then predictable disaster, is cliche and clumsiness. The subtlety and reserve of the first film is lost in the second - it's brash, shallow and riddled with unsubtle emotional manipulation: Maggie's final boxing match, for example - complete with hapless referee and snarling, over the top villain, is embarrassingly one-dimensional, as is the portrayal of Maggie's family and their bid to wrest her money from her. The contrast between these scenes and the scenes featuring Frankie and Scrap in the first film is so marked that it's hard to believe they were penned by the same author. Million Dollar Baby could have been a classic if it had filtered out the melodramatic noise and dedicated itself fully to the character of Frankie. As it is the film taken as a whole is barely mediocre. |
 |
The Passion of The Christ (Dir: Mel Gibson) 40/100
This film struck me as really rather pointless; if you're a believer then you will already be familiar with the story, and you have the utmost sympathy for Christ right from the outset and you know what's going to happen so all that's left is to wallow in all the misery and despair. If on the other hand you're a non-believer can you enjoy it purely as a piece of cinema? Well, possibly - Mel Gibson, whose pet project this is, directs with a degree of proficiency, and has obviously done some research (English is not the spoken language here for example), but he does suffer from an over reliance on slow motion and of course the film as a whole is about as subtle as a chainsaw to the heart. There is no narrative as such - just endless sequences of flagellation, brutality and random acts of violence which gets old very quickly, and after the tenth smack to the jaw or whip to the back it really ceases to mean anything. In actual fact there's something faintly disturbing about the whole enterprise; you have to wonder why anyone would want to watch a man being brutalised for almost two hours non-stop. I mean, that's it - that's basically all there is to this film. |
 |
Primer (Dir: Shane Carruth) 90/100
Primer is the debut feature film from mathematician turned director Shane Carruth. It's obvious there wasn't a lot of money thrown at this project, but the idea is a good one: A bunch of regular guys discover the key to time travel and a couple of them build a primitive machine to transport them through time. The reason it's so good is the realistic way Carruth approches the paradoxes that would arise if someone were actually able to travel through time. And he certainly doesn't spoon-feed his audience. In fact you'll probably take a few goes to absorb exactly what's happening to whom and when, or in what order. It's a mind-bendingly complicated scenario when you actually get to thinking about the logistics of how the whole thing would pan out and when Carruth gives the bare minimum information required it can be quite a challenge to keep up. You may very well find yourself wondering, about half way through the film what the hell's going on, even if you're paying close attention. It's a subtle and very low-key film with naturalistic performances, and the whole time travel thing really sneaks up on you. After a couple of watches though, and once you get on to the right wavelength, this is compelling stuff, endlessly intriguing and thoroughly thought-provoking. In fact it's one of the very few films I'm always anxious to rewatch immediately after seeing it, regardless of how many times I've seen it before.
|
 |
Sideways (Dir: Alexander Payne) 75/100
Charming road movie featuring some nice, easy performances from a few fine actors. Paul Giamatti is wonderful as Miles - English teacher, failed writer, and wine lover, and Thomas Haden Church as his actor friend Jack who's accompanying Miles on a tour through the California wine country on his last week as a single man. They hook up with a couple of female companions and the scene is set for some predictable mid life crises and heart to hearts amid some interesting detours and choice debates about the relative merits of pinot and cabernet. The pairing of the pretentious Miles who fancies himself as something of a connoisseur with Jack, who it quickly becomes apparent has no interest whatsoever in wine past quenching his thirst or maybe getting drunk, is very amusing, and well observed. Payne has a fantastic light tough when it comes to characterisation - all the people seem real, rather than movie characters, and give the impression of having a life outside of their function as temporary companions to the protagonists. Sideways is very well written, and breezily directed by Alexander Payne; it's a breath of fresh air on a summer's day compared to most of the films doing the rounds these days. One to kick off the sandals and watch in a hammock with a nice drinky if possible. |
 |
The Terminal (Dir: Steven Spielberg) 10/100
There's a telling remark uttered by a security guard in this film when Tom Hanks asks him what he's supposed to do in the airport while he's waiting , and the guard says, 'There's only one thing to do in the terminal - shop'. How true. That's what I was forced to do for most of this film, what with the constant bombardment of unsubtle product placement marketing for Burger King, Borders books and Swatch watches. After watching it I felt like I'd just arrived home from a marathon Christmas shopping expedition. It's the worst example of product placement profiteering since I Robot, and is bloody annoying. The Terminal starts off with a silly premise, then gets more and more ridiculous until finally releasing the audience from boredom and annoyance with a doltish climax two gruelling hours later. The only appealing aspect of this film was John Williams' score, with it's catchy main theme and overall light touch. Other than that I can't think of a single positive experience I took from watching The Terminal. It's a crass, insubstantial, flimsy excuse for a film which even the lovable Hanks couldn't charm me into liking. At the end of the whole affair I was left thinking 'so what?' and 'who cares?' and 'I want my two hours back, you cheap, manipulative, mass market paperback of a movie!' If this is Steven Spielberg's idea of a quality and worthwhile production then god help us when his version of War of The Worlds is released next year. |
 |
You, The Living (Dir: Roy Andersson) 90/100
Who knew the Swedes could be so funny? Most people's experience of Swedish filmmaking is either the emotional turmoil and psychological angst of Ingmar Bergman or bad seventies porn. With 'You, The Living' Andersson provides us with a whole new view of life in modern Sweden and on some of the oddball people who are living it. Well, most of the people in Sweden are probably nowhere near as oddball as here - think of this more like the Sweden that's inside Roy Andersson's head - a strange and eerie place to be sure. For the first ten minutes or so I was a bit unsure of the tone Andersson was going for in this film, but it soon became clear after one of the characters relates a dream he had about a dinner party that this is at heart a funny film. In fact it's frequently hilarious. The film's basically a series of loosely connected vignettes - some of which are insightful reflections on life, love, and finding your place in the world, and some are wry, amusing or absurd. The whole thing somehow hangs together perfectly though and in addition to providing some chuckles is visually interesting and it's fascinating to watch events unfold in their slow methodical way. |
|
