There's two ways you can view this film. In part, it is certainly a very
interesting documentary about the occasion when a maverick French wirewalker,
and his mates, broke into the World Trade Center, slung a cable between the two
towers, and had him walk across it.
On another level, it's a documentary about some fantastically smug and
self-satified people who did the above in 1974, and have been dining out on the
story every since. I'd hate to actually know Philippe Petit, he's probably a
dreadful person to be stuck next to at a dinner party, Mastermind specialist
subject: Myself and How Clever I Am.
Essentially, it's not an uninteresting tale by any means, but there's two
problems. One, it's overlong. A bit of judicious editing would make this a
bloody good 45 minute BBC documentary. At double that, it begins to pall. Two,
there's not enough source material. Part of the reason for this is obvious;
there is, tragically, no way of revisiting the scene, and saying "yes, this is
where we attached the cables" or similar. Fortunately, taste prevails and we
don't travel to NY to mawkishly paw over ground zero, but that leaves us
essentially with archive footage and talking heads, and the archive material
really isn't that good. It would seem that their exploits were filmed at the
time with a few cine cameras and still cameras, but not with anything like the
professionalism you'd like. There's a lot of distant blurs of what might be a
man, on what is possibly a wire. Likewise, there's just too much of Petit and
his team banging on about their recollections of the event, and that's what
makes them look smug; if they'd said how clever they were just the once, you'd
have accepted it.
With more material to work from, this might have been worth 90 minutes of our
time. Cutting their coat according to their cloth, they'd have ended up with a
45 minute documentary. What we end up with, to quote Bilbo Baggins, is butter
scraped across too much bread.
Views, Reviews, and Inflammatory Comments on the subject of Cinema.
Monday, 18 August 2008
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
A Complete History Of My Sexual Failures.
Independent Filmmaker Chris Waitt, in light of the fact he's just been dumped
yet again, decides to make a documentary, going back over his life,
interviewing his exes, in an attempt to work out what is wrong with him, and
why they all dumped him. And this isn't the premise for a fictional film, this
is a documentary. Albeit one where some of the scenes are of dubious veracity.
I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that you'll know what's wrong
with him and why they dumped him in the first five or so minutes. The next 85
minutes or so, however, chronicle his own gradual discovery of his own
shortcomings, in frank, embarrassing detail.
Essentially, it's 100% pure bottled schadenfreude. The guy's hopeless, and
frankly, I think he's edited the film to make himself appear more so for comic
effect. The real mystery is not why 10-15 perfectly lovely seeming girls dumped
him, it's why 10-15 perfectly lovely seeming girls went out with him in the
first place.
Anyway, it's a whistle-stop tour of the guy's misery, lingering uncomfortably
long on the issue of his erectile dysfunction, including a visit to a
dominatrix who seems to feel that whipping his gonads will help in some way,
though whether it's intended to help him, or get vengeance on behalf of the
women of the world is not clear. I mention this episode in particular, as it
contains actual footage of his privates being whipped, and I think anyone
seeing it should be thus far forewarned.
I'll give it 8/10. Riveting, in the sense of "I want to look away, but can't."
People with a low tolerance for embarrassment and humiliation may wish to look
elsewhere.
yet again, decides to make a documentary, going back over his life,
interviewing his exes, in an attempt to work out what is wrong with him, and
why they all dumped him. And this isn't the premise for a fictional film, this
is a documentary. Albeit one where some of the scenes are of dubious veracity.
I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that you'll know what's wrong
with him and why they dumped him in the first five or so minutes. The next 85
minutes or so, however, chronicle his own gradual discovery of his own
shortcomings, in frank, embarrassing detail.
Essentially, it's 100% pure bottled schadenfreude. The guy's hopeless, and
frankly, I think he's edited the film to make himself appear more so for comic
effect. The real mystery is not why 10-15 perfectly lovely seeming girls dumped
him, it's why 10-15 perfectly lovely seeming girls went out with him in the
first place.
Anyway, it's a whistle-stop tour of the guy's misery, lingering uncomfortably
long on the issue of his erectile dysfunction, including a visit to a
dominatrix who seems to feel that whipping his gonads will help in some way,
though whether it's intended to help him, or get vengeance on behalf of the
women of the world is not clear. I mention this episode in particular, as it
contains actual footage of his privates being whipped, and I think anyone
seeing it should be thus far forewarned.
I'll give it 8/10. Riveting, in the sense of "I want to look away, but can't."
People with a low tolerance for embarrassment and humiliation may wish to look
elsewhere.
Friday, 25 July 2008
The Dark Knight
Weeeeell.
This was always going to be a tough one, wasn't it? The hype has been building.
First you've got the hype that you're going to get just because it's a Batman
movie. Then there was the added hype that Heath Ledger was going to be in it,
and the ensuing doubt over his ability to deliver. And then he goes and tops
himself, and the hype rises to fever pitch, as overnight he gets built into
this James Dean figure, and The Dark Knight is going to be the last great work
of a tortured genius. I don't know that any film could live up to that. I don't
think it has. It could have lived up to the hype before his death, I think, but
it just isn't the kind of masterwork that every newspaper and magazine seems to
think it is.
First off though, Heath Ledger is bloody brilliant. His Joker is the kind of
grade A terrifying psychopath on which film careers are built. It's the
skin-crawling equal of Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. 12A rating be
damned, there are going to be millions of 8-11 year olds waking up screaming
after clown nightmares after this.
Plot-wise, having gone and called it The Dark Knight, they've actually gone and
made something that's a close parallel to The Killing Joke. In that what we see
here is a psychopathic criminal whose only motive is to prove that the world is
just as demented and savage as him, if only you scratch the surface a little
bit. It's an exercise in confusion. Twists, tricks, and turns are pulled out
every moment. You don't know what's going on most of the time, everyone
concerned is sort of dragged along in the Joker's wake, barely able to work out
what he's done after he's done it, never mind before. And while that chaos is
exactly what he should be, it does make the film seem messy and convoluted.
Christian Bale, meanwhile, kinda sucks. I'm sorry, but there it is. I actually
like his Bruce Wayne a lot, but his Batman voice sounds bloody stupid in my
view. The script also kinda fails to capture what Batman should be. This is a
Batman without conviction, without finesse, without the spark of genius. He
comes across as a sullen thug hiding behind his body armour. This is especially
bad in a film where it should be a case of a duel of minds between two equal
but opposite adversaries. Batman just doesn't seem to be the Joker's equal
here, and it's hard to see why Batman would interest the Joker at all.
Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is actually The Joker's real adversary in this
film, and anyone who's vaguely aware of who Harvey Dent is knows how that's
going to turn out. What's turned out there is actually one of the better
versions of Harvey Dent's story, and it's one of the successes of the film
that they've managed to change and reinvent the character, and come up with one
of the more intelligent and interesting interpretations.
Overall, it's too messy, and Batman himself is reduced to the role of a
bit-player in his own legend. This is The Joker's film, and with such a huge
performance on one side, and such a lacklustre one on the other, the film feels
kind of asymmetrical and lopsided.
I'm going to say 8/10, as it's a film with a performance you really must see,
but it's too full of flaws to rate higher.
This was always going to be a tough one, wasn't it? The hype has been building.
First you've got the hype that you're going to get just because it's a Batman
movie. Then there was the added hype that Heath Ledger was going to be in it,
and the ensuing doubt over his ability to deliver. And then he goes and tops
himself, and the hype rises to fever pitch, as overnight he gets built into
this James Dean figure, and The Dark Knight is going to be the last great work
of a tortured genius. I don't know that any film could live up to that. I don't
think it has. It could have lived up to the hype before his death, I think, but
it just isn't the kind of masterwork that every newspaper and magazine seems to
think it is.
First off though, Heath Ledger is bloody brilliant. His Joker is the kind of
grade A terrifying psychopath on which film careers are built. It's the
skin-crawling equal of Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. 12A rating be
damned, there are going to be millions of 8-11 year olds waking up screaming
after clown nightmares after this.
Plot-wise, having gone and called it The Dark Knight, they've actually gone and
made something that's a close parallel to The Killing Joke. In that what we see
here is a psychopathic criminal whose only motive is to prove that the world is
just as demented and savage as him, if only you scratch the surface a little
bit. It's an exercise in confusion. Twists, tricks, and turns are pulled out
every moment. You don't know what's going on most of the time, everyone
concerned is sort of dragged along in the Joker's wake, barely able to work out
what he's done after he's done it, never mind before. And while that chaos is
exactly what he should be, it does make the film seem messy and convoluted.
Christian Bale, meanwhile, kinda sucks. I'm sorry, but there it is. I actually
like his Bruce Wayne a lot, but his Batman voice sounds bloody stupid in my
view. The script also kinda fails to capture what Batman should be. This is a
Batman without conviction, without finesse, without the spark of genius. He
comes across as a sullen thug hiding behind his body armour. This is especially
bad in a film where it should be a case of a duel of minds between two equal
but opposite adversaries. Batman just doesn't seem to be the Joker's equal
here, and it's hard to see why Batman would interest the Joker at all.
Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is actually The Joker's real adversary in this
film, and anyone who's vaguely aware of who Harvey Dent is knows how that's
going to turn out. What's turned out there is actually one of the better
versions of Harvey Dent's story, and it's one of the successes of the film
that they've managed to change and reinvent the character, and come up with one
of the more intelligent and interesting interpretations.
Overall, it's too messy, and Batman himself is reduced to the role of a
bit-player in his own legend. This is The Joker's film, and with such a huge
performance on one side, and such a lacklustre one on the other, the film feels
kind of asymmetrical and lopsided.
I'm going to say 8/10, as it's a film with a performance you really must see,
but it's too full of flaws to rate higher.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
WALL-E
Well, it's another wonderful showing for Pixar, really, not a lot more to say,
somehow. Two cute robots meet and fall in love against the backdrop of the
death and prospect of eventual rebirth of the planet. For a cute love affair
between a pair of binoculars and an iMac, it's pretty epic stuff.
The animation is, of course, excellent, whether you're talking about the way
that storms and dust clouds are rendered, or the way inanimate objects are
shown to have recognisable feelings. The film is very light on dialogue, with
the two leads saying very little but each others' names, and this essentially
puts all the acting talent on the animators. In the likes of Shrek, Mike Myers
and Eddie Murphy are providing the personalities, in WALL-E, it's all in the
animation. So even if you haven't a cute-appreciating bone in your body, this
is a film you could watch purely to enjoy the craftsmanship. If, however,
you're the kind of person who names their laptop, then this is doubly the movie
for you.
I would also like to take a moment to applaud the short at the start, "Presto",
another 3D animation, about a fight between a magician and his rabbit. It's
kind of Warner Brothers in style, and could easily sit amongst the great Looney
Tunes cartoons. I'd have paid my five quid for this alone.
If there's a criticism about this film at all, it's that it might possibly
start a little slow for some kids. Now me, I'll watch Sergio Leone movies, I
can watch dust blow around for hours. Kids sitting around me started to get a
bit fidgety. That's a tiny criticism, however, and not really one that affected
my enjoyment of the film at all.
somehow. Two cute robots meet and fall in love against the backdrop of the
death and prospect of eventual rebirth of the planet. For a cute love affair
between a pair of binoculars and an iMac, it's pretty epic stuff.
The animation is, of course, excellent, whether you're talking about the way
that storms and dust clouds are rendered, or the way inanimate objects are
shown to have recognisable feelings. The film is very light on dialogue, with
the two leads saying very little but each others' names, and this essentially
puts all the acting talent on the animators. In the likes of Shrek, Mike Myers
and Eddie Murphy are providing the personalities, in WALL-E, it's all in the
animation. So even if you haven't a cute-appreciating bone in your body, this
is a film you could watch purely to enjoy the craftsmanship. If, however,
you're the kind of person who names their laptop, then this is doubly the movie
for you.
I would also like to take a moment to applaud the short at the start, "Presto",
another 3D animation, about a fight between a magician and his rabbit. It's
kind of Warner Brothers in style, and could easily sit amongst the great Looney
Tunes cartoons. I'd have paid my five quid for this alone.
If there's a criticism about this film at all, it's that it might possibly
start a little slow for some kids. Now me, I'll watch Sergio Leone movies, I
can watch dust blow around for hours. Kids sitting around me started to get a
bit fidgety. That's a tiny criticism, however, and not really one that affected
my enjoyment of the film at all.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
The Forbidden Kingdom
Huh. Another fantasy martial arts adventure. Must be the season for it.
It starts out looking like it's going to be a cross between The Neverending
Story and The Karate Kid. New kid in town is bullied, and in the course of that
finds himself cast through time and space into Legendary China(tm) where he
finds he has to go on a quest to return a mystical staff to its rightful owner.
He's joined in this by three misfits, and it's at that point you realise that
you're actually watching a martial arts reworking of The Wizard of Oz. Only
given that the Scarecrow is a drunken-kung-fu-master Jackie Chan, and the Tin
Man is Ninja-monk Jet Li, a lot more awesome. Basically, whenever The Wizard of
Oz would have thrown you a song and dance number, The Forbidden Kingdom throws
you a kick-ass martial arts sequence.
It's not without its flaws; basically when the fight scenes aren't happening,
it's not so good. I'd say the worst of it was the direction and editing. Lots
of overlong scenes and really abrupt cuts, almost as if it was thrown together
at the last minute for release.
Overall, it's well worth a watch, if only to see Jet Li and Jackie Chan kick
hell out each other for a good five minutes. The final battle scene is also
pretty storming. Just be prepared to sit through some stuff.
7/10, but probably could have been edited better into an 8/10.
It starts out looking like it's going to be a cross between The Neverending
Story and The Karate Kid. New kid in town is bullied, and in the course of that
finds himself cast through time and space into Legendary China(tm) where he
finds he has to go on a quest to return a mystical staff to its rightful owner.
He's joined in this by three misfits, and it's at that point you realise that
you're actually watching a martial arts reworking of The Wizard of Oz. Only
given that the Scarecrow is a drunken-kung-fu-master Jackie Chan, and the Tin
Man is Ninja-monk Jet Li, a lot more awesome. Basically, whenever The Wizard of
Oz would have thrown you a song and dance number, The Forbidden Kingdom throws
you a kick-ass martial arts sequence.
It's not without its flaws; basically when the fight scenes aren't happening,
it's not so good. I'd say the worst of it was the direction and editing. Lots
of overlong scenes and really abrupt cuts, almost as if it was thrown together
at the last minute for release.
Overall, it's well worth a watch, if only to see Jet Li and Jackie Chan kick
hell out each other for a good five minutes. The final battle scene is also
pretty storming. Just be prepared to sit through some stuff.
7/10, but probably could have been edited better into an 8/10.
Kung Fu Panda
Pretty easy; this is basically exactly the movie you're expecting it to be.
It's a Dreamworks animation, which means it's 80% as good as the Pixar
equivalent. Which is no mean feat, when you think about it. It's Jack Black
being Po, the enthusiastic but inept panda who is selected to be trained as the
Dragon Warrior to take on the evil Shi-Fu, bad ass kung-fu Snow Leopard.
It's all very cute and simplistic, beautifully done, funny, everything you'd
expect. It's a kids movie that an adult can enjoy as well. The art is
wonderful, the martial arts scenes pretty exciting.
Beyond that, there's not a lot a lot to say. It's a film about a Kung Fu Panda.
It's a Dreamworks animation, which means it's 80% as good as the Pixar
equivalent. Which is no mean feat, when you think about it. It's Jack Black
being Po, the enthusiastic but inept panda who is selected to be trained as the
Dragon Warrior to take on the evil Shi-Fu, bad ass kung-fu Snow Leopard.
It's all very cute and simplistic, beautifully done, funny, everything you'd
expect. It's a kids movie that an adult can enjoy as well. The art is
wonderful, the martial arts scenes pretty exciting.
Beyond that, there's not a lot a lot to say. It's a film about a Kung Fu Panda.
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Hancock
Just think how bad this could have been. It could have been The Fresh Prince
with superpowers. It could have been all hip and street, and play on the fact
Will Smith, unlike most superheroes, is black. So it's rather a relief that
it's actually a very good film.
So, Hancock is, in effect, Superman. No laser vision in evidence, but other
than that, that's the skillset. As we find him, he's washed up, he's a drunk,
he's depressed. He's still trying to be a hero, but he's sloppy and careless,
so he makes mistakes, causes a lot of damage, so everyone hates him, and
reckons the city would be better off without him. Which makes him more
depressed, and as a consequence, more drunk.
He saves the life of a PR guy (who's actually a nice guy, and trying to do
charitable stuff), who in return decides he's going to save Hancock, help him
get back his good name, and put things to right.
Will Smith's got his acting head on for this one. Hancock isn't the kind of
smartmouthed character Will Smith does on spec, he's surly, he's brooding, and
he's visibly hurting. You feel for him, and you want him to turn his life
around. Jason Bateman's a bit closer to his Arrested Development type, but
that's not exactly a bad thing.
This is a good thing for a lot of the things it doesn't do. It doesn't spoof on
any existing superhero movie, this is as an original a take on the Superman
idea as you'll see. It doesn't poke fun at the superhero concept, while at the
same time doesn't let it pass unexamined. It's not a deep movie by any means,
it's a summer blockbuster, but on the other hand, it's not a cartoon either.
I feel, somehow, I've got more out of it than a lot of people; it's getting a
lot of "average" reviews, and I think it deserves a lot better than that.
with superpowers. It could have been all hip and street, and play on the fact
Will Smith, unlike most superheroes, is black. So it's rather a relief that
it's actually a very good film.
So, Hancock is, in effect, Superman. No laser vision in evidence, but other
than that, that's the skillset. As we find him, he's washed up, he's a drunk,
he's depressed. He's still trying to be a hero, but he's sloppy and careless,
so he makes mistakes, causes a lot of damage, so everyone hates him, and
reckons the city would be better off without him. Which makes him more
depressed, and as a consequence, more drunk.
He saves the life of a PR guy (who's actually a nice guy, and trying to do
charitable stuff), who in return decides he's going to save Hancock, help him
get back his good name, and put things to right.
Will Smith's got his acting head on for this one. Hancock isn't the kind of
smartmouthed character Will Smith does on spec, he's surly, he's brooding, and
he's visibly hurting. You feel for him, and you want him to turn his life
around. Jason Bateman's a bit closer to his Arrested Development type, but
that's not exactly a bad thing.
This is a good thing for a lot of the things it doesn't do. It doesn't spoof on
any existing superhero movie, this is as an original a take on the Superman
idea as you'll see. It doesn't poke fun at the superhero concept, while at the
same time doesn't let it pass unexamined. It's not a deep movie by any means,
it's a summer blockbuster, but on the other hand, it's not a cartoon either.
I feel, somehow, I've got more out of it than a lot of people; it's getting a
lot of "average" reviews, and I think it deserves a lot better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)