Meh.
No surprises here. It's a Harry Potter Film. It's like other Harry Potter Films
you may have seen. Only there's less in it. It's not that it's bad, it's just
got the slenderest of plots. New teacher has a secret that we need to know, and
the Bad Guys have a plot to get into Hogwarts. That's basically it. Everything
else is snogging and shagging in the lower sixth.
Jim Broadbent turns up, being the latest member of the British acting
establishment to be caught in the inevitable gravitational pull of the HP
machine, and he does a great job, being the slightly creepy and slimy, but
ultimately quite likeable Professor Slughorn.
Everyone other than him, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore is seriously
downgraded to bit part status, and much is left unexplained. Particularly what
"Half-Blood Prince" is supposed to mean. I faintly remember we were told in the
book, but the film doesn't bother. It seemed a weak enough thing to hang the
title of the book on, and even weaker with the film.
Recommendation: Well, if you watched the first five, and intend to see the
seventh, then you may as well. Far from essential to see it in the cinema
though.
Views, Reviews, and Inflammatory Comments on the subject of Cinema.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Public Enemies
The film chronicles (inaccurately) the life and crimes of John Dillinger, big
time 30's bank robber, and the attempts of the embryonic FBI to arrest him.
Now, on paper, this ought to be a cracker. You've got a notoriously cheeky and
raffish bank robber played by Johnny Depp, a stoic and by the book FBI guy
played by Christian Bale, and the whole thing directed by Michael Mann, who
directed Heat, arguably the best bank heist movie ever made. How could this
fail to be the best movie of the year? Beats me, but it did.
I *think* it's the script. That's my best guess. I realised about 40 minutes in
that I no longer gave a fuck what happened. I didn't like the robbers at all,
so I didn't much want them to get away with anything. But on the other hand,
the FBI were a bunch of stuffed shirts and I didn't really care if they caught
anyone. It was as if every effort had been made to present shades of grey, and
not glamourise bank robbery or law enforcement, with the ultimate result that
the entire exercise was grey and lacking in glamour.
Visually, it's pretty good; a bit sepia and low lit, but pretty stylish, and
when the bank heists are on, you really feel Michael Mann getting into his
stride. But as far as the story goes, I was left thinking "So?"
time 30's bank robber, and the attempts of the embryonic FBI to arrest him.
Now, on paper, this ought to be a cracker. You've got a notoriously cheeky and
raffish bank robber played by Johnny Depp, a stoic and by the book FBI guy
played by Christian Bale, and the whole thing directed by Michael Mann, who
directed Heat, arguably the best bank heist movie ever made. How could this
fail to be the best movie of the year? Beats me, but it did.
I *think* it's the script. That's my best guess. I realised about 40 minutes in
that I no longer gave a fuck what happened. I didn't like the robbers at all,
so I didn't much want them to get away with anything. But on the other hand,
the FBI were a bunch of stuffed shirts and I didn't really care if they caught
anyone. It was as if every effort had been made to present shades of grey, and
not glamourise bank robbery or law enforcement, with the ultimate result that
the entire exercise was grey and lacking in glamour.
Visually, it's pretty good; a bit sepia and low lit, but pretty stylish, and
when the bank heists are on, you really feel Michael Mann getting into his
stride. But as far as the story goes, I was left thinking "So?"
Sunshine Cleaning
Time for a standard Hollywood plot. You've got a dysfunctional family with a
big immediate problem, and a lot of underlying problems. In order to solve the
big immediate problem, they get together and do an unusual activity, and in
coming together, solve a lot of the underlying problems too.
In this case, the immediate problem is getting enough money together to send
the kid to a decent school, the underlying problem is a pair of sisters who've
yet to come to terms with their mother's suicide, and the unusual activity is
forming a business which cleans crime scenes and apartments after murders,
suicides and people who've died alone and gradually decomposed into their
mattresses.
And there is your first clue that this isn't your usual Hollywood tat. Any
comedy attached to that is likely to be somewhat restrained and rather dark,
and this is certainly true of this film. And that level of elegant restraint is
evident throughout the film. It feels real, it has a realistic perspective. The
characters are charming, the problems believable, and the resolutions within
the scope of what's possible and believable.
big immediate problem, and a lot of underlying problems. In order to solve the
big immediate problem, they get together and do an unusual activity, and in
coming together, solve a lot of the underlying problems too.
In this case, the immediate problem is getting enough money together to send
the kid to a decent school, the underlying problem is a pair of sisters who've
yet to come to terms with their mother's suicide, and the unusual activity is
forming a business which cleans crime scenes and apartments after murders,
suicides and people who've died alone and gradually decomposed into their
mattresses.
And there is your first clue that this isn't your usual Hollywood tat. Any
comedy attached to that is likely to be somewhat restrained and rather dark,
and this is certainly true of this film. And that level of elegant restraint is
evident throughout the film. It feels real, it has a realistic perspective. The
characters are charming, the problems believable, and the resolutions within
the scope of what's possible and believable.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Looking For Eric
Finally.
Lovely little piece, this. Eric Bishop is a downtrodden man. A 50 year old
postman, who lives with two stepsons who don't respect him, and is borderline
suicidal. Seeing him in an appalling state, his mates at work rally round, and
get him to try some self-help book by Paul McKenna. As part of this, he's
encouraged to visualise someone he admires, and try to emulate their
confidence. Obviously, he chooses Eric Cantona. Soon enough, he begins to see
Eric Cantona whenever he's alone, and begins to take advice from him.
As a result, he begins to try make changes to his life, and those of his
family.
It's witty and amusing, and has that Ken Loach Ring Of Authenticity(tm), which
really makes the film. You could probably point to a hundred Hollywood comedies
with the same sort of "Loser turns his life around" plot, but this film has the
kind of writing and performance which lifts it way above that. If anything, the
film is let down by the Imaginary Cantona schtick; Cantona is, after all, just
his inner voice, this film is more about a man taking control of his own life,
than being encouraged by some magical, mystical life coach.
It all comes to a slightly over the top conclusion, which doesn't quite chime
with the gritty goings on of the rest of the film, but when the dust settles,
the message is not so much that you can solve all your problems by being like
Cantona, so much as that it's possible to get yourself out of a rut and
pointing in the right direction, with a little confidence.
Lovely little piece, this. Eric Bishop is a downtrodden man. A 50 year old
postman, who lives with two stepsons who don't respect him, and is borderline
suicidal. Seeing him in an appalling state, his mates at work rally round, and
get him to try some self-help book by Paul McKenna. As part of this, he's
encouraged to visualise someone he admires, and try to emulate their
confidence. Obviously, he chooses Eric Cantona. Soon enough, he begins to see
Eric Cantona whenever he's alone, and begins to take advice from him.
As a result, he begins to try make changes to his life, and those of his
family.
It's witty and amusing, and has that Ken Loach Ring Of Authenticity(tm), which
really makes the film. You could probably point to a hundred Hollywood comedies
with the same sort of "Loser turns his life around" plot, but this film has the
kind of writing and performance which lifts it way above that. If anything, the
film is let down by the Imaginary Cantona schtick; Cantona is, after all, just
his inner voice, this film is more about a man taking control of his own life,
than being encouraged by some magical, mystical life coach.
It all comes to a slightly over the top conclusion, which doesn't quite chime
with the gritty goings on of the rest of the film, but when the dust settles,
the message is not so much that you can solve all your problems by being like
Cantona, so much as that it's possible to get yourself out of a rut and
pointing in the right direction, with a little confidence.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Transformers: Whatever The Hell The Rest Of The Title Is.
A number of errors led me to see this film today. The cinema's website claimed
that Looking For Eric was on at 2pm. This was the first error. When I got to
the cinema, I quickly bought a ticket from the machine, not noticing it was a
ticket for a Monday showing. That was the second error. The girl in the cinema
tore the ticket and sent me to the screen indicated without realising it was
the wrong day. That was the next error. When I got into the cinema, I was
presented with Hanna Montana: The Movie, so I left, and traded the ticket in
for a later showing of Transformers. This may also have been an error.
There's nothing to like about this movie. The humans in the movie are uniformly
badly written, badly acted and completely without redeeming interest. Whenever
something with pulse is on the screen, that moment is a waste of your time.
But so what, right? It's giant robot explodo movie. But I've got so many
issues with that aspect too. First, design. When we were kids, Transformers
were cooler if the robot in question looked like cool robots built out of cars
when they were robots. The robots in transformers have this appalling busy
design, they just don't look good, they look messy. Second, action. Michael Bay
seems to think that all he needs to do to make robot fights cool is to just
slap tons of motion blur on everything so you can't actually see what's going
on.
So, the whole thing is just a huge, inelegant mess from start to finish. A real
steaming turd of a movie.
3/10 - There's a few effects shots that are quite nice, but really, don't waste
your time.
that Looking For Eric was on at 2pm. This was the first error. When I got to
the cinema, I quickly bought a ticket from the machine, not noticing it was a
ticket for a Monday showing. That was the second error. The girl in the cinema
tore the ticket and sent me to the screen indicated without realising it was
the wrong day. That was the next error. When I got into the cinema, I was
presented with Hanna Montana: The Movie, so I left, and traded the ticket in
for a later showing of Transformers. This may also have been an error.
There's nothing to like about this movie. The humans in the movie are uniformly
badly written, badly acted and completely without redeeming interest. Whenever
something with pulse is on the screen, that moment is a waste of your time.
But so what, right? It's giant robot explodo movie. But I've got so many
issues with that aspect too. First, design. When we were kids, Transformers
were cooler if the robot in question looked like cool robots built out of cars
when they were robots. The robots in transformers have this appalling busy
design, they just don't look good, they look messy. Second, action. Michael Bay
seems to think that all he needs to do to make robot fights cool is to just
slap tons of motion blur on everything so you can't actually see what's going
on.
So, the whole thing is just a huge, inelegant mess from start to finish. A real
steaming turd of a movie.
3/10 - There's a few effects shots that are quite nice, but really, don't waste
your time.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
The Hangover
So... four guys go on a stag night in Las Vegas and get utterly hammered.
Mayhem ensues. They wake the following morning, none of them can remember what
happened, and the groom's missing. His friends must therefore track him down
before the wedding.
So far, so "Dude, Where's My Car." It's a staggeringly unoriginal plot. If you
were to show me a 1920s silent movie with this plot, I wouldn't be at all
surprised.
The quality, then, has to be in the execution, and it's actually pretty darned
funny, really. It's pretty much an even split between black comedy and
slapstick. If you're likely to be amused by seeing a baby belted in the face
with a car door, this is certainly the movie for you. I'd say the whole film
sits on the comedy spectrum somewhere between Old School and a Kevin Smith
movie. Which I intend as a recommendation.
Mayhem ensues. They wake the following morning, none of them can remember what
happened, and the groom's missing. His friends must therefore track him down
before the wedding.
So far, so "Dude, Where's My Car." It's a staggeringly unoriginal plot. If you
were to show me a 1920s silent movie with this plot, I wouldn't be at all
surprised.
The quality, then, has to be in the execution, and it's actually pretty darned
funny, really. It's pretty much an even split between black comedy and
slapstick. If you're likely to be amused by seeing a baby belted in the face
with a car door, this is certainly the movie for you. I'd say the whole film
sits on the comedy spectrum somewhere between Old School and a Kevin Smith
movie. Which I intend as a recommendation.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Terminator Salvation
Or, "If the machines want to take out humanity, they'd better be sure they kill
Batman first."
It would be an insult to everyone on Mono to suggest that they need a synopsis
of the plot. John Connor, in the future, fighting Skynet. Seriously, you do the
math.
The battle details one of Connor's earlier battles with Skynet, no more, no
less. Lots of hardware made of pigiron goes boom. We see a few cool new breeds
of terminator, and - hey look! Michael Ironside is a hardass! Nice to see you
again Michael! Top bloke.
The real question is, is it any good? The problem with judging that is that no
film will ever be as good as Terminator or Terminator 2, including Terminator
and Terminator 2. Seriously, I watched Terminator 2 last night, and it's just
about pretty good, but 20 years haven't been kind to it. The effects stand up,
but the plot's pretty dumb, and I will never know how we tolerated Edward
Furlong at the time. So, given that, I guess this is an acceptable, but less
good sequel. It's a bit of a mess, and the ending is pretty dumb, but it
rattles along entertainingly enough, and it looks pretty cool.
One thing that this film does *not* really do is take the franchise in any
interesting new directions. The brief is to film a bit of what we know
happened, and make it exciting. No real risks are taken, and so I suppose it
succeeds in not failing, it fails in not succeeding too.
7/10. Capable enough Explodo.
Batman first."
It would be an insult to everyone on Mono to suggest that they need a synopsis
of the plot. John Connor, in the future, fighting Skynet. Seriously, you do the
math.
The battle details one of Connor's earlier battles with Skynet, no more, no
less. Lots of hardware made of pigiron goes boom. We see a few cool new breeds
of terminator, and - hey look! Michael Ironside is a hardass! Nice to see you
again Michael! Top bloke.
The real question is, is it any good? The problem with judging that is that no
film will ever be as good as Terminator or Terminator 2, including Terminator
and Terminator 2. Seriously, I watched Terminator 2 last night, and it's just
about pretty good, but 20 years haven't been kind to it. The effects stand up,
but the plot's pretty dumb, and I will never know how we tolerated Edward
Furlong at the time. So, given that, I guess this is an acceptable, but less
good sequel. It's a bit of a mess, and the ending is pretty dumb, but it
rattles along entertainingly enough, and it looks pretty cool.
One thing that this film does *not* really do is take the franchise in any
interesting new directions. The brief is to film a bit of what we know
happened, and make it exciting. No real risks are taken, and so I suppose it
succeeds in not failing, it fails in not succeeding too.
7/10. Capable enough Explodo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)