|
 |
1408 (Dir: Mikael Hafstrom) 80/100
An old-fashioned haunted house story starring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom are highly watchable here - especially Cusack. He plays Mike Enslin - a journalist cum novelist who stays in reportedly haunted locations in order to debunk the supernatural events surrounding them. When he turns up to check into room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel, the manager tries strenuously to dissauade him from staying there lest he succumb to the evil powers in the room. Of course Enslin ignores his advice and then the fun begins. This is quite an effective ghost story where the tension builds slowly then gathers a head of steam until the final third is utter pandemonium, with wild special effects and a carnival atmosphere - which is where the film differs wildly from the source material - the short story is a very effective piece of supernatural fiction with a rather perfunctory seeming ending which felt rather flat and rushed, but the film version is on super strength steroids by the time we reach the finale, and I found it more satisfying on the whole. However I did come away from the film with a vague feeling of not knowing what the hell had just happened for the last ninety minutes or so. Still, it wouldn't be much of a chore to watch it again, in order to catch anything I may have missed first time around. |
 |
American Gangster (Dir: Ridley Scott) 40/100
Ridley Scott knows a thing or two about making movies. That fact in itself doesn't make this some kind of masterpiece - on the contrary, it's a quality product from a technical point of view, but no more than that. Denzel Washington puts in the kind of effortlessly good performance that everyone's come to expect - he's a class act, and as far as the acting goes this is Washington's film. The problem I have with this film is that it follows the same old Hollywood Film School Formula: We see Crowe's story unfold in scenes 1,3,5,7; meanwhile Washington's story is unfolding in scenes 2,4,6,8, and they will meet near the end because their objectives conflict with each other. Standard, painting-by-numbers stuff. That's annoying, but what's even more annoying is the fact that every scene each of these characters is in simply serves to illustrate to the viewer that Washington will not back away from a fight, and that Crowe cannot be bought off. We're not allowed to think anything else about them because Ridley Scott feeds us just enough information to enable us to form the opinion he wants us to form of the characters, and really there has to be more to characterisation than that. There should be more scope for assessing these men objectively. It would give the whole film more meaning and credibility if the characters weren't so one-dimensional. And so it goes...technically it's a competent film, but the actors are not characters - they're vehicles to advance the plot, such as it is. Disregarding all the smart cinematography, clever editing and accomplished set-pieces this is a film with no soul. It's full of cliches and it's telling a story that's been told a thousand times on screen already. I'm struggling to see the point, other than purely as a money-making exercise. |
 |
The Bourne Ultimatum (Dir: Paul Greengrass) 50/100
The Bourne Ultimatum features a top flight cast of professionals who are all doing a competent job. In fact that's possibly the defining characterisic of this film, in the absence of a soul - professionalism. It's like a well-oiled machine run by people who know exactly what they're doing. But it's too clinical and precise - there's no room for much characterisation or passion. Everyone seems to be saying this is the best action movie for years, but on the whole I have to disagree. I thought it was pretty good - mostly because of Matt Damon, but there are a couple of major flaws, the most important of which is director Paul Greengrass' obsession with never letting the camera rest for one second - regardless of whether it's a frenetic action sequence or a quiet dialogue scene. In quiet scenes it's completely unnecessary and extremely irritating, and in action or fight sequences it hampers the viewer from figuring out what's going on. The other problem I had with this film is its similarity to the previous two - poor Jason's still having flashbacks from his past and still hasn't figured out who he really is or why everyone wants him dead. There's nothing new here. I hesitate to totally dismiss it because it's really not that bad at all, if you can deal with the annoying camerawork, but having watched it I'm once again left with the feeling of having wasted my time. |
 |
Fracture (Dir: Gregory Hoblit) 70/100
Although an increasing number of them range from pretty bad to downright abysmal, I always look out for films starring Anthony Hopkins, because when he's good he's really good. Fracture may not be a great film but I found it to be very enjoyable, really because of Anthony Hopkins (although Ryan Gosling is also good). Hopkins plays a man who kills his wife for cheating on him and what follows is basically him thumbing his nose at the judicial system and taunting the prosecutor with his crafty plan, which he's enacted to perfection. The relish with which Hopkins plays the part of the wronged husband exacting his revenge is what makes the film so much fun, because if you think too long about the details it won't take long to feel a bit cheated. Aside from the odd plot inconsistency the one thing that really bothered me is, once again, the ending. There seems to be an unwritten code among Hollywood scriptwriters that says if a character kills without remorse they absolutely must not get away with it, and that's what lets the whole thing down in the end. It's very clever up to a point, but then everything must conform to the Hollywood Punishment Code and it ends up feeling false. So my advice to anyone watching this on DVD is turn it off at about the ninety-five minute mark, because up to then it's a great little film. |
 |
Mr. Brooks (Dir: Bruce A. Evans) 75/100
I've always found Kevin Costner to be very watchable. The only problem with him is that he tends to play the same type of character in every movie. You can't really blame Costner for this - it's pretty much the same deal with most really famous stars when you think about it - can you name a film where Robert Redford plays a murderer? So, bearing that in mind it gives me great pleasure to announce that Costner does indeed play a murderer here; The Mr. Brooks of the title. And he's a proper schizo-psycho murderer too. This film is tremendous fun - precisely because the audience is used to seeing Costner play the strong silent character with a good heart. Sure he wrestles with the fact that he shouldn't be killing these people - illustrated here by having William Hurt as the evil side of Costner - but really, he's a stone cold murderer. And yet the viewer will still have sympathy for him, because he's seen as trying to be good. But the really fun thing about this film is the amount of dillemas hurled at Mr. Brooks to knock him off track. We have a witness to his latest crime trying to blackmail him into teaching him the tricks of his murderous trade, there's a dedicated cop on his trail - and closing in fast, and his teenaged daughter seems to be following in his homicidal footsteps - but doesn't seem to be as careful as he is. Through all of this there's the hilarious interplay between the rational Costner and the loopy Hurt - who seems to be having just as much fun playing this part as his character has when Costner's on a rampage. Sure the film's a bit formulaic, and maybe it's just the wrong side of credible, but it's not brainless, it's smartly directed on the whole and the performances are all good and in a time when the films coming out of Hollywood are so utterly devoid of anything fresh or original 'Mr. Brooks' struck me as something of a breath of fresh air. |
 |
The Orphanage (Dir: Juan Antonio Bayona) 80/100
I'm not one for horror films - used to be when I was young, but without that youthful innocence it's hard to sit through the crazy, nonsensical goings-on served up by horrormeisters these days. However, The Orphanage is a classy throwback to a more subtle form of horror film than the brash, gory Hostels and Saws we have these days. This film is almost believable, which always helps a lot with horror films. The acting is good and the atmosphere of dark brooding tension really makes the experience of watching this film an extremely eerie and creepy affair. It concerns Laura and Carlos, a couple who have bought an old house, which used to be an orphanage that Laura lived in as a child. The couple's young son Simon goes missing one day, and is eventually presumed dead, but Laura is convinced there is a more sinister explanation for his disappearance. This is a perfectly executed chiller that's have the hairs on the back of your neck tingling - especially in the scene where Laura gets a team of paranormal investigators in to check the house for signs of paranormal activity. This is one of those films that's every bit as good as everyone says. |
 |
Rendition (Dir: Gavin Hood) 60/100
There's something disturbing about the politics of this film. While the filmmaker is quite pointedly saying that the US government is party to the torture of suspected terrorists around the world, the conceit of the film is that the people actually doing the torturing are Africans, and the rescuing of the suspect - who turns out to be innocent - is done directly by a US government agent. So the events we actually witness on screen are very much at odds with what we're being told, and as everyone knows a picture speaks a thousand words, so what the average viewer will probably take from this mixed message is that when all's said and done America are the good guys. And that's a pity because if this film had been straight ahead honest it could have been very good indeed. In the end though director Gavin Hood didn't have the courage of his convictions, and what's left is seriously flawed. However, there are still a couple of reasons to see this film, not least a nice performance by Yigal Naor as the man in charge of the questioning. The cyclical structure of the film took me a bit by surprise but was quite interesting once I got into the swing of things. In the end, Rendition is one of those films that can be quite frustrating because on the one hand it had the potential of being a smart, penetrating insight into an issue of great importance in the current climate of global terrorism, but it's been hobbled by the political knots it ties itself in in an effort to not offend anyone too much. |
 |
There Will Be Blood (Dir: P.T. Anderson) 100/100
I cannot find much fault with this film. You could argue that it focuses a bit too much on Daniel Day-Lewis's character being a ruthless tyrant and not enough on his motivations. It would have been nice, for example, to have found out more about what he amounted to, why he behaved so ruthlessly, and how the wider world perceived him and his actions. The film is centred around Daniel Plainview and his view of the world he's intent on shaping and conquering to the exclusion of almost everything else, and is a little one-dimensional in that regard. This singular focus of the film is perhaps its only real weakness. The other main problem is an odd one - that of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance in the central role. He's just too good, and as a result Paul Dano's performance comes across as less than stellar, and the scenes they're both in together seem unbalanced. He's really not bad here, but is nevertheless outclassed by Day-Lewis. Those small issues aside, there's so much to admire about this film: The striking cinematography and deftly handled editing, the robust and idiosyncratic score, the utterly assured direction, the first-rate camerawork, and of course Daniel Day-Lewis's towering performance. This is classic, powerfully cinematic storytelling at it's finest, and I'm confident it will still be watched and analysed a hundred years from now. |
 |
Timecrimes (Dir: Nacho Vigalondo) 75/100
This is one of those films that a lot of people - myself included - will feel the need to watch at least another couple of times after the first viewing, not because it's a stylish, dazzling spectacle with amazing pyrotechnics (it's well put together but there's none of that stuff here) or that the acting is terrific (it isn't) but because it's an exquisitely intriguing scenario that will usually spark off endless debate between viewers trying to figure out the exact sequence of events. It messes with your head in a way that makes you want to watch it again to try and sort it all out. It's reminiscent of Shane Carruth's 2001 film Primer in that it's a no-frills low budget movie concerning the real-life implications of time travel but takes a more entertainment friendly route whereas Carruth's movie gives no quarter. It's a fun movie and yes, there are a couple of things that just don't add up about the whole thing, but then again time travel seems to be a subject that throws up a paradox or two no matter how you go about it so get your thinking cap on and enjoy the ride, because this is well-made and very good fun. |
 |
The Visitor (Dir: Thomas McCarthy) 70/100
Second feature from full time actor/part time director Thomas McCarthy (his first was The Station Agent) featuring a lovely understated performance from the very talented and currently very busy Richard Jenkins. Jenkins stars as Walter Vale - a college professor who on return from a conference finds his apartment occupied by a young Syrian musician named Tarek and his Senegalese girlfriend who have moved in in his absence due to some housing scam they got mixed up in. This is the point where The Visitor deviates from what you would expect to happen because rather than turf the couple out on the street Walter decides to accommodate them and the three live together in a sort of uneasy harmony for a while. Tarek and Vale form a firm friendship quite quickly and Tarek starts to teach Vale the art of street drumming. Of course you just know it can't last and sure enough the immigration folks track down Tarek and whisk him off to a detention centre. The film's quite affecting from that point on, as Vale fights to try and get Tarek released and also begins a new, more bohemian chapter in his life, with the possible prospect of a new romance on the horizon too. It's a nicely observeded and touching performance from Jenkins that's well worthy of inclusion at this years Academy Awards. It'll be nice to see a good character actor getting a bit of recognition for a quality independent film for a change. |
|
