Change Your Image
Mr-Brightside
Film:In Bruges (Martin McDonagh, 2008)
Director:
Sydney Lumet (Network, 1976)
Actor:
Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd, 2007)
Peter Sellers (Lolita, 1962)
Montgomery Clift (Young Lions, 1958)
Actress:
Ren�e Zellweger (Cold Mountain, 2003)
Performance:
Peter Sellers as Dr Strangelove (Dr Strangelove, 1964)
Al pacino as Sonny (Dog Day Afternoon, 1975)
Peter Finch as Howard Beale (Network, 1976)
Benicio Del Torro as Jackie Boy (Sin City, 2005)
Dennis Price as Loius Mazzini (Kind Hearts and Coronets, 1949)
Character:
Brad Pitt as Tyler Durdan (Fight Club, 1999)
Peter Sellers as Dr Strangelove (Kind Hearts and Coronets, 1949)
Danny Elfman as Jack Skellington (Nightmare before Christmas, 1993)
Kevin Spacey as John Doe (Se7en, 1995)
*Fight Club (David Fincher, 1999)*Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976)
*Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer, 1949)
*M (Fritz Lang, 1931)
*Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)
*Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)
*Akira (Katsuhiro �tomo, 1988)
*Batoru rowaiaru (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
*Lolita (Stanley Kubrick, 1962)
*Ed Wood (Tim Burton, 1994)
*Dog Day Afternoon (Sidney Lumet, 1975)
*The Nightmare before Christmas (Tim Burton, 1993)
Reviews
Her (2013)
A superbly poignant and honest exploration of love, of life, of desire and of science.
Spike Jonze and Joaquin Phoenix team up to give the Hollywood one of its most honest and cliché-free stories of love in years. That they've both been able to do this in the overriding guise of a tale based within the realms of the science fiction genre, is testament to the nuance, intrigue and engaging delight they both bring to their central roles.
The beauty of the film is its ability to deeply engage and connect on an intimate level with its viewers, despite the concept being inherently cold, distant and drenched amid the deeply insular. It is, therefore, to the credit of the content, the voice acting of Johansson, Jonze's always effervescent and irreverent direction and the central performance of Phoenix that we, the viewers, get so deeply entwined in, what essentially, is the starry eyed equivalent to an anecdote documenting months in the life of a basement-dwelling catfish disciple.
As a love story, it provides the kind of perspective Hollywood had seemingly long since lost; almost completely devoid of cinematic cliché and full of natural verve and a very real look at the connection made on a level beyond the physicality of body and the physicality of carefully constructed monologues. The falling of Phoenix for Johansson is subtle, but feels so entirely natural that by the midpoint of the film - even without being the lonely soul Phoenix is - you can absolutely believe and totally accept why, not only this guy, but you yourself, have fallen for all that Johansson portrays as an outlet of desire.
The overriding message that love cannot be defined lineally, that two people who connect initially can grow apart due to different rates of evolution among the pairing and that love is a constantly evolving concept that operates beyond the reams of stagnation is a theme that resonates immensely due to just how superbly well it's driven home and represented within the boundaries the film sets - of which there aren't many, much like the concept of love itself. Love has no definition other than the definition we create for ourselves on an individual level and to expect everyone to fall in-line with that definition - even those we make our partners - is to expect the impossible. The film brilliantly tackles this throughout.
As a science fiction piece, it garners itself an even greater standing, exploring themes of the physical and the metaphysical spheres, way beyond what's generally comprehensible within the scope of humanity. That the film manages this through subtext, without compromising the driving, surface level pretext of love, is a victory the likes of which may only really be properly appreciated in the years to come.
Just a beautifully pitched film, that delights, despairs and challenges in equal measures and a film that should be watched by anyone who considers themselves a fan of cinema, a scholar of film and a supporter of the exploration of far reaching ideas and screenplay writing that dares to dare.
Yet another great addition to Jonze's small, but thus far brilliant, feature length catalogue and one of the most satisfying cinematic experience I've had in years. Loved it.
M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder (1931)
Fritz Lang + Peter Lorre = Perfection
It's frightening to think that this film was made in 1931. Not only is it a precursor to the film noir explosion of the following decade and put the production, direction and every other technical fundamental of contemporary films firmly to shame, the subject matter with which the ridiculously great Fritz Lang has chose to explore (a character analysis of a deranged, child murdering, sociopath) is one that far exceeds the period of time for whens the film was released.
The lead performance from Lorre is astonishing in both its complexity and simplicity. The equal measures of polar opposites aid every viewer in their task to understand and, despite his crimes, astonishingly empathise and sympathise with what, by all accounts, should be a monster.
Whilst the concept, the subtitles and the somewhat abstract and avant garde nature of much of the film (particularly some of the bizarre choices of framing and shot selection)may be too much for the intellectually challenged (*sigh*), those entering with an open mind and prepared for a challenging, thought evoking experience cannot possibly fail to be griped and engaged by a truly masterful piece of work.
The work is also notable in that it was overtly anti-Nazi; providing a commentary on the society of the time that led to the film being banned in Germany and forcing Lang and Lorre (both Jewish) to flee Germany.
A must watch for anyone who even attempts to consider themselves a lover of film/high end art (which is what this film, most definitely, is) and the absolute pinnacle of German expressionist art. Simply frightening/fantastic, and as close to perfection as you're ever likely to see.
Scream (1996)
Parody at its apex.
A movie that so many people, including a reviewer on this very website, fail to properly comprehend or get, and one that I'm sure will be looked upon far more affectionately as the years pass. From beginning to end it's one huge tongue in cheek exploration into the conventions that follow and define the slasher movie genre. Never does it take itself as seriously as many of it's viewers do, and never does it lull you into taking it seriously as a plethora of overt clues (the big star death in the opening scene; the movie geek who predicts everything that happens before it actually does; the fumbling underdog who becomes an unlikely hero; the ridiculously overdrawn murder sequences etc) crop up throughout the film time and again just in case those pretentious little twits among us ever get the urge to place this alongside Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," or something as equally outrageous. The habitual camera winks the script and the performers give and encourage (Particularly the brilliant Matthew Lillard and Jamie Kennedy) are what sets this apart from many other feeble attempts within the genre and this arrogant form of film-making is probably what made many viewers misconstrue just what the film aims to do.
Yes, this movie could be considered horror ("slasher" is the ridiculous term more commonly abused), but to pigeonhole as such is to do one of the 90's greatest parodies/black comedies an immense disservice. If I could hyperbole for a second: not since Shakespeare have comedy and tragedy met in such a dynamic concoction; and rarely has a film captured the imagination of the its viewers so firmly that it's actual premise and concept have been completely ignored and misinterpreted to a point where it has been taken far more seriously than the writers, the director and or the script ever intended it to. That's the beauty of this most wonderful film. So clever it hurts. In fact, it was so good, it still, to this day, continues to be taken seriously. Magnificence personified.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
Sweet perfection.
Possibly the most beautiful film in cinematic history; hats off to whomever the cinematographer was because Paris, despite all its beauty has never looked so magical.
From beginning to end I was mesmerised by just how rich each and every colour was, how strategically placed every filter was and how apt each scene was in putting forth the colours that reflected the feelings being conveyed. Paris became more than just a backdrop, Paris became yet another protagonist for us to fall in love with, yet another protagonist who's narrative became beyond engaging and impossible to resist and yet another protagonist who's arc mattered. It truly is a showcase in all that is great (of what little there is) about the French; overtly indulgent, pompous to an almost unbearable degree but underneath all the bravado ridiculously charming at its inner most core. A stunning achievement in visual mastery.
Juxtaposed with this is the insanely charming lead Audrey Tatu. So lost is she on finding fulfilment for others that she seemingly forgets about finding it for herself. The beauty of the performance and the writing is that whilst she never openly craves it we, now living vicariously through this most lovable of characters, route for her to become emblazoned with the amorous feelings she so craves for those around her. The perfect example of how the primary protagonist of any feel-good film should be wrote and performed. Amelie could well claim to created an archetype; the character that is actually impossible to dislike, but is still as multi-faceted as any character in cinema.
An infinitely charming and infectious piece that manages to warm the very cockles of this most cold of hearts.
Rocky (1976)
The Film that set the ball rolling (in more ways than one).
A movie criminally overlooked for the great piece of art it is because of the hideousness of it's sequels and the whole embarrassing sub-genre this, the original underdog story, duly spawned. Back in 1976 and even today Rocky was and should continue to be looked upon as not only groundbreaking, but also as a truly landmark moment in western cinema. I don't merely hyperbole either, because Rocky was the first of it's kind; it was the movie that created an archetype. The underdog story, in which a million-to-one shot gets his one chance at stardom and overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to top the world, is now, an all too familiar tale, but back in 1976 this type of tale, one that captured the very essence of the American dream had never before been brought to the big screen. It was the first of what was now to become a genre of it's own; it was innovation at it's finest.
Along with proceeding a long line of copycat stories it was a sports film that wasn't necessarily cantered around the sport; true, the fight was the showpiece of the film but the interpersonal interaction between Rocky and the film's other primary protagonists (Mick, Adrian, Paulie, Apollo, and that gangster guy who's name escapes me currently), provided the ammunition and the motivation behind the Rocky character. The film wasn't only about the sport of boxing it was a step into the human psyche and an analysis on just what the human is capable of under any given circumstance. Rocky was symbolic and a metaphor for the American dream. It was hard hitting (pardon the pun) and frank about putting forth the values and ideology that shaped and continue to, even in an era of immediate gratification, shape American, and to a lesser but no less resonant degree, western society.
In this regard the film was also a pretty apt form of social commentary. Using the city of Philadelphia as a backdrop for the times and something of a secondary character for which to juxtapose with the character of Rocky. After Vietnam and the Watergate scandal, mid 1970's America ushered in a new era in American history; a time of hope, a time of freedom and a time when the American dream was as strong as ever, and Rocky, as well as the city of Philadelphia helped represent this wonderfully.
A flawless film that captivated a generation and saw life imitate art, in that it shot Sylvester Stallone from wandering nobody to worldwide, overnight super stardom. The perfect Cinderella story and quite possibly the perfect film.
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
An admirable take on a truly mind-blowing novel.
I'm a huge fan of the book and think this was a movie that was pulled off superbly. Bret Eastern-Ellis, the author of the book, who's pieces tend to focus primarily around characterisation as opposed to deeply profound/complex plots, wouldn't be disappointed with the way in which Avery has adapted his initial vision and given each character a journey worthy of the big screen. It's in his (Ellis') characters and the emotional and interpersonal journey they embark upon that drives his narratives and it's that that tends to stick in the mind. This is the prime reason readers have tended to find it easy, as opposed to taboo, to fall in love with such unsympathetic characters, and it is in this task that the actors take to admirably. In fact, I'll go as far as to say the acting was great; James Van der beak put in a superb turn as Seam Bateman, Shannon Sossamon, although not a perfect adaptation of the Lauren character (she was much more unlikable in the novel) was as charming and as magnetic as ever and Ian Somerhalder as Paul, has never looked so comfortable in a role, the guy was great. It was also very, very nice to see a film in which you could sense, just by watching the way in which the film was executed, that the director was extremely dedicated to what it was he was trying to convey. To me Avery worked wonders to pull off what was essentially being marketed as a teen flick in such an unapologetic, cynical, and dark manner. He never strayed too far from the purpose of the plot and rarely sold out to the temptation of cliché, which was a relief.
The film, as a stand alone piece is excellent, but as a companion piece it moves to another level, as the book allows the holes the film leaves to be filled properly. And whilst there was things about the film that weren't perfect there were any things that were so far beyond perfection I often wonder whether Avery didn't actually write the novel himself. For instance, the use of the re-wind effect. It wasn't merely laid on haphazardly as some "cool" MTV style effect to wow the audiences, and it wasn't layered upon the scenes in order to portray subtlety, which if you'd watched the film, read the book and understood the characters at all you'd know that the film and the trilogy of books in general are anything but subtle. The purpose of the re-wind was to simply put forth the idea that the story was not your conventional linearly told story with an established beginning, middle or end, it was put in place to simply drive the idea that the story is a multi-faceted tale told irrespective of time and or space. The re-wind simply sold the idea that it was moving backwards in time and was unapologetic about doing so, hence the lack of tact in putting forth that particular aspect of the narrative. It was a brilliant use of a basic cinematic tool by Avery nd one that confirmed to me just how passionate Avery was in doing proper justice to the novel, even if production tried to force him into creating a run-of-the-mill, archetypal teen drama, something Rules, was never meant to be.
I love how he film, much like the book, starts and ends mid-sentence too. It's a ploy that really shouldn't work (and has confused some of the more intellectually challenged people I know) but it does, and to devastatingly good effect too. The opportunity for interpretation is vast because of it, and any film, or indeed book, that evokes the level of thought this one does is doing its job well.
In comparison to the novel, which tends to take emphasis away from character empathy and sympathy and focus far more on what it is that makes them the way they are and develops the characters, their relationships with one another and their general plots in far more detail, the film could ever have really accomplish this and tends to brush over some of the more fleeting issues of the original texts. A frustrating gripe, but totally understandable. No slight on Roger Avery's vision, of course, but with the constraints than a Hollywood production provide it would have been nigh on impossible for Avery to not only entertain adequately and match the general expectations the audience have of a film of this ilk, it would also have been unlikely that he'd have the runtime available to him in order to extract every ounce of detail from the original text.
The book is much darker than the film and due to it's crude and overtly descriptive nature leaves little to the imagination; the film, whilst morbid in a lot of places encompasses humour and leaves a lot of scenes open to interpretation, which is an element of the film that I did enjoy. Not sure I preferred it, but I did enjoy it.
Whilst I prefer the book I still see the two pieces as two almost faultless productions, and both should certainly be enjoyed.
300 (2006)
Just not very good...
Dreadful. Utterly dreadful. That's about as much as I can muster in regard to this absolute mess.
Now, I think I should first let it be known that I'm not a fan of historical epics at the best of times (Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia and Gladiator being the exceptions to that rule) but I am always willing to give the genre the opportunity to win me over, as the storytelling value, historical relevance and powerhouse performances are often enough to keep hold of even the biggest detractor's (i.e. me) attention. However, from beginning to end, this really did just take the proverbial Mick.
Whilst a marvel in just how a movie can now be made (albeit at the complete detriment of every other cinematic fundamental), I found it insipid, slow moving but not particularly detailed, poorly acted (shouting and snarling whilst already shouting and snarling your way through the script should never pass for the kind of emotive acting the genre demands), and beyond ridiculous. There is far too much focus on premise, visuals (completely detached me from feeling anything for anybody in the film - the best films tend to make the surroundings an extra character to juxtapose with the foreground, 300 doesn't even bother trying) and plot and therefore there wasn't a single character I could care less about by the end of the film, as each of the primary protagonists were given nothing like the development or emotional layers that invoke the viewers empathy or sympathy. Each of the main protagonists in most of the films I choose to advocate have a narrative that are equal measures of intriguing, thought evoking and emotionally viable, something 300 would have done well to at least try an attempt.
Style over substance and nothing more than a glorified, hammed-up action flick, in similar vein to something as historically and cinematically apt as Conan the destroyer. It really is a shame that they chose to take this particular route and soil a flick and a story with so much potential.
Pathetic film.
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
From beginning to end just brilliantly executed...
A movie I first saw upon its release early last year, but one I've managed to once again view thanks to the brilliance that is the DVD. If you've yet to see this little gem I suggest you do, immediately, as it was certainly one of the most enjoyable films I had the pleasure of watching in 2006.
Super performances (particularly Hartnett, Lui and Kingsly), great and initially slow burning plot and intriguing character interaction (the Hartnett Lui chemistry was palpable, surprising and came across, most importantly, as completely natural and 100% genuine) are the glue that hold this movie together, as well as being one of the many strong magnetic forces behind a film I just couldn't take my eyes off.
The driving force of the film, however, is it's superb script. Funny, witty and as sharp as a razor blade. Every single word and phrase is strategically placed for maximum effect, whether that be with its habitual dry and sardonic mutterings throughout or the moments in which it harks back to archetypes and or conventions of crime capers from yesteryear. The script and its dialogue provide nothing particularly groundbreaking, but it does an exceptional job of developing characters, tear away any feeling of apathy one may initially have toward the primary protagonists, creating the plot's undercurrents and providing the dark comedic aspect that the movie is built upon.
I could delve deeper into my analysis of the flick and hark on relentlessly about cinematography, editing, music, specific performances and so forth, but time is currently at a premium and life, I'm told, is very short. So, if you really care to find out, be sure to pick up a copy of this now. You will not be disappointed.
Bullet Boy (2004)
Depressing; unoriginal; waste. Should really have been better...
"Gritty," "real," "uncompromising," "hard-hitting," just some of the buzzwords that I've heard and read in the description of what, ultimately, turns out to be, or at least attempts to be, social commentary on street culture in 21st century London.
Whilst the film very much lives up to the aforementioned words (something British titles are always generally very apt in), I can't help but feel like I was cheated out of an actual story and instead presented with an 80 minute advertisement on how bad the pitfalls of the gun. To me, the entire movie was a bit of a waste; devoid of wit, humour and or any form of actual derision, we get taken through a series of one depression invoking scene to another. The melon coli that consumes and drives the film forward only helps to underwhelm one further in what, we already know, is already going to be a pretty morbid outing. A sense, or feeling of hope wouldn't have went a miss either, but with the premise being so linear and uncompromising, these are areas that were either sacrificed or merely completely forsaken, which ultimately proves to be a bit of a shame.
The importance of the weapon in question becomes so overwhelming, that I feel it, this inanimate object, has much more dimensions than any one of the films main protagonists: It goes from a reminder of an ex con's past, to a secret that must be kept hush, to a thing of power, intimidation and hegemonic dominance, to a child's play thing and finally to a hot potato, all the while destroying each and every thing in it's path, dividing families, ending relationships and every other inevitable cliché that comes with the arming of the gun; unoriginality personified.
Whist I wasn't particularly taken with the premise, or in fact what the film was supposed to be alluding to, I did find solace in the performances of the two primary characters.
Ashley Walters, of "So Solid Crew" Fame, gives a noteworthy performance as Ricky, just released from prison and seemingly trying to get his life on the straight and narrow. Whilst totally believable in the role I feel the lack f direction the character was given and the writing put in front of Walters was bitterly disappointing. As the main protagonist I wanted, so dearly, to get behind his character but time after time he drew nothing but scorn from me as he seems far too content to lay stagnant in his own mediocrity and overtly abrasive whenever challenged. Whilst I see this as very much the teenage stereotype it didn't really help to teach me anything I wasn't already aware of, nor did it help to bring anything new to the plate. Plus, the end scene didn't have quite the impact I think the director was attempting to build toward as it was nothing short of inevitable. Rather than do the 180 you hope to see from this type of character we don't even see him undertake a 360 and instead he remains very much still and whilst he does air his objections to the gun at points, he seemingly learns little and develops in a manner that is very frustrating.
Luke Frazer, playing Walters' younger brother, Curtis, is equally compelling as the starry eyed, awe-stricken admirer of Walters. Eager to copy his brother at every turn Frazer was both believable and convincing in the way he went about the task. Thanks to the way the story developed and the characters panned out, it was his journey that, ultimately, became the most interesting of the pair, as this impressionable youngster becomes so emblazed in admiration that tragedy almost befalls the boy within the film. It is a testament to Frazer (and the direction of that whole 10-20 minute period) that at a point when my frustration was really starting to take hold, he pulled me back in and, at once, had me round the proverbial gonads, yearning for things to work out for the kid. Understated, but very, very thought evoking.
All in all, a film that works because of the performances from the above two parties, as nothing else was particularly stand-out; familiar premise, familiar characters, familiar feel and all-too familiar sense of being preached to rather than being educated.
I'd recommend giving it a look and appreciating the performances - and, to it's credit, I can see a lot of people clinging on to the fact that the movie is "real," "cool" and or "exactly like me and my mates" - but not a film I'll be in a hurry to see again anytime soon and I can't help but feel it was an opportunity wasted.