gimpo Reviews

Watchmen (2009)

Clock-Watching

[4/10 · 21 February 2010]

Watchmen falls into a time-honoured trap of comic adaptations: spending a long time on back-stories that really only add to the film's girth, rather than give it any dramatic bite.

It feels like the makers were trying to please too many people. The back-stories were presumably for viewers who had not read the comics - but perhaps also for those who had enjoyed the source material and would have complained about missing characters, plot elements, etc. Given the unavoidable omissions, the catcalls are bound to come anyway.

So Watchmen waddles its way through almost three hours, failing to ramp up the tension due to its plethora of characters and multiple flashbacks. Barely credibly, there are also two even longer "director's cuts". Good luck to those who have so much spare time on their hands.

This writer would have preferred a shorter, snappier film which binned the back-stories and focused on one or two characters. It might not have been faithful to the comic - but as its writer, Alan Moore, despises all film adaptations of his work, what was the point in attempting a reverent homage when a creative desecration could have been so much more enjoyable?

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Emotional Rescue

[9/10 · 14 January 2010]

Rarely has a film bristled with emotion as much as Where The Wild Things Are. From the first frames the tension is almost unbearable, as young Max responds to his crushing feelings of loneliness and dread by lashing out at a variety of animate and inanimate objects.

Max Records's portrayal of his namesake is heart-rending; there are several scenes in the opening part of the film which are likely to prompt, at the very least, a lump in the viewer's throat.

The tension is unrelenting throughout the film, as Max confronts his demons - literally and metaphorically - as the king of the wild things. On the island he discovers both his strengths and the limits of his power.

Parents in particular will relate to the joys and challenges of dealing with an imaginative child; younger viewers will empathise with Max's predicament as a younger sibling desperate for attention, affection and validation.

Not perhaps the most comfortable viewing for an audience of any age, but all the performances, and the execution of the wild things, are enormously affecting.

Like the book on which it is loosely based, this film will live long in the imagination.

The House Bunny (2008)

One-liners give this bunny bounce

[7/10 · 11 January 2010]

Brains do not need to be engaged for this movie. But it does produce a few wonderful - and hilarious - surprises that make it a very enjoyable 90 minutes.

One is Anna Farris, who does a great twist on the archetypal dizzy blonde beloved of Hollywood since time immemorial.

But the real kickers are the jarring one-liners that pepper an otherwise sweet and predictable film. Several reduced this viewer to paroxysms of laughter, tears rolling down cheeks, beverage spurting across the room.

These moments, when they arrive, are so unexpected that the effect is one of firmly-flicked kipper on unprotected jowl. And none are in the "gross-out" style that one might have expected in a film of this genre.

Very bunny indeed.

Funny People (2009)

Funny People: Bad Timing

[5/10 · 29 December 2009]

Comedy is all about the timing. Watching Funny People, one wonders if Judd Apatow has forgotten that simple maxim.

There are some great moments in the film, but they come spaced too far apart over its two-and-a-half hour running time to stop it from becoming an endurance test. And while some of the gags are chucklesome, the plot is riddled with clichés.

We learn that comedians may be unpleasant people in real life. A dying man may regret past misdeeds. People repeat the same mistakes in their relationships.

There are also an inordinate number of knob gags.

Edited down to 90 minutes it might make a snappy piece of entertainment with a little food for thought on the side. But in the director's cut it is a ponderous beast, striving for significance where there is none to impart.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

There Will Be Unrelenting Tedium

[1/10 · 27 November 2009]

An arid, featureless, drawn-out affair - not unlike the vast expanses of the western landscape in which it is set. And that creaking sound one can hear is not just coming from the ancient oil-extracting contraptions; it emanates from the acting, the soundtrack - but especially the direction.

Everything takes an inordinate amount of time. Fifteen minutes is spent on an opening which tells us little - and could perhaps have taken fifteen seconds in the hands of a more capable director.

But Paul Thomas Anderson seems to be in thrall to the long, lingering shots favoured by the likes of Orson Welles and Sergio Leone. Unfortunately he appears to have little idea how to use them while maintaining dramatic tension, plot drive or the interest of the viewer. The problem is compounded by the way the choice of shot and technical execution of each scene conspire to distract, rather than illuminate.

Neither a highly-mannered performance by Daniel Day Lewis nor Johnny Greenwood's portentous, and possibly misused, score aid matters. But the blame for this interminable fiasco surely lies with a visually-incontinent director in desperate need of an editor.

Next (2007)

Next! I mean, I'm done with this movie - next!

[2/10 · 9 July 2008]

Utterly rank, and without doubt the nadir of Nic Cage's admittedly erratic career.

For the whirlwind romance between Chris (Cage) and Liz (Biel) to be in any way credible, Cage needs to be charming, charismatic and handsome, as well as eccentric. But as he is sitting in the Landcruiser with Biel shortly after their initial meeting, all the viewer can think is, "he's a weirdo! Throw him out! Now!!!" Short of drooling, Cage could not be any less alluring. He's all mahogany tan, veneered teeth, hair weave and bog-eyes - and, not to be cruel, he looks his age. It is hard to believe that Liz would go near him with a twenty-foot clown pole.

The quality of the rest of the cast is abysmal. Amateur dramatic productions would have been ashamed of the performances by the actors playing the terrorists. They were beyond wooden.

Poor Julianne Moore looks thoroughly peeved to have been part of the whole fandango. Mind you, the botoxed forehead and the smokers' lines around her mouth might have had something to do with that.

I can see two minutes into the future: you will be turning off this film and doing something more worthwhile with your life instead.

Match Point (2005)

Woody Allen: Game Over

[1/10 · 7 July 2008]

There are a few candidates for the nadir of Woody Allen's film career. This one takes the biscuit, scoffs it, then hoovers up all the Jaffa Cakes to boot.

This from The Guardian's "sport on TV" columnist, Martin Kelner: "This may be not just Woody Allen's worst film but the worst film ever made... as though the great Woody had seen a bunch of Hugh Grant-Working Title movies and decided he liked them, but without all the gritty realism." He is not wrong.

Cringe through the opening hour, as the love quadrangle (mixed doubles) develops, as phoned in by the tea boy at the Ministry Of The Bleedin' Obvious. If you get through that without turning off or leaving, you will be treated to some left turns which beggar belief, plus the aforementioned (and infuriating) inaccuracies about the, ah, "London Police".

Poor performances by all the leads - especially the self-regarding Ms Johansson. But some mitigation given the material with which they had to work.