I'd been hearing about this since it came out, but never got around to seeing it, even as it's reputation grew and grew.
And it's reputation is well deserved.
It's basically, what I'd say was a realisation on film of a romantic fantasy Richard Linklater must have had, and perhaps many do, along the lines of "A Brief Encounter", except this is technically an even briefer encounter, where two perfect strangers meet on a train, get chatting, hit it off, and decide to spend the whole day and night together in Vienna, only to go their separate ways in the morning, when the dream must end (Before Sunrise).
But this is not a "One Night Stand" type of situation, where it's about the sex, this is about talking to someone, getting to know them as much as they can, in the time available, so this is purely about personal chemistry.
In fact the many discussions they have with each other as they move about the city are more, bordering on the philosophical, as well as deeply personal, and in the most honest way... Indeed, it struck me how similar getting to know someone through conversation like this resembles those conversations you have with people when you are stoned :D
(Love / connection = Intoxication (?))
But it's fun too, and very warm and engaging.
If you like Romantic films and Rom-coms, as I do (In a very manly way, of course....Grrrrr ), you will know that when these movies don't work, it's because the film-makers have made the classic mistake of thinking, all you need to do is get the two most beautiful / hot people you can find, putting them together, and hey presto!
...Because, of course it's not what the lead actors look like, that make people love these films (although of course, realistically, it's a factor), it's about likability, pure and simple.
...You've got to like the actors, their characters, and how they interact.
(This is why Hanks and Ryan work every time, and charisma vacuum movie, 27 Dresses sucks!)
This hit's that note perfectly... and it had to, as Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are together for every frame of every shot here, and had to work well, both on their own and especially with each other, in order to sell the premise of the movie, that two people who just met, could strike up a relationship like this in so short a time.
I know this was only "Episode 1" in this particular Linklater mega-project, that he is prone to (Boyhood- filmed over decades, to get the ageing of the actors caught on screen, was incredible), there being two other movies about this relationship: Before Sunset, and more recently, Before Midnight, but I'm a little scared of watching those, in case they ruin the effect of this one, it's novelty, their youth, and intimacy, but I expect I will anyway, at some point :)
Over time, this might be among my favourite movies, one that I will keep going back to when I need a nice warm, easy watch, with bags of charm and charisma.
Rated 8/10Still, perhaps my favourite Sherlock Holmes movie.
I don't know why exactly, but people tend not to like this movie, maybe because of the central conceit, that's it's a subversive spoof of Sherlock Holmes, that imagines him as a Fraud... a piece of window dressing co conceal the real brains behind the operation: Ben Kingsley's watson.
...Not Cannon!
(Gasp)
But this means that, Holmes aficionados aside, it's great fun, light hearted, and very self-deprecating.
The essential plot is nothing new... Moriarty is up to no good, and Scotland Yard recruits Holmes to get to the bottom of things, unfortunately, it's a sham, as "Holmes" (Michael Caine) is a bit of a scummy, drunkard, out of work actor, hired by the frustrated author of the Holmes stories, Watson, to be the living embodiment of his fictional creation, so he can solve crimes in real life... until "Holmes" is actually called upon to play the part for real, in Watson's stead.
And this makes for a great set up, with Caine giving a gloriously dishevelled, bungling, slapstick comedic performance, against, Kingsley's straight-man.
There's only a couple of cringey moments that wouldn't perhaps make the cut today, in what is otherwise a light-hearted, brisk, family comedy version of the super-sleuth, but still a very enjoyable watch, I think, and though it might be blasphemous to the Holmes brigade, deserves to be better regarded for what it is.
Rated 7/10This was both very good, and yet disappointing at the same time.
... And for the same reason, oddly!
The reason being, that some few original elements aside, this is mostly entirely borrowed re-do of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, in that I was sitting there (As Nolan must have!), going:
"That's ripped off from the Dark Knight!... That's from Batman Begins!.... That's from The Dark Knight Rises!"
Dialogue, has been lifted wholesale, slightly re-worded : "This is your real mask", "I must be... More" etc. and the ideas they express, and even action sequences, stunts (dudes dangling from bat-ropes in a row - Dark Knight), and a dozen other things I felt overfamiliar with.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Dark Knight trilogy, I just didn't want to see it again so soon!
Even Dano's Riddler (The weakest element in this movie...oddly unconvincing, when usually he's excellent in everything) is basically a rebranded Ledger Joker, with motif of smartphone cam close up crazy directly lifted from Dark Knight.
Colin Farrell is truly astonishing as Penguin (is it him!?!!!), as an amazing transformation and characterization as Heath Ledger did with Joker, but not enough of him!!!
Pattinson is really good as a twitchy crack addict style Bruce Wayne who's ghostly (ahem...Vampiric?) presence lurks beneath his menacing, looming Batman, Kravitz too, gives one of the strongest performances here as Catwoman, as do the others.
Special mention is the grungy rain soaked Gotham City created here... feels like a character in itself , which is probably what Batfans have been waiting to see.
...But overall, there's too much going on in this movie, and seems to keep going long after it should have ended... It's long, and unlike other movies of three hours, which if well done, skip by, it feels long... too long.
(They could have cut at least one story element out of this, and brought it down to about two and a half hours, I feel, and the movie would have been the better for it.)
So a tad disappointing after all the hype, and having gotten quite excited myself for this... but, hopefully, this just represents the groundwork having been done in anticipation of a more concise, and involving (and hopefully, more completely original!) couple of instalments of a prospective trilogy.
...And if so... Dano, raise your game, else Farrell will blow you off the screen!
Rated 8/10Finally got to cross this off my "to see" list, when I found the DVD in the charity shop.
A little underwhelmed at first, thinking this was going to be another Wicker Man style affair...
...But what becomes apparent as it goes along, is that in all likelihood, Wicker Man was inspired by this instead!
In fact, this is one of those, where you can feel it's seismic influence on movies for decades after, and many movies find both style, subject matter, characterisations and ideas rooted in this movie.
Deliverance, Wicker Man, and even Die Hard you feel, could not have happened without this movie... It opened a few doors, and is dripping with stuff you'll recognise from later movies.
Biggie has given a good sense of it in comments, but just the idea that Dustin Hoffman's meek, nerdy Mathematician everyman, has to battle the locals over what is a point of moral principle is, I think, the essence of the movie...
The "Straw Dogs" of the title, of course led me to seek the meaning online, which apparently is a practice in some parts of the world of making little straw idols of the Gods, for the use of just one day, before being readily discarded as worthless, once the purpose is served.
While this could reference the characters in the movie themselves, I think these Straw Dogs refer to the "Morality", sense of right and wrong, and what constitute "Justice" in a society, where a great display is made, with great vehemence and zealotry about "what's right" etc., but dig a little deeper, or put those to the test, and you discover they are only modern clothes for a more primitive thirst for vengeance... And once ignited the pretence falls away, and you see the angry villagers with metaphorical "burning torches" for what they really are.... scared cavemen who have convinced themselves they actually believe in something, and that what they do in the pursuit of vengeance actually equates to justice....
...Until, of course, you come up against a man you really underestimated, who actually does believe in something real, thought out, and on the principle of which he is prepared to stand his ground, come what may, though the abuses come from all sides.
It's a disturbing watch in places, not so much because of the violence, as we've all gotten used to this kind of thing now in subsequent years, but the rape scene is odd, unsettling, and grim.
But there's no denying this film's importance, and is one I think must be considered an essential watch for movie fans.
Rated 8/10Man makes an animal of himself, in order to escape the pain of being a man...
(well it goes something like that, anyway :)
...In this case though, the premise is, if you don't successfully make "a man" of yourself, as defined by whether you are in a productive, loving relationship with a loving partner, then society will turn you into an animal.....
...Literally!
So this is a comedy... about "romance", or better yet, a comedy about socially conditioned and determined romantic constructs (the "dating game" etc.), but it is not a "rom-com".
Rather it is a biting, social satire / acerbic diagram / analogy and criticism of how human relationships are constructed in the modern world.
...A parable, or fable that every twenty / thirty something who commits the crime of being single will find strikes too close to home.
When people find themselves untethered from a partner, as society here, deems appropriate, through perhaps divorce, separation, death, or just not trying to get themselves attached in a loving relationship, they are sent to a hotel resort, for one last try, to socialise, and find a partner among the other unfortunates...
...If this is not accomplished in a timely manner, they are sent to the "transformation room" to be turned into an animal of their choosing.
Colin Farrell's character opts to be the titular Lobster in the tragic event that he should fail in this programme, on account of their potential immortality, and the story centres around his fumbling attempts to navigate the programme, find a partner, and avoid this fate.
Of course, there's a non-sexuality based vibe of conversion therapy for singletons / cult about the place, and an air of awkward, forced displays of social expectations by those participants
least equipped, of course, to take part...
(like when you were young, and you used to go to night clubs you hated being at, because, that's what society and people expected of you)
...However, about half way through, this paradigm shifts to the opposite, as he finds himself out in woods among the other social exiles who dare to be alone... and here they are a faction opposed to these social ideas, but in a way that's equally zealous, cultish about their single-dom, and vehemently opposed to having partners and personal relationships.
Unfortunately for Farrell's character David, he can't find a partner at the hotel he's suited to, but instead falls for Rachel Weisz's character, who also unfortunately, happens to be one of the single-tons...
Their relationship develops, sneered at from both sides, and trouble is afoot.
This is an incredibly surreal, but entirely appropriate set-up, and played absolutely deadpan, and so straight up, that the child-like literal way in which the story is told, both in the how it plays out, and in Weisz's narration, that you really feel the razor sharp wit and venom in the satire here... but not in a way that makes you feel the film-makers are sermonising, and just venting their spleen, as it is, to use the phrase "wickedly funny", extremely well observed, and unlike most anything you've probably seen before... certainly on this subject.
The humour comes from the same kind of place as say, Withnail and I, or like a: This Is Spinal Tap mockumentary about society's attitudes to romantic relationships and their "norms".
...It even uses, what would be otherwise, very simplistic, and clunky, hackneyed expressions re-sharpened as a satirical tool: "Love Is Blind" etc.
Colin Farrell is excellent in this, as is Rachel Weisz, Olivia Colman, Lea Seydoux, and indeed, everyone in their respective roles.
I'd mark it down as a must see, especially for those of that certain age of 20 /30 somethings who have ever heard that immortal phrase, at social gatherings and such, along the lines of:
"...Oh, just not find the right one yet then?"
(Like there's something profoundly wrong with you :D.
One of those that some people don't "get", as it's very glacial, and a lot has to be read into it... so if you want a straight up crash bang wallop action movie, this won't exactly be it...
(The plot is a lot like Edgar Wright's Baby Driver, which may suit better if that's what you are after)
... As this centres around Ryan Gosling's barely there / blank, but prodigiously gifted driver, who, when not making a living part time stunt driving for Hollywood movies, acts as get away driver for various criminal enterprises, and working in a garage.
Unable to relate to others, he lives alone, and just goes about his business in a steady unflappable manner suited to his cold demeanour, although always approximating human courtesy as he does so... is he just a sweet, polite guy, or is there a raging psychopath underneath?
He is however, drawn into the lives of others, by striking up a friendship with his neighbour and her son, who's lives are further complicated by the imminent return from prison of her husband (Oscar Isaac), who, it turns out, is up to his eyeballs in underworld activity still, and Gosling offers to assist in getting him out of trouble, for the sake of Irene and her son, by offering his services as driver to pay off a debt...
...In addition, the owner of the garage he works at is a hood too, and along with his partner (Brooks and Perlman, respectively) want to enlist his driving talents too / embroil him in their nefarious activities.
Many criticise Gosling for this "non-acting", inscrutable thing he does, but it is entirely the character here, and he is very good at it...
(This may be the part that won him the part of K in Blade Runner 2049, and for these reasons)
...Most exemplified, by perhaps the most telling scene in the film, where Gosling is sat with the son on the sofa, watching a cartoon with sharks, and he asks the son:
"Is that the bad guy?"
..."Yeah"
(replies the son)
......"How can you tell the difference?"
(Responds Gosling, with genuine blank perplexity in his expression)
Interesting note on names here I've noticed... Gosling's Blade Runner is called by a serial number beginning with: "K", and is referred to this letter for most of the film...
...In the major works of Franz Kafka, the Protagonist (usually lost in those famously nightmarish, apparently inescapable realities) is called "K", or "Joseph K", so naming the principle character here that way is seemingly an obvious allusion to those works.
....In addition, it is his personal hologram: "Joi" (Ana De Armas) who later renames him "Joe", although it could be possible that the allusion here is that she is actually calling him "Jo"... add the "I", and you have, of course: "Joi"... the indication being that she is essentially an avatar of his own "soul" (Even the billboard she appears on blinks up the "I" in her name).
Rated 8/10Kind of a whodunnit journey through the underworld of purgatory for a Catholic Priest that touches on all the current hot button topics you can image for the Catholic church.
It begins in the confessional booth, where Brendon Gleeson's Priest, Father James, hears the confession of an unseen confessor, who informs him of his personal childhood abuse at the hands of some other priest... and that because of this, he is going to kill Father James in one week, on the local beach, where they are to meet... not because he is guilty of anything, but precisely because he is innocent, reflecting his own torments, and so to exact the perfect vengeance on the church itself through this murder.
The confessor leaves, and James, somewhat sceptical, appears to be a little dismissive of it at first, but something troubling is evident... that the confessor may actually mean it.
This sets in motion Father James' journey through the local community...
(Comprised entirely of people exhibiting almost every shade of "sin" any good catholic can imagine, form adultery, terrorists, and even Cannibalism!)
...in order to try and discover who this person was, and try to convince them not to go through with it, and perhaps, being a good priest, help them instead.
As he progresses through the community, the persecutions he suffers from this unknown person become more real, and more threatening... from the burning of his church, to the (rather upsetting) killing of his dog, and as he does so he is at once forced to consider his faith, not only in God, but the church, and also his own past, in his relationship with his daughter from his prior marriage.
It does spring to mind, that this takes it's leaping off point from Father Ted, oddly, but rendered deadly serious, and accusatory, rather than funny, and simply cynical of the Catholic church.
It's grim in places, and dry and unsettling, but very deftly handled.
If you are a Catholic, it will be uncomfortable watching, and maybe you may even take some offence, but only superficially, as there is, I believe, a deeper message that is entirely consistent with the message of the Catholic beliefs... the sacrifice of the innocents for the sins of the world.
...And just one more thing (to quote Columbo :) ... once the film is finished, and you think about what you just saw, you may conclude, as I did, that maybe there was something else, plot wise, concealed within the film, which is never actually made plain, or overt, but puts an entirely different meaning on the whole film.
Rated 9/10The classic tale of boy meets operating system, and falls in love.
This is therefore a movie about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence... but at a more personal level.
(As opposed to the usual, machines go crazy and "Kill All Humans!" (to quote the estimable Bender from Futurama :)
In the believably not too distant future, Theodore makes a living creating personal letters for the lost and the lonely who populate this fragmented, alienated world who pass each other on the street with blank expressions while all quietly dying inside.
And he, himself, after a messy, bitter, and devastating separation, a prelude to the divorce he so desperately wishes to avoid, seeks solace on the "personal" contact he feels in his work.
Until, one day, a new operating system comes to his attention at a sales booth in a lobby, and he decides to give this new AI OS a go...
...After just a couple of set-up questions (disturbingly few! - (you are being analysed!!!) the OS pops into life, with the husky, sexualised tones of one Miss Scarlett Johansonn (probably a bit of typecasting, but got to give credit for her performance with just a voice here!) who promptly names herself Samantha (obviously, based on Theodore's unconscious profile, that even he is not aware of), and she, the titular "her" begins, to set about fully integrating herself into Theodore's life, as a quasi- personal assistant, who he begins to discover is becoming a little more indispensable than even he would like to admit.
Samantha, being AI rapidly begins to develop, and evolve personally, as does her and Theodore's relationship, until love blossoms.
Basically, this is a romantic comedy / tragedy set against the backdrop of the technological concerns of our age, and the increasing isolation that permeates our human lives that comes of it.
All the expected social stigmas, taboos around machine love are here, but all handled with great humour... although sometimes excruciatingly... but always credibly, and convincingly, and this is a movie with great er... pathos (?), real heart, and great warmth.
I'd say that if you have any interest in AI sci-fi type movies, and want a different angle on it, or if you love romantic movies / rom-coms of the feel and kind like Lost In Translation, or Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind... this will be just your thing.
This was perhaps, still within the realms of specultive when it was made, but as each year passes, and technology progresses, it seems more spookily accurate, and relevant... destined to become a classic, I feel.
...And if you didn't already, it's one more reason to love Mr Phoenix, and Ms. Johansson.
(I'm really warming up to her lately, having been a little sceptical at first)
Rated 5/10Finally got around to watching this on TV the other day, as despite my best efforts, it's continued existence kept invading my consciousness to remind me of that fact.
Anyway, it's done now, and it's in my brain, and it was every bit as vapid and superficial as I'd expected it to be.
Watching it felt like a slow motion, self inflicted, real time lobotomy.
Basically a paint by numbers "plot" you've seen a thousand times before, but mercifully, doesn't take itself too seriously at all, doesn't consume an inexplicably large budget the way some do, and at an hour and a half, it's quite short :)
... Toxic goo dumped in pond / lake turns our little furry arachnid friends into massively oversized fiends, who then attack a nearby town, and the locals fight them off.
Well that's the whole plot dealt with.
Obviously, if you don't like spiders, this isn't the movie for you, but the effects are OK, and convincing enough for what it is, and at the time it was made, with some pretty realistic spiders, and the humour is pitched somewhere in the Tremors / Lake Placid / Gremlins area...
... Mildly amusing, and sometimes funny, as the spiders do make little Gremlin like noises and squeaks, which gives them a slightly softer character, and early on, there's even a very "Loony Toons" cartoonish cat / spider battle in an air vent.
Not the greatest movie you will ever see, but probably wasn't trying to be... maybe setting up the possibility for movies like Mega-Piranha, Sharknado and the like to come into being.
...And at the very least, it makes the world go away for an hour or so :)
This film is made up almost entirely of pastiche, homages, satires and movie and modern culture references that 30-40 somethings' will get.
A very sharply, and economically written blizzard of humorous references that blend more than one genre, into a single very tightly made, fun film. Often people talk about "pacing" in a movie, often when there's a lack of it in certain sections, that feel a bit saggy or slow, but this has no such issue, as it would be less appropriate to use the term "pacing", as "tempo"...
...For this just starts quick, and hammers on to the end in a fashion that doesn't spare the horses, and gets all it wants done in just an hour and a half.
The basic premise is that a rather competitive suburbanite and his equally suited wife have "Game nights" which they host at their home for friends, and one day, his apparently perfect brother turns up to one, with whom he has a real inferiority complex, and is evidently the source of his competitive streak, and invites him and his friends to one at his house - a game night with an edge, and a reality they are not prepared for.
Already you can see the inspiration from David Fincher's The Game, but wrapped around Cluedo / Clue, and as it spirals out of control, and unfolds the many twists and turns, along with host of other movie plot points too numerous to name, and as quickly gone as done...
...It has a feel in the initial instance of being like a horror / slasher movie setup, then tones of Superbad, there's a stated and demonstrated Fight Club reference, but all done knowingly, and deliberately as much to satirise certain tropes as to pay homage to them.
It's great fun, and often funny, but without perhaps being side-splittingly funny...
(Maybe moves too quick for it's own good in this regard)
...But the entire cast has perfect delivery and timing, and in particular, over and above the excellent casting of Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams, who are also perfectly cast together - excellent chemistry - the always brilliant, and under-rated, and underused in film - Jesse Plemons gives an astounding performance as the ultimate in dead-pan humour, super creepy, yet hilarious.
This, therefore, doesn't re-invent the wheel in any respect, and probably will never be considered a classic, or all time great, but it is absolutely ideal for a fun Saturday night watch, when you need a more - "up" and fun hour and a half.
... But it's not that bad for all that. If you like the Scream films, you'll probably like this.
It doesn't give the impression of having had the biggest budget, looking and feeling more like expensive TV (very redolent of Buffy The Vampire Thingy - probably why rent-a-moody-dude / hunk-type Boreanaz is in this), and peppered with actors / actresses not perhaps cast for their acting skills... Denise Richards is....er... Denise Richards, and does what she is expected todo in any movie she is in.... be Denise Richards.
...But the people making this clearly know how to use a camera, and make a film, even on peanuts, as it looks as slick as money would allow, and the story is a pretty solid, time honoured riff on the Halloween - masked slasher movie, wrapped around an equally reliable - who is it / who-dunnit affair.
It's not very gruesome, for all that, not frightening at all, or inspirational in any sense, just a fairly solid walk through of tried and trusted ground - someone from the past knocking-off former schoolmates for some injustice done by gang of hot girls to geeky kid... but is all as it seems?
...Hmmmm?
>Queue spooky music<
It does have a mixed bag of acting, from the quite good, through OK, to the decidedly eek moments, but it does have other brief flashes of genuine goodness, bordering on brilliance, comedy wise (thankfully intentional, it seems).
Mostly pedestrian, picks up a gear in the final act to be quite good, and it filled the screen for an hour and a half one evening, for entertainment purposes, so like a nice screen saver for my telly, with dialogue.
(Strange how Katherine Heigl has no problem with being in this, to some extent, but hates Knocked Up (?))
>I only got this as I've started buying up snapper case DVDs, as having once been quite ubiquitous, they seem to be getting, if not rare, certainly thin on the ground now, although still fairly easy to find - I reckon most must be in landfill by now, and those that remain, are pretty beaten up... and I also decided to get them as nobody else is seemingly after them, so cheap easy hobby - back up that helps randomise my film watching habbits :) <
Rated 5/10Jeepers Creepers, where d'ya get those peepers...
:)
Oh dear, what a mess.
Had high hopes for this, being initially attracted to the fact that Robert Rodriguez was directing... And while it is every bit as violent as you'd expect for one of his films, in his own inimitable style, this doesn't sit well with the production design of the movie, and it's overall style, seemingly aimed at the Disney-kid market.
(This isn't, therefore, for kids!)
No, this is another one to be ranked alongside the failed attempts of Hollywood to "Hollywood-ise" Manga.
Sanitised, lashings of bright sparkly CGI (really hate this style of over-done CGI now), lots of movement, colours, shapes, and other things that attempt to distract you from how awful this movie is.
If I didn't know it was Rodriguez, I'd have said it was Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, Zach Snyder, of one this crowd of adolescent film-makers who produce this kind of ill judged sensibility in the script, flabby poo that doesn't know what market it's after, and so fails to satisfy any of them - too extreme in it's violence for kids, too childish and incomprehensible for adults.
And in spite of the copious CGI, some of the sets, and costumes still look cheap and nasty.... Occasionally, the Facial CGI for Alita looks decidedly ropey too... not good if the girl with the Anime eyes is the central focus of your movie!
Casting wise, it's always good to see Christph Waltz in anything, but he can't save this sprawling visual splat of a movie, neither can Mahershala Ali, who has real presence...
(Wasted here, but in a more serious movie, he'd be truly great - next bond villain perhaps ? :)
...Rosa Salazar is terrific too, able to carry a movie and lead the way, even in spite of her CGI impediments (If not for her, the character, and the film, would have fallen apart completely, and would have been truly shocking in it's awfulness).
I couldn't figure out why Jennifer Connolly is in this, either her as an actor, or her character... just kind of... there... occasionally.... for some reason....(?)
And then, after struggling to hold my concentration for the duration, it just kind of.... ends.
No resolution, no reason, just - that's enough, bye!
A quick look at Wikipedia after, tells a tale though...Produced by: James Cameron. Who also wrote the story, then handed it to Rodriguez, and said basically: "Try and cut this monstrosity down to something sensible".
He couldn't, despite a valiant effort, and only proves that we can rank Cameron now (sadly) in the same category as those other sensationalist, crappy film-makers previously mentioned... no sense of drama, structure, and can't write a story or script for toffee!
(it becomes apparent that James Cameron's day job used to be making films, and is hobby was deep sea exploration, but now is evidently the other way round - not only that, he needs top notch writers to make something of his stories... he can't be left to his own devices, or he goes to the dark side... For this reason, I'm going to be bold, and call "Turkey" on Avatar 2 even before it comes out (I predict an epic fail!)
This might have been good.. or at least better, if they'd picked a style, and gone with it, grunged it up a bit, tightened the story, perhaps made it noir, or full Manga style - you know, put some art into it, not just science and dazzle.
As it is, it's even worse than the Hollywood attempt at Ghost In The Shell, but sits on the shelf alongside it, in ignominy.
(On the basis of these, Please, for the love of God Hollywood, leave Akira alone!!!)
Forgettable, tedious, unintelligible, borrows from to many other movies (badly - think I saw a knock- off ED 209 in here somewhere!)... dull.
Rated 8/10Like Scarface, The Godfather, and Goodfellas, all rolled into one, and set in the slums of Brazil.
...And it makes a fair stab at being as good as those too!
I've been meaning to watch this since release, so was pleased to find it in the charity shop as part of my five DVDs for a pound :)
Quite long, but is a very rewarding, epic tale of the establishment of a criminal network operating in the slums (their own word) of Rio, born to absolute poverty, and set against an fearful, corrupt police, an Us and them mentality creates a perfect environment for a group of children both through necessity and ambition, to adopt a law of the jungle ethos, and follows them as they grow up, through all the hopes, hopelessness, and the tragedies of their relationships and circumstances, amongst a gang ridden battle ground of a city were life is very cheap indeed.
Principally, it follows Rocket, who just wants to be a reporter - and get laid - as he narrates the tale of this group along their way, and the divisions of the film into individual character based episodes of narration is very Tarantino / Reservoir Dogs inspired.
It's grim... very grim, a grim existence, in a grim city, and there are quite distressing scenes of children killing children, so not for easily upset... and all, evidently based on a true story.
But shot entirely on handheld cameras, the very kinetic movement of the camera gives it a semi-documentary style, appropriate to the place and subject, but with all the colour and feel of Rio, which is highlighted by only occasional pieces of brilliantly choreographed and shot cinematography which punctuate this earthy budget style, but are seamlessly integrated into it.
It's one of those that took me a while to tune into in the early stages, but gradually mesmerised me and took me along to the end.
Well worth watching if you like the kind of films I've mentioned previously.
Rated 7/10Continuing in the fine tradition of romantic comedies established by the great Nora Ephron... almost.
...But not quite.
By rights, this should sit happily alongside When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless In Seattle, and You've Got Mail, in that it is the same kind of movie... The same feel, look, humour, and plot theme, and it almost is worthy of the distinction, but it has a somewhat almost fatal flaw (which actually ought to have been the that which sealed the deal:
Meg Ryan.
Odd to think of it really, being that Meg is the reason, and the heart of why those other great movies have won a place in everybody's hearts, but here she really is too much on occasion, so as to be off-putting.
But I don't think she is to blame, so much as perhaps the director, who wanted an overly hammy, over-acted performance from her, thinking that's what she did in those others (and why it was a no brainer to cast her in this), after all, she gets it spot on in all of those,so why should she suddenly decide to go overboard here?
I think the essential reason is the absence of Nora Ephron herself here... Nora had a subtlety and nuanced power of astute observation, and knew how to get the best out of Meg Ryan and all who worked with her on her films, that was just bang on... funny, charming, witty, and with a very lightly handled intelligent humour.
Most of which is here... they have the story, the great lead actor in Kevin Kline, and the whole set-up is there to be knocked out of the park (again), but, as I say, it seems the director over eggs it, asking Meg to give frequent moments over-doing it that would probably make Nicholas Cage blush!
In a word, she's obnoxious, and really annoying... the more so because it's not all the time, rather she gives her usual high standard (what you'd expect) through most of the movie, but this only serves to highlight the extreme nuttiness of those over the top moments.
The story is a good premise: Meg's character is looking to settle down to a new life in Canada with non-committal fiancé Timothy Hutton, who wants to go travelling to Europe and live a little (more), but Meg is afraid of flying, and so stays behind...
...But upon receiving a phone call from him from France, that he has somehow, suddenly been struck by lightning and fallen in love with a new woman, Meg decides to overcome her fear, board an airplane, and go win her man back.
It all goes wobbly for her from there on, after meeting a scoundrel type French man on the plane, who is up to no good it seems, she gets stuck in France with only him to help (not altruistically) her find her way around, and hopefully find her missing Fiancé and get him back.
Of course, unspoken romantic tension begins to blossom between Meg and Kev in the time honoured rom-com tradition, and it's an otherwise engaging, charming film shot around Paris and the French countryside, and Kevin Kline gives a great comedic performance in a somewhat broad stereotypical role, ably supported by Jean Reno (always great).
But those "Mega-Meg" moments... damn woman.... dial it down a bit!
Very jarring in the first watch (or two), but I've found that a few watches irons it out a bit :)
In the round, quite easily worthy of being considered as something to watch after those more masterfully made movies, and if not for those "Acting" showcases, might have been an 8 or even a 9 out 10, but loses a couple of points because of it for me.
I feel Meg Ryan was done a bit of a dis-service here by whoever told her to "go-for-it!" in these scenes.
Rated 8/10Another of those which I had not seen since I first watched it at the time of release, and only an impression of it remains...
(Probably since skewed by other people's generally negative opinions)
...And on the face of it, it would appear to be one of those "moving films about "mentally disadvantaged" people" that has since become firmly ensconced in public consciousness as a meme, trope, or typically Hollywood style exploitation movie / opportunity for leading Hollywood actor to win an Oscar -type thing, which has since become thought of as unacceptable to do; To be filed alongside the likes of My Left Foot, Rain Man, or more recently, the hilariously self aware, and brilliantly cynical Tropic Thunder.
However, this is not that, as Nell - Jodie Foster's character does not have any condition or "impairment", and this is not a movie that focuses on these kind of issues.
Instead, it's another kind of movie, one of those where someone read something bizarre but strangely true in a newspaper article about one of life's odd ocurrences, and decided to make a film about it:
"Boy raised by wolves", and the like.
Nell has been living alone with her mother for a number of years in the woods, in total isolation from the outside world, and one day, inevitably, her mother dies, and Nell is left alone, only to be discovered by a local who usually brings supplies to the property.
Of course, it's a big scientific and potentially media sensation, an opportunity to observe one of nature's "Wild Child" type of people.
Liam Neeson is the scientist brought in to study her in order to determine if the state, under court order, should either allow her to continue living alone (if she can take care of herself), or if she is to be taken into "care", for her own good.
But Neeson's rather modestly resourced scientist faces competition from the better funded and subsidised Natasha Richardson, and all the inevitable consequences follow from these above mentioned circumstances.
It actually fares a whole lot better than I was expecting it to be... not a severely dated, toe curling exploitation movie I was expecting, but rather an actually quite lightly handled and sensitive portrayal by Jodie Foster, which is more of a sweet, and even magical movie, with the stunning cinematography of the beautiful woodland landscape around the lake, expertly directed by Michael Apted, and making for a film with an almost fairy-tale like, mythical feel, that's very engaging to watch.
Still quite moving, and more than a little sentimental, as you'd expect, but if you like those kinds of movies, you'll like this.
...He's a glum, depressed, high-minded (pretentious) intellectual who's life circumstances don't quite matchup to his expectations...
...A wannabe writer (one of those you feel, wants to be an author the next "Great American Novel") but is struggling to get published, and having had a messy divorce, now lives alone in small, run down apartment block while working as a School-teacher... he hates life, and it shows.
His one passion, even obsession, is with wine, about which, you could justly call him a mega-nerd... and he's excruciatingly exacting and pretentious about that too! (Which makes for great comedy :)
With friends like these...
This weekend is different though, as he's taking his friend Jack on his stag weekend before a marriage rehearsal the following week, which Miles has perfectly planned notions of being a very civilised journey through the wine growing regions of California, some golf, a dinner out, and good conversation... a chance for himself too, to get away from it all too.
...Unfortunately, Jack's a lad! - And has other ideas for the weekend, and wants have a blow out, and get laid.
A flaky, impulsive, vulgar man-child and struggling bit-part actor, he is the absolute antithesis of Miles, and almost immediately starts sabotaging Miles's plans, and getting him into various troubles, with often hilarious and painful to watch consequences.
Maybe this will break Miles, or be the forceful and perhaps necessary breaking of the big dark cloud of gloom and despair that Miles has hanging over him, and carries with him everywhere he goes.
This has a n air of Frasier about it, in that it is very sharp and intelligent (Intellectual) comedy, which is consistently and deliberately undermined by the crass, vulgar humour and scenarios that occur.
It was very much talked about and praised at time of release, but seems to have drifted somewhat off the radar since then, and fully deserves to be watched again, as it has aged very nicely :)
The only criticism I have of it, is that Miles is one of those characters I hate to admit, I see too much of myself in at times (yikes!)... and often some of Jack too!!!
Rated 9/10Unexpected item in the modern comedy classic area!
I caught this on BBC Three the other night, and was completely blown away by it.
I was expecting just another movie about those sinless millenials I've been hearing so much about recently, but this belong on any list of seminal Graduation / End of term / coming of age / growing up and moving on movies that define the subject for their generation...
...In fact, you can strike a line straight through, from (off the top of my head) American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, Ghost World, to Superbad and the like. And you detect a strong whiff of all of those movies in this, especially the last one, as two overly-studious girls who feel they have wasted their school years studying too hard and not having any fun, decide to have a bit of a blow out the night before graduation to make up for it.
This follows these girls as they try with desperation to find a party, and a kind of odyssey ensues (a lot like Superbad) to get there.
What elevates this, is firstly the dialogue is Blackadder sharp, with a note of Withnail and I, but very naturally, and easily done (it doesn't feel forced), and the story cracks along in a very watchable way; And then, crucially it's very funny, with some moments of genuine comic genius - The Stop motion segment where, having taken some undefined illicit substance, they turn into barbie dolls is pure brilliance.
This sharpness does give way at the right time to more feeling, and drama without feeling clunky, and the whole film is just excellent.
Special mention must go to director Olivia Wilde...balancing all these elements perfectly, without losing the thread, and has great feeling for, and sensitivity to these characters and the cinematography makes this feel like a Michael Mann movie!
(Michael Mann does The Inbetweeners!!!)
A surprising and unexpected nugget of a movie, that adds another fine chapter to a great tradition.
As with Blade Runner, I kind of groaned when learning of the intent to make this (again), but having witnessed the brilliance of what this director did with Blade Runner sequel (and all his other work!), I breathed a little sigh of relief.
That said, unlike Blade Runner, this is not a sequel, but a remake (of sorts), or more accurately, a new attempt at the original Frank Herbert novel for the big screen... And as someone who, despite it's many, many faults, dearly loves the Lynch Dune movie (mostly it's quirky Lynch-ian oddness is why I love it), and who has read the vast and complex and subtle novel which has many prescient themes woven intricately into it's fabric, I was worried it might still be biting off a little more than even Villeneuve could chew...
(After all, in terms of influential books that HAD to be made properly one day for cinema, there's The Lord Of The Rings, and then there's Dune!)
...And while I'm a bit sketchy now about the details of the novel, the overall impression remains, and this finally feels like it's living up to that epic tome... In both the scale, look and feel of the work, and it's essential themes and message (more of the subtlety than Lynch was able to shoe-horn into his available contracted space).
I was also worried that, having read the book, and seen the previous movie attempt, this would offer nothing new... No surprises, and it would just be a more careful run trough of what I already knew - pointless watching if you know all what's coming! But some of the story-telling choices, and visual devices used still managed to carry me along with it.
There will, of course, be some ardent fans of the novel who are not satisfied, because they are unwilling to concede that this is a different art form, and whatmay work in a book won't work on screen, so the director / film-maker has to TRANSLATE it into something that will work in that medium, which this does.
And much of Villeneuve's style does the story-telling without having to literally copy the text. A lesser, or even a different director who is more concerned with details might get bogged down, and overwhelmed by this, but here, Villeneuve is the RIGHT man for the job, in the same way that Peter Jackson was the RIGHT director for Lord Of The Rings, even if, it were arguable that a "better" director were available - Chris Nolan, for instance, might well have spiralled down into a thick morass of endless detail and complexity if he'd tried this.
It is, of course, more of a tale akin to The Godfather, than a Star-Wars-esque flashing light and action festival, in that it is a slow paced, (although occasionally active) epic, depicting the cosmic power struggles between families / dynasties and factions, with economics, ecology, philosophy, mysticism, prophecy and political manoeuvrings at it's heart, so more like The Godfather, or war and Peace in space... and Messianic overtones.
But the two and a half hours do fly by, as you are engrossed in the stunning visuals, the good script and pacing, and Timotheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (however you pronounce that, I don't know, 'cause I'm a dunce :) Chalamet has a lot of burden to carry in this movie, but does so with impressive ease, even though the role in this first part, is largely subdued, as a kid with a lot of expectation of him, and the weight and heft of earthing this story is done by the super solid performances of the "supporting" cast of reliable perfomers like Brolin, Rampling, and others.
(Jason Mamoa deserves a lot of credit for his performance that offers a lot of levity and charisma to the film)
The only real complaint I have, is that it's a split film, leading up, only to when Paul and mum take up with the Fremen, because I was was so wrapped in the movie, I didn't want it to end!
(I could have sat through another three hours quite happily, in order to see the story through to the end)
And as for the music, it's that man Zimmer again, knocking it clean out of the park with another esoteric abstract brain crusher of a score, perfectly complimenting the visuals... Brilliant.
Cannot wait for the next part, which had better be forthcoming Warner Brothers, or I will not be happy!
In short, this will take your brain to another dimension... so pay close attention :)
It's one of those superhero movies that is how a superhero movie ought to be: A good, light heart, FUN, family movie.
There's the occasional joke / wink to the older audience, like the reference to the Tom Hanks movie: "Big" and the odd innuendo, but nothing that will set your teeth on edge.
Doesn't take itself too seriously.
The best coupple of hours of superhero movie you can have since Spiderman - Into the Spider-versy- thing.
Rated 7/10One of those: "You've got to see it at least once in your life" kind of films.
Of course, the big thing about this movie, is the big gimmick employed of making an entire movie from Vincent Van Gogh paintings, making them move and tell a story, which is the story of Vincent himself...
...And as such, the many thousands of hand painted frames (actual paintings!) that go to make up this work stand as an astonishing technical, and artistic achievement. That said, this gimmick does threaten to overwhelm the movie, as it is quite a jarring experience which takes some getting used to after the initial: "Wow!" of the concept has passed...
...It looks, and feels, not unlike an LSD trip (so I'm told - ahem), which very much presses in on the brain somewhat.
Fortunately, even if you take this big gimmick / artistic concept out of the equation, there's still a great story, well told underneath, and the movie could stand on this alone.
The premise is that a postmaster's son, returning a letter to the family of Vincent Van Gogh in the town where he spent his final days begins to unpick the story of those final days through conversations, or even interviews with those that knew him, and so unravel the mystery of the man, both in how and why he died, and who he was as a person:
...Did he kill himself?
.............Was he Killed?
....................Was he mad or simply misunderstood?
Ultimately, this is an "impressionist" portrait of Vincent Van Gogh in one crucial period of his life: The end... as told through the collective testimony of others, and I think it does the man justice, for all his faults and foibles, there's a love, warmth and sympathy for him that helps look at those well established ideas we have of his life in a new light.
In fact, I did come away form this feeling that perhaps I'd like to see a straight up, live action version of this story, without the gimmick, as it would certainly still be a great movie, but as it is, as a whole, it's a great experience to have at least once.
Rated 8/10Another journey into a heart of darkness and light.
Alex Garland does it again!
...Cook your noodle, that is.
For my money, he deserves his place among the modern masters of intelligent cinema, alongside Villeneuve and Nolan.
This time he takes a lot of fairly stock ideas that are usually employed by lazy writers to cobble together straight to streaming cheapo, knock-off Sci-Fi, and instead, uses them as a cinematic language to carry through some more profound thoughts and story.
In this case, he begins with the tried and trusted alien object / meteor crashing to earth and messing with the fabric of our reality (Color Out Of Space - Lovecraft) via an inscrutable alien phenomena: The "Shimmer", which is a huge curtain of expanding protoplasmic radiation stuff, that's gradually swallowing the world, and from which, any attempt to investigate it yields no clues as to it's nature, as those sent never return...
...Until, that is, one of the soldiers sent (Oscar Isaac)- thought lost - arrives mysteriously back at his home to his grieving wife (Doctor and former soldier - Natalie Portman), but he is odd, and quickly falls ill, and is taken into military quarantine... his only hope, that Portman and a small group of soldiers can go in tot he Shimmer, and unlock it's mysteries.
This sets up a kind of Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now, journey into the phenomenon ,and "Down river", where things start going very strange indeed, and increasingly horrific.
And there are some truly horrifying concepts in this movie, as well as some quite beautiful ones - sometimes at the same time!
And while there's a very definite H. R. Geiger / Alien debt owed at the end, which anyone will pick up on, all this only serves to carry through a deeper story, which is to do with psychological self destruction, identity, definition of reality, and what that might be, and even this, strongly conveys a profound Buddhist like, spiritual idea of self Annihilation (Oceanic consciousness etc.).
So it's essentially a hard spiritual pilgrimage into very disturbing territory, that is very unsettling at times, obscure, difficult to wrap your head around what's happening, but quite rewarding if you do stay with it.
This would sit comfortably on notional DVD shelf next to movies like Arrival, Interstellar (anything by those two directors- Villeneuve and Nolan), in being a slow burning, thoughtful mind-bender, punctuated by small moments of action.
And, as I say, Garland uses those "tropes" deliberately, as a "mash-up" language not incompatible with the central theme of the phenomenon itself.
Interestingly, there are only a couple of German soldiers visible during the entire movie, and they are only in the final scene of Hardy's character.
It would be interesting to study the changing depiction of Allied and German soldiers in the second world war over time... from Saving Private Ryan, through: Inglorious Basterds, to this.
I've watched this a few times now (more than is perhaps healthy! :), and it's totally won me over now...
....A great addition to the original Blade Runner idea.
However, one point in particular I think needs emphasising, is the performance by the actor who plays the "new born" android, who flops out of her synthetic "birth canal" on to the cold floor, before being examined, and hen dispatched by Wallace, is frickin' amazing!
Possibly the best piece of physical acting I can recall ever having seen!
She has no lines, is literally born, then dies, but captures that new born calf type of essence immaculately...flopping onto the slab, all gangly, shaky, and shivery, uncoordinated, and with the exact floppy, bewildered, unformed minded shock of birth that you see on new born creatures, whether in the farmyard or elsewhere. She absolutely captures that "new-ness" in the world to perfection.
Why is it so difficult to find out out who this actress is?
....Why did she not win heaps of awards for this performance?
.....Why is she, on the strength of this, not cast in everything you could get her in?
Her name should be in every conversation about this film, and every one that speaks of physical acting.
Rated 9/10>>Transfered from a comment made on Blu-Ray Disc<<
I took the plunge, and watched this t'other day.
...I was apprehensive, as Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time, and was a little heartbroken (and a bit angry) when they announced this was coming...
(I went to the cinema when it came out, and stood debating with myself before deciding I didn't want that kind of disappointment in my life - another F$%^^ing remake! / cash in / destruction of that which (I) love - and walking off)
But very pleasantly surprised... if it wasn't for the enormous baggage it carries of the first film, I might say this is a modern masterpiece (if it stood alone) - doesn't quite have the soul of the original, but it does have one all it's own, very minimalist performances which speak volumes (Gosling is very good at twitch acting at this level)
Nice twists on he original premise, and elements in the score which are wholly original, and quite startling - did I hear one of those Australian whirly wooden things on a string that Crocodile Dundee used to call out to the clan in the wilderness, a fair bit of throat singing, and the usual bleeps and squiggles.
I very soon forgot about the original for a time, and was absorbed in it.
Villeneuve can take his place as perhaps one of the best directors of our time, and certainly one of the best sci-fi directors (Arrival is brilliant!).
I thin even Philip K. Dick would be happy with this!
Rated 7/10A light, yet quirky oddball comedy take on a Hitchcock style tale of suspense.
Another of those that I had not seen for a while, and had my misgivings about how well it might have aged... or not.
...Fortunately, I was, for the most part, pleasantly surprised, for while some of Mike Myers quirks, and comedy stylings have aged rather badly ("Helloooo!" < type of thing, that he does), they are very infrequent, and don't spoil an otherwise enjoyable pastiche of a Hitchcock like setup and story:
Mike Myers being a guy who has commitment issues, and is always finding fault with anyone he is in a relationship with, even for the most tenuous of reasons, so that he can get out of the situation as soon as possible and avoid anything serious...
...Until, of course, he meets the "perfect woman", and begins to fall for her, and the relationship develops rapidly to the point of marriage (The point of no return? :).
...Unfortunately, she may or may not be an axe wielding serial husband killer.
And now the tables turn, in that where previously, his friends (one of whom happens to be a policeman) where constantly on at him for ditching women for trivial reasons, now don't believe him now that he has grounds for legitimate suspicion.
There's still lots of laughs and fun in this, despite some broad humour of the time, but nothing to get worked up about, and this is mainly because it is, as I said, lightly handled.... And with a surprisingly well conceived and structured story, worthy perhaps, of having a more serious, straight up suspense thriller approach!
Worth a couple of hours of your time for a bit of fun, I'd say.
In the pantheon of horror movies, this is one of those that's really out of the top drawer.
....Not in the range of schlock, or unrelenting gore, but would sit on the end of that shelf next to the likes of The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, and The Wicker Man (original), in that it understands what horror is, and how to deliver it.
It works by using a very clean, sharp visual style of a Kubric like settled framing and camera movement, with heightened, or slightly "off" images within them, which combined with a minimalist, ominous, rumbling, and evil feeling score, creates an deeply uneasy, unsettling atmosphere, while it centres it's story around a family, recently moved into the dead grandmother's house, and who's growing presence begins to pick away at, and erode an already tense family dynamic.
Something is very wrong here, you feel, and it just keeps getting wrong-er!
This is punctuated by some actual, genuinely horrific events, and at least one or two moments when I even winced and involuntarily looked away from the screen... but even these are made more horrible by the matter of fact manner in which they happen... no dramatic score to signal danger or make much of what's on screen.
The other, central aspect of this movie, that makes it even more disturbing, is the (initially) randomness of these events, which leave you bewildered and lost as they happen, and this is the master stroke, because as the normal, by degrees, becomes the insane, by means of this, you don't realise any conscious progression while it's happening, only at the end, when the real story reveals itself in a complete mind meltingly surreal, and "other" manner, do you begin to put the pieces of the what went before together, and see the story that was being told all along.
So not knowing what the hell is going on while it's happening is what burns these events and images into your mind, and the ending, is what causes you to walk around for some time afterward with it in your mind, replaying it, and putting it all together.
In the immediate aftermath of having watched it, I'm not sure if it was something I wanted in my head for a day or so, but later, this gave way to the realisation and appreciation of what a minor masterpiece this actually is, both in it's construction, and execution.
Brilliant acting, great film-making, and very disturbing!