We all know Brian Clough, right? This film is a fictionalised account of the 44
days he spent as manager of Leeds United in 1974, and the history that lead
Clough to take the job. The film is based on David Peace's novel, which has
been criticised as being inaccurate, not least by the Leeds United player
Johnny Giles who took some court action on the matter. It also implies that
Brian Clough passed over a job at Brighton in favour of Leeds United, when in
fact he managed Brighton for a year before then.
So, watching with that in mind, that a lot of what you see probably never
happened, it's still an entertaining story. Michael Sheen does a very difficult
job, in that he makes Brian Clough a likeable character, whilst still
portraying him as the egotisical prick that he certainly always seemed to be in
public. I worry for Michael Sheen; Tony Blair, David Frost, now Brian Clough.
Are these really the kinds of people you'd want to be typecast as?
The plot itself concentrates on the reasons for Clough's rivalry with the Leeds
United manager he was taking over from, Don Revie, and his pretty hubristic
intentions to eclipse Revie.
It's a well made film, keeps you interested right to the end, which for a
football film, for me, is some achievement.
Views, Reviews, and Inflammatory Comments on the subject of Cinema.
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Tuesday 24 March 2009
A Bunch Of Amateurs
Was first out last year, but the local Odeon brought it back for the day, for
their films for pensioners thing they do on Tuesday mornings. So I got me flat
cap on and went.
Burt Reynolds plays a washed up action hero who's now way too old. He orders
his agent to get him a job within 24 hours, or he's fired. His agent sets him
up with an am-dram theatre company in Straford in Suffolk, who had written a
begging letter asking him to do an appearence to help save their theatre. His
agent lets him believe that it's the RSC in the proper Stratford, and by the
time he twigs, the papers have got hold of it and he can't back out.
It could have been Yet Another Richard Curtisesque comedy, but it's actually
quite a bit cleverer than that. The play they have him in is King Lear, and his
story neatly parallels Lear - he too is the washed up old king, deserted by
those who claimed to love him, and as things go from bad to worse for him, he
comes to understand the play he's in better and better.
Burt Reynolds is really quite good, and gives the impression that he could
actually do a pretty good Lear if he tried. Derek Jacobi's great in support,
playing the resentful old ham who feels he should be Lear.
In many ways, it's quite the Brassed Off/Full Monty/Calendar Girls type of
film, with an ensemble cast of British character talent doing the heartwarming
eccentricity thing, but what pushes it into the higher class of the film is the
respectful and intelligent way it treats both Shakespeare and the Amateur
Dramatics tradition; this isn't a "look at the silly awful actors" thing, it's
much more affectionate than that.
I'll give it 8.5/10, and I'd have given it more if they'd given Derek Jacobi a
bit more to do.
their films for pensioners thing they do on Tuesday mornings. So I got me flat
cap on and went.
Burt Reynolds plays a washed up action hero who's now way too old. He orders
his agent to get him a job within 24 hours, or he's fired. His agent sets him
up with an am-dram theatre company in Straford in Suffolk, who had written a
begging letter asking him to do an appearence to help save their theatre. His
agent lets him believe that it's the RSC in the proper Stratford, and by the
time he twigs, the papers have got hold of it and he can't back out.
It could have been Yet Another Richard Curtisesque comedy, but it's actually
quite a bit cleverer than that. The play they have him in is King Lear, and his
story neatly parallels Lear - he too is the washed up old king, deserted by
those who claimed to love him, and as things go from bad to worse for him, he
comes to understand the play he's in better and better.
Burt Reynolds is really quite good, and gives the impression that he could
actually do a pretty good Lear if he tried. Derek Jacobi's great in support,
playing the resentful old ham who feels he should be Lear.
In many ways, it's quite the Brassed Off/Full Monty/Calendar Girls type of
film, with an ensemble cast of British character talent doing the heartwarming
eccentricity thing, but what pushes it into the higher class of the film is the
respectful and intelligent way it treats both Shakespeare and the Amateur
Dramatics tradition; this isn't a "look at the silly awful actors" thing, it's
much more affectionate than that.
I'll give it 8.5/10, and I'd have given it more if they'd given Derek Jacobi a
bit more to do.
Monday 16 March 2009
Bronson
Has this ever happened to you? You're on a bus or a train, maybe long distance,
and someone sits down across from you, and decides to tell you his life story.
And you nod, and smile, and make encouraging noises in the right places,
because the guy is a *loon*.
Well, this is the movie version of that experience.
Tom Hardy plays Michael Peterson, AKA Charles Bronson, who is apparently
Britain's most violent criminal. He's spent a total of about four months *out*
of prison since 1974, and has a history of violence and hostage taking. This
much we know for sure.
The film is a sort of illustrated monologue; Bronson appears on stage,
narrating his life, and it's clear that the recollections are his version of
events and that the stage is in his own head, complete with adoring audience.
So it's not clear throughout whether anything is true, true-as-Bronson-tells-it
or fictions made up for the film. The whole thing is a confusing stream of
consciousness, a disjointed series of tales from Bronson's life. It's hard to
discern what point, if any, there is to his life, or whether he even knows. Or
cares.
So, this isn't so much a story so much as a character portrait, and a
performance, and a hell of a performance it is. You'll often find yourself
thinking "where on earth is this going?" but not in a bad sense. It's like a
rollercoaster ride that constantly smacks you in the face and calls you a c#nt.
I heard the other day that the difference between truth and fiction is that
fiction has to make sense. That's certainly apt here.
and someone sits down across from you, and decides to tell you his life story.
And you nod, and smile, and make encouraging noises in the right places,
because the guy is a *loon*.
Well, this is the movie version of that experience.
Tom Hardy plays Michael Peterson, AKA Charles Bronson, who is apparently
Britain's most violent criminal. He's spent a total of about four months *out*
of prison since 1974, and has a history of violence and hostage taking. This
much we know for sure.
The film is a sort of illustrated monologue; Bronson appears on stage,
narrating his life, and it's clear that the recollections are his version of
events and that the stage is in his own head, complete with adoring audience.
So it's not clear throughout whether anything is true, true-as-Bronson-tells-it
or fictions made up for the film. The whole thing is a confusing stream of
consciousness, a disjointed series of tales from Bronson's life. It's hard to
discern what point, if any, there is to his life, or whether he even knows. Or
cares.
So, this isn't so much a story so much as a character portrait, and a
performance, and a hell of a performance it is. You'll often find yourself
thinking "where on earth is this going?" but not in a bad sense. It's like a
rollercoaster ride that constantly smacks you in the face and calls you a c#nt.
I heard the other day that the difference between truth and fiction is that
fiction has to make sense. That's certainly apt here.
Tuesday 10 March 2009
Gran Torino
Clint Eastwood is a scary, scary old man. His wife's just died, he hates the
rest of his family, with good cause, because they're assholes to a man, he's a
grumpy old racist, and his neighbourhood has been largely overtaken by
Vietnamese immigrants. He is, himself, a veteran of the Korean war, the things
he did there have never sat right with him, and his neighbours seem to remind
him of that.
As the film progresses, he finds that he's got more in common with the decent
hard-working folk living next door than his soft, spoiled family, and gets
involved in their lives, mentoring the young lad, and eventually coming into
conflict with the gang who want the lad to join, and won't take no for an
answer.
It's quite a broad, simplified tale. The good people are good, the bad are bad,
and straight talk and guts are what counts in the end. In many ways, it's a
Western. It's the old grizzled gunman saving the decent hardworking farmers
from the bandits. It's either a classic plot or a cliched one, depending on
your outlook.
What sets the film apart is Clint's performance. For a guy pushing eighty, he
is still the scariest bastard alive. If anything, he's just getting scarier the
more time goes on. At one point he growls "Ever notice how you come across
somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me." And he
sells that line to the hilt. Also he is quite staggeringly rude and offensive
to everyone; I said he was racist earlier, I almost don't think that's fair. He
hates *everyone*, pretty much. It's a towering performance, that takes this
film a few rungs above the manly man's fable that it would otherwise have been.
rest of his family, with good cause, because they're assholes to a man, he's a
grumpy old racist, and his neighbourhood has been largely overtaken by
Vietnamese immigrants. He is, himself, a veteran of the Korean war, the things
he did there have never sat right with him, and his neighbours seem to remind
him of that.
As the film progresses, he finds that he's got more in common with the decent
hard-working folk living next door than his soft, spoiled family, and gets
involved in their lives, mentoring the young lad, and eventually coming into
conflict with the gang who want the lad to join, and won't take no for an
answer.
It's quite a broad, simplified tale. The good people are good, the bad are bad,
and straight talk and guts are what counts in the end. In many ways, it's a
Western. It's the old grizzled gunman saving the decent hardworking farmers
from the bandits. It's either a classic plot or a cliched one, depending on
your outlook.
What sets the film apart is Clint's performance. For a guy pushing eighty, he
is still the scariest bastard alive. If anything, he's just getting scarier the
more time goes on. At one point he growls "Ever notice how you come across
somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me." And he
sells that line to the hilt. Also he is quite staggeringly rude and offensive
to everyone; I said he was racist earlier, I almost don't think that's fair. He
hates *everyone*, pretty much. It's a towering performance, that takes this
film a few rungs above the manly man's fable that it would otherwise have been.
Friday 6 March 2009
Watchmen
Let's approach this as a film, not as an adaptation. This is, I believe, the
best superhero movie yet. This is, however, sadly, no major claim. There's
never been a superhero film that's been better than "excellent, but flawed" and
this is no exception.
I'd start by saying that the flaws are not to be found in the acting. I am, I
believe, completely happy with every performance throughout. With a cast of
essentially unknowns (Billy Crudup is the most well known as That Guy in That
Thing I Saw One Time), they merge into their roles in a way that you can't
imagine a Big Movie Star doing. Full marks on that score - Jackie Earl Haley
gets top marks as Rorschach. In that his task is to make a character who is
essentially a right wing sociopath who never washes, and make you admire him
and feel for him. His big scene comes right at the end, and for me, it would
make or break the movie; it makes it.
Effects, again, marvellous. With exception of the makeup they stuck on the guy
playing Nixon, that is. But ignoring that, it's woo yay explosions, fight
scenes, and whizzy effects from start to finish.
The problems are two. First, direction. I feel like a heel for bringing it up,
but just maybe Zack Snyder wasn't up to this. Mistake me not, he deserves a
medal for what he *did* do, which was to fight the studios in a running battle
to make the film as faithful to the source as possible, but when push comes to
shove, the direction is somehow flat and literal.
Second, the script. In places, it's like Watchmen - Slow Learner's Edition. I
don't expect to have the plot explained to me so much. This is an intelligent
film, there's no need to spell so much out. Second, this is a two and a half
hour braindump. If I may compare to the original just this once, that was
twelve issues of 22 pages each, plus back material. Each designed by Alan Moore
to be digested over the course of a month, ready for the next issue. Compress
that into two and a half hours and inject it into the forebrain, and it kind of
hurts. So we're kind of left with this uncomfortable paradox of there a) being
too much cut out and b) being too much left in. I don't know that this could
have been avoided. So, rollercoaster ride from start to finish, when maybe you
want to sit and think about what you saw.
best superhero movie yet. This is, however, sadly, no major claim. There's
never been a superhero film that's been better than "excellent, but flawed" and
this is no exception.
I'd start by saying that the flaws are not to be found in the acting. I am, I
believe, completely happy with every performance throughout. With a cast of
essentially unknowns (Billy Crudup is the most well known as That Guy in That
Thing I Saw One Time), they merge into their roles in a way that you can't
imagine a Big Movie Star doing. Full marks on that score - Jackie Earl Haley
gets top marks as Rorschach. In that his task is to make a character who is
essentially a right wing sociopath who never washes, and make you admire him
and feel for him. His big scene comes right at the end, and for me, it would
make or break the movie; it makes it.
Effects, again, marvellous. With exception of the makeup they stuck on the guy
playing Nixon, that is. But ignoring that, it's woo yay explosions, fight
scenes, and whizzy effects from start to finish.
The problems are two. First, direction. I feel like a heel for bringing it up,
but just maybe Zack Snyder wasn't up to this. Mistake me not, he deserves a
medal for what he *did* do, which was to fight the studios in a running battle
to make the film as faithful to the source as possible, but when push comes to
shove, the direction is somehow flat and literal.
Second, the script. In places, it's like Watchmen - Slow Learner's Edition. I
don't expect to have the plot explained to me so much. This is an intelligent
film, there's no need to spell so much out. Second, this is a two and a half
hour braindump. If I may compare to the original just this once, that was
twelve issues of 22 pages each, plus back material. Each designed by Alan Moore
to be digested over the course of a month, ready for the next issue. Compress
that into two and a half hours and inject it into the forebrain, and it kind of
hurts. So we're kind of left with this uncomfortable paradox of there a) being
too much cut out and b) being too much left in. I don't know that this could
have been avoided. So, rollercoaster ride from start to finish, when maybe you
want to sit and think about what you saw.
The International
Whoever had this one in their release schedule must have just about died of
ecstacy when the credit crunch hit. "Everyone hates bankers now? I've got a
movie here where the bad guys are bankers! Squee!" And to be honest, that's the
only reason I can imagine why this didn't go straight to video.
There's this bank, and they do bad things. They fund evil regimes, they launder
money for the mafia. It's a testament to the pre-credit-crunch origins of this
film that they felt the need to give us this kind of an excuse to call the
banks baddies. Nowadays, we're all "they're bankers, they're bastards, no need
to sugar coat it for us, we're in already. Shoot the fuckers."
But yes, Clive Owen is an Interpol agent who's obsessed with bringing the bank
down, since they've been wriggling off the hook for years. Naomi Watts is...
well, she's with the Manhattan DA's office, like that makes any difference.
And the whole thing just collapses into a big wet messy heap of a thriller,
with no discernable direction, purpose or conclusion. We spend most of the film
trying to track down some hitman, which goes nowhere, and leaves us wondering
why quite so much of the time and budget of the movie was spent establishing
his character, tracking him down, and messily exploding the Guggenheim museum
if he plays no useful part in the plot.
The film does have one saving grace, and that's that it looks good. In that we
get to see a lot of nice European cities, and the location shooting is good
enough that it feels like a much classier Euro-thriller than it actually is.
6/10, but really, why bother?
ecstacy when the credit crunch hit. "Everyone hates bankers now? I've got a
movie here where the bad guys are bankers! Squee!" And to be honest, that's the
only reason I can imagine why this didn't go straight to video.
There's this bank, and they do bad things. They fund evil regimes, they launder
money for the mafia. It's a testament to the pre-credit-crunch origins of this
film that they felt the need to give us this kind of an excuse to call the
banks baddies. Nowadays, we're all "they're bankers, they're bastards, no need
to sugar coat it for us, we're in already. Shoot the fuckers."
But yes, Clive Owen is an Interpol agent who's obsessed with bringing the bank
down, since they've been wriggling off the hook for years. Naomi Watts is...
well, she's with the Manhattan DA's office, like that makes any difference.
And the whole thing just collapses into a big wet messy heap of a thriller,
with no discernable direction, purpose or conclusion. We spend most of the film
trying to track down some hitman, which goes nowhere, and leaves us wondering
why quite so much of the time and budget of the movie was spent establishing
his character, tracking him down, and messily exploding the Guggenheim museum
if he plays no useful part in the plot.
The film does have one saving grace, and that's that it looks good. In that we
get to see a lot of nice European cities, and the location shooting is good
enough that it feels like a much classier Euro-thriller than it actually is.
6/10, but really, why bother?
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Anvil - The Story Of Anvil
I can't shake this suspicion. I can't help thinking that it's not true. It's
too good, and it's too weird. We're told that this is a documentary about a
heavy metal band called Anvil, who nearly made it in the eighties, and then
didn't. And apparently, despite an abject lack of success, they've been
slogging away in the music industry for the past thirty years, releasing twelve
albums on minor labels, and this is the point where we catch up with them.
We follow them on this tour, on which they play a series of gigs, each more
embarrassing and poorly attended than the last. The tour's managed by the inept
girlfriend of one of the band. At one point in the movie, they end up at
Stonehenge. The drummer's name is Robb Reiner. At one point we see an amp
turned up to 11. They record an album called "This Is Thirteen." The events of
this film aren't just "more Spinal Tap than Spinal Tap", they're a close
parallel to Spinal Tap, and you can't help thinking that it's been deliberately
contrived to some degree. I feared for the drummer's life.
That said, all signs do indeed point to there actually being a Canadian Speed
Metal band called Anvil who played Japan on a bill with the likes of The
Scorpions and Bon Jovi back in the eighties, and unquestionably failed to
become anywhere near as big as virtually everyone else on the bill.
What we see in this film is a portrait of a couple of guys who are in their
early fifties, have been best mates since the age of 15, and still believe,
despite all evidence to the contrary, that one day, they're gonna be rock stars
again. And they're not sad, deluded idiots. They're mad, wonderful, deluded
idiots. They have a disappointing European tour. They gamble everything they've
got on producing an album. They live their lives and they make their choices
based on the idea that it's better to try and fail than accept a lesser destiny
than Rock Star. Because frankly, whether they're playing to a packed stadium or
ten drunks in a club in Prague, that's what they are, and I salute them for it.
All in all, this is a thoroughly excellent film, that restores your faith in
humanity. For all that it resembles This Is Spinal Tap in structure, the film
it really reminds me of is The Wrestler - these too are a couple of faded
heroes who refuse to give up on their dreams, beyond all reason.
I am pretty certain that the documentary maker deliberately cut the thing to
look like Spinal Tap, and indeed may have manipulated things in that direction
("Hey guys, let's go down to Stonehenge while we're here, it'll make great
footage!") Having said that, I don't think either of our hapless heroes have
the acting chops for this to have been anything other than their genuine
responses to the situation. Go see it, and I'll bet you'll want to buy their
album by the end, even if you have no earthly intention of listening to it.
too good, and it's too weird. We're told that this is a documentary about a
heavy metal band called Anvil, who nearly made it in the eighties, and then
didn't. And apparently, despite an abject lack of success, they've been
slogging away in the music industry for the past thirty years, releasing twelve
albums on minor labels, and this is the point where we catch up with them.
We follow them on this tour, on which they play a series of gigs, each more
embarrassing and poorly attended than the last. The tour's managed by the inept
girlfriend of one of the band. At one point in the movie, they end up at
Stonehenge. The drummer's name is Robb Reiner. At one point we see an amp
turned up to 11. They record an album called "This Is Thirteen." The events of
this film aren't just "more Spinal Tap than Spinal Tap", they're a close
parallel to Spinal Tap, and you can't help thinking that it's been deliberately
contrived to some degree. I feared for the drummer's life.
That said, all signs do indeed point to there actually being a Canadian Speed
Metal band called Anvil who played Japan on a bill with the likes of The
Scorpions and Bon Jovi back in the eighties, and unquestionably failed to
become anywhere near as big as virtually everyone else on the bill.
What we see in this film is a portrait of a couple of guys who are in their
early fifties, have been best mates since the age of 15, and still believe,
despite all evidence to the contrary, that one day, they're gonna be rock stars
again. And they're not sad, deluded idiots. They're mad, wonderful, deluded
idiots. They have a disappointing European tour. They gamble everything they've
got on producing an album. They live their lives and they make their choices
based on the idea that it's better to try and fail than accept a lesser destiny
than Rock Star. Because frankly, whether they're playing to a packed stadium or
ten drunks in a club in Prague, that's what they are, and I salute them for it.
All in all, this is a thoroughly excellent film, that restores your faith in
humanity. For all that it resembles This Is Spinal Tap in structure, the film
it really reminds me of is The Wrestler - these too are a couple of faded
heroes who refuse to give up on their dreams, beyond all reason.
I am pretty certain that the documentary maker deliberately cut the thing to
look like Spinal Tap, and indeed may have manipulated things in that direction
("Hey guys, let's go down to Stonehenge while we're here, it'll make great
footage!") Having said that, I don't think either of our hapless heroes have
the acting chops for this to have been anything other than their genuine
responses to the situation. Go see it, and I'll bet you'll want to buy their
album by the end, even if you have no earthly intention of listening to it.
Monday 2 March 2009
City Of Ember
Bizarre hybrid of a movie. There's little bits of all kinds of films here. A
bit of The Goonies, with its kids-in-subterranean-amusement-park, a bit of
Brazil with its corrupt-and-byzantine-dystopia, a bit of Logan's Run with its
sheltered-society-with-a-secret. In fact, it reminds me of a sort of
kid-friendly version of Bioshock - i.e. with fewer mutant psychopaths intent on
cutting off your face and wearing it.
So, apparently, 200 years ago, for no reason that was explained, a subterranean
city called Ember was established, a refuge for humanity from, where they'd live for a few generations, free from the bullshit that
was going on on the surface. I know how they feel, I have weekends like that.
Inevitably, things go awry, they fail to get their wakeup call, so the city
starts wearing out and falling apart, and anyone who tries to leave gets
arrested. Inevitably, it falls to a collection of plucky bloody kids to work it
all out and save the city from itself.
Ultimately, it's *alright*. The ideas are interesting, the sets are nice, but
the execution is a bit flat. It's stitched together from all kinds of different
movies, and you can't help feeling that it's a shallow version of all kinds of
other things. Underwhelming but mildly diverting kids stuff.
bit of The Goonies, with its kids-in-subterranean-amusement-park, a bit of
Brazil with its corrupt-and-byzantine-dystopia, a bit of Logan's Run with its
sheltered-society-with-a-secret. In fact, it reminds me of a sort of
kid-friendly version of Bioshock - i.e. with fewer mutant psychopaths intent on
cutting off your face and wearing it.
So, apparently, 200 years ago, for no reason that was explained, a subterranean
city called Ember was established, a refuge for humanity from
was going on on the surface. I know how they feel, I have weekends like that.
Inevitably, things go awry, they fail to get their wakeup call, so the city
starts wearing out and falling apart, and anyone who tries to leave gets
arrested. Inevitably, it falls to a collection of plucky bloody kids to work it
all out and save the city from itself.
Ultimately, it's *alright*. The ideas are interesting, the sets are nice, but
the execution is a bit flat. It's stitched together from all kinds of different
movies, and you can't help feeling that it's a shallow version of all kinds of
other things. Underwhelming but mildly diverting kids stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)