Director: Marc Foster
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Olga Kurylenko
Bond is out for revenge, even if he is in denial about it.
Fast paced, one cold hearted attack after another, this is less about storyline, and more about Bond getting some of that angst out to maximum effect. Plus, someone tried to shoot 'M', how dare they! This all leads Bond to discover an international baddie organisation more convoluted than the Russians during the Cold War. They have their sticky fingers in everything without any of the goodies knowing about it, mainly because, they seem to be the goodies! Confused? Don't worry, Bond sorts it all out.
The storyline does get a little bit swamped by the thrills and chills, I admit, but I have that fantastic information retention, so I didn't mind. The director was an interesting choice for an movie that is so action focused. Marc Forster's previous movies include Finding Neverland (2004) and The Kite Runner (2007). Not your average action movie director choice. But his direction is more than competent, and it includes some beautiful scenes that really highlight contrasts in the landscape.
Daniel Craig was definitely a cold heartless bastard out for revenge, and played it beautifully. His emotional story ark was fantastic. The movie script wasn't absorbed by it, but was blended in perfectly with the chasing of the bad guys across the world. Olga may be beautiful, but she ain't a bond girl. Something was missing. She just didn't quite fit into the movie. Judi Dench was fantastic, as always. Gemma Arterton was not used well, but her small part was good. Someone had to be the real bond girl.
I loved the modern twist to the storyline. Bad guys using Humanitarian organisations to get the world's good intentions to work against themselves, and how governments seem to do really bad things with the best intentions in times of financial instability. Considering the UN just decorated one of their ceilings with money from a relief fund in Spain, it seems the idea does have a grain of truth in it.
The continuity from the last movie was good, though it seems I am one of few that seemed to be able to follow it. Maybe I am better at information retention, but I did not see Casino Royal just before I watched Quantum of Solace, and I was able to follow the storyline fine. Some of the continuity wasn't needed, for example, bringing the same CIA agent back. Actually, why bring the Americans into it at all again? This is Bond.
Credibility was also a question that I heard rise after people saw the movie. I ask you this. If you want to watch something credible, what are you buying tickets to a Bond movie for? Thrills and chills and unbelievable moments are what you are going to get. Deal with it.
Fun fun fun. Do not expect high quality cinema, but high quality bangs and smashes.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Friday, 28 November 2008
Burn After Reading (2008)
Director: The Coen Brothers
Writers: The Coen Brothers
Starring: Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich
I could just say it was written and directed by the Coen Brothers, and that is all the information your would need. It immediately implies all the things that can be good about a movie. An original concept that is put together with fantastic acting and storytelling, more than competent direction and cutting (which is becoming rarer and rarer in hollywood sadly), and a subject matter that both informs and amuses.
The scoop? An alcoholic CIA agent decides to quit and write his tell all memoirs when the agency tries to demote him. A middle-age-ish simple minded gym assistant is obsessed with the idea of plastic surgery. The charmingly stupid workmate and friend finds what he believes is top secret spy shit. Returning it to the alcoholic CIA agent turns into an ordeal when they want a reward, and that want turns into blackmail. The truth is, however, that the ramblings of a drunk ex-CIA agent are worthless. But she wants that plastic surgery, and she will get money for it even if she has to take it all the way to the top. Their bungling takes them further than they, or us, could have imagined .
We are taken into the sick, silly but sadly slightly true world of what can go wrong when honestly stupid folk try and be smart in a country that isn't that smart to begin with.
This is Americans laughing at themselves with tears in their eyes, and it is definitely worth going along and joining in. You will want to turn away from the sad reality of it all, but you can't. Grippingly good.
Writers: The Coen Brothers
Starring: Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich
I could just say it was written and directed by the Coen Brothers, and that is all the information your would need. It immediately implies all the things that can be good about a movie. An original concept that is put together with fantastic acting and storytelling, more than competent direction and cutting (which is becoming rarer and rarer in hollywood sadly), and a subject matter that both informs and amuses.
The scoop? An alcoholic CIA agent decides to quit and write his tell all memoirs when the agency tries to demote him. A middle-age-ish simple minded gym assistant is obsessed with the idea of plastic surgery. The charmingly stupid workmate and friend finds what he believes is top secret spy shit. Returning it to the alcoholic CIA agent turns into an ordeal when they want a reward, and that want turns into blackmail. The truth is, however, that the ramblings of a drunk ex-CIA agent are worthless. But she wants that plastic surgery, and she will get money for it even if she has to take it all the way to the top. Their bungling takes them further than they, or us, could have imagined .
We are taken into the sick, silly but sadly slightly true world of what can go wrong when honestly stupid folk try and be smart in a country that isn't that smart to begin with.
This is Americans laughing at themselves with tears in their eyes, and it is definitely worth going along and joining in. You will want to turn away from the sad reality of it all, but you can't. Grippingly good.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Brideshead Revisited (2008)
Director: Julian Jarrold
Starring: Emma Thompson, Matthew Goode, Michael Gambon, Greta Scacchi
Screen Writer: Jeremy Brock and Andrew Davies
I have never watched something so wonderfully British. A beautifully filmed costume period drama where time was taken in direction, not only of the beautiful locations, but of the actual storyline. The period drama has a long treasured and perfected history in the film industry, and a crowning glory of the BBC, but of late, efforts to master all the beauty while including a storyline seem to be completely botched (think the disaster that was 'The Other Boleyn Girl'). The moral of the story, best leave the British to what they do best, and Hollywood can return to churning out devastatingly bad contributions to the film industry that only the American's think are alright.
Brideshead is a return to form for popular period drama, along with the magnificent 'Duchess'. The plot development, though slow, is well thought out and unfolds masterfully. I did not think the flashforward to flashback at the start of the movie was required, but it does not make the film disjointed so it can be forgiven. The characters are a well balanced ensemble between the stereotype and the serious, and all themes of the plot seem to be addressed equally and seriously. There is nothing done flippant about this movie, so it is not cheapened in any way. Costumes and locations are exquisite (it goes without saying) and casting was superb. Stand out performance has to go to Ben Whishaw, who played Sebastian Flyte.
I cannot comment on the effort of adaptation because I have not had the opportunity to read the novel by Evelyn Waugh yet. Andrew Davies does have a fantastic track record, however, so I am sure it was in good hands. If certain scenes were left out, it was probably the normal amount that is left by the way side when books are adapted to the big screen, thanks to time constraints.
Do not go to this film if you are looking for fast paced or racey 'entertainment', but if you wish to be told a story about love and life and loss set in the beautiful past, even if it ends up being a bit oppressive with its serious subject matter and bitter sweet ending, this is the movie for you.
A beautiful, beautiful movie.
Starring: Emma Thompson, Matthew Goode, Michael Gambon, Greta Scacchi
Screen Writer: Jeremy Brock and Andrew Davies
I have never watched something so wonderfully British. A beautifully filmed costume period drama where time was taken in direction, not only of the beautiful locations, but of the actual storyline. The period drama has a long treasured and perfected history in the film industry, and a crowning glory of the BBC, but of late, efforts to master all the beauty while including a storyline seem to be completely botched (think the disaster that was 'The Other Boleyn Girl'). The moral of the story, best leave the British to what they do best, and Hollywood can return to churning out devastatingly bad contributions to the film industry that only the American's think are alright.
Brideshead is a return to form for popular period drama, along with the magnificent 'Duchess'. The plot development, though slow, is well thought out and unfolds masterfully. I did not think the flashforward to flashback at the start of the movie was required, but it does not make the film disjointed so it can be forgiven. The characters are a well balanced ensemble between the stereotype and the serious, and all themes of the plot seem to be addressed equally and seriously. There is nothing done flippant about this movie, so it is not cheapened in any way. Costumes and locations are exquisite (it goes without saying) and casting was superb. Stand out performance has to go to Ben Whishaw, who played Sebastian Flyte.
I cannot comment on the effort of adaptation because I have not had the opportunity to read the novel by Evelyn Waugh yet. Andrew Davies does have a fantastic track record, however, so I am sure it was in good hands. If certain scenes were left out, it was probably the normal amount that is left by the way side when books are adapted to the big screen, thanks to time constraints.
Do not go to this film if you are looking for fast paced or racey 'entertainment', but if you wish to be told a story about love and life and loss set in the beautiful past, even if it ends up being a bit oppressive with its serious subject matter and bitter sweet ending, this is the movie for you.
A beautiful, beautiful movie.
Saturday, 25 October 2008
The Greek Treasure
Author: Irving Stone
Published: 1975
An easily read biography on the lives of Henry and Sophia Schliemann, the 'discoverers' of Troy, my mother thought that this was right up my ally. I have never been big on biographies, but I read it to make sure that I could give her a decent reason why I didn't like it. I knew, in other words, that I was not going to like it.
The book lacks, to a modern audience, an in depth treatment of the relationship of Henry and Sophia Schliemann for a start. It is very innocently played out, almost sickening at times, the way that Sophia appears to accommodate her husband while he tramples over their lives with his ambitions.
This perhaps is because the real meat of the biography is given not to those characters, but to their work - the uncovering of 'Homer's' Troy and their related struggles. Schliemann's determination to uncover Troy extended from his private life (his determination to have a Greek wife and therefore a Greek son by her) to his professional (spending any amount on his pursuit). This determination and zealousness was the reason why he was negligent to his wife and often confrontational to the authorities. The biography sometimes lists in depth the kind of finds the Schliemanns uncovered, the sheer scale of their operations and the logistical struggles of accomplishing it. More in depth is the continual back and forth between the Schliemanns and the countless toes they seemed to tread on while accomplishing their task.
I found this tiring for two reasons. The author made no attempt to be critical of the Schliemanns' approach to their work or to the people around them. It was clearly a one sided story in favour of the Schliemanns' approach when it was clearly flawed and selfish. The second reason is that the author seems to take the side of their archaeological approach as well, which was the equivalent of treasure finding and tomb robbing. When this book was published, archaeology had advanced considerably. I would have definitely appreciated a more educated reflection upon their actions. Archaeology suffers from a fantastical image provided by the likes of Lara Croft and Indiana Jones, and this book can be added to that list that fails to inform the public that history, all elements of it, should be saved for posterity without bias to its period, prettiness, and to who it will be shown in the future.
Overall, though Irving Stone provides a very pretty and easy to read biography of the Schliemanns, it lacks a proper engagement of the real topics and clearly demonstrates the author's admiration without reservation.
Published: 1975
An easily read biography on the lives of Henry and Sophia Schliemann, the 'discoverers' of Troy, my mother thought that this was right up my ally. I have never been big on biographies, but I read it to make sure that I could give her a decent reason why I didn't like it. I knew, in other words, that I was not going to like it.
The book lacks, to a modern audience, an in depth treatment of the relationship of Henry and Sophia Schliemann for a start. It is very innocently played out, almost sickening at times, the way that Sophia appears to accommodate her husband while he tramples over their lives with his ambitions.
This perhaps is because the real meat of the biography is given not to those characters, but to their work - the uncovering of 'Homer's' Troy and their related struggles. Schliemann's determination to uncover Troy extended from his private life (his determination to have a Greek wife and therefore a Greek son by her) to his professional (spending any amount on his pursuit). This determination and zealousness was the reason why he was negligent to his wife and often confrontational to the authorities. The biography sometimes lists in depth the kind of finds the Schliemanns uncovered, the sheer scale of their operations and the logistical struggles of accomplishing it. More in depth is the continual back and forth between the Schliemanns and the countless toes they seemed to tread on while accomplishing their task.
I found this tiring for two reasons. The author made no attempt to be critical of the Schliemanns' approach to their work or to the people around them. It was clearly a one sided story in favour of the Schliemanns' approach when it was clearly flawed and selfish. The second reason is that the author seems to take the side of their archaeological approach as well, which was the equivalent of treasure finding and tomb robbing. When this book was published, archaeology had advanced considerably. I would have definitely appreciated a more educated reflection upon their actions. Archaeology suffers from a fantastical image provided by the likes of Lara Croft and Indiana Jones, and this book can be added to that list that fails to inform the public that history, all elements of it, should be saved for posterity without bias to its period, prettiness, and to who it will be shown in the future.
Overall, though Irving Stone provides a very pretty and easy to read biography of the Schliemanns, it lacks a proper engagement of the real topics and clearly demonstrates the author's admiration without reservation.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Book Browsing
The Canterbury Papers: a novel
-Judith Koll Healey
I have a soft spot for easy to read historical fiction, on one condition: that it isn't completely 'out there'. Unfortunately, this does seem to stray more on the fictional side of things rather than the historical. Its style, however, does make up for this. It is very easy to read and even though it is very predictable in its plot developments, the book does not bore. A light and easy read if you like a little bit of romance and intrigue set amongst those European royal houses of old.
The Lady in Blue
- Javier Sierra
This novel is a little bit of a Davinci Code, but fortunately the author has more literary style. The novel is set around the mystery of the Blue Lady, a nun that appeared to the Native Indians in Mexico 400 years ago and converted them to Christianity before the Spanish monks ever arrived. Sierra takes the reader down the paths of several characters in different times, all in some way connected to this enigmatic lady and wanting to solve her mystery. Naturally, the church is involved and perhaps their motives are not entirely as pure as they should be. The book keeps you guessing all the way, is not afraid to embrace the supernatural while not coming off as cliche, and though slow to get started, genuinely enthralls the reader with this facinating mystery. Well researched and well written, and puts Dan Brown to shame in my opinion.
The Salt Letters
-Christine Balint
I was drawn to this book for two reasons. One of my university lecturers reviewed it and it was written by an Australian while writing her Honours thesis. It facinates me how anyone could have the time or patience to write something else while attempting a piece of academic writing (having gone through my honours project recently) let alone how Balint managed to get shortlisted for the 1998 Australian/Vogel Literary Award while doing so! This aside, the book has enlarged upon a letter that the author read from Louisa Cobden to her daughter, Sarah, who had boarded a boat from Old England to New Holland. Balint has vividly written the journey of Sarah both upon the boat and in her mind as she experiences the many trials and few pleasures of being a single woman of no rank alone on the open sea, destined for a new life. It is clear that Balint studied the conditions on ship well and one is made to feel genuinely for our ancestors that made that journey. Balint's style, though accomplished, is a little unfocused however. I feel that this may have been purposeful, imitating the unfocused and wavering consciousness of the protagonist, but it left me unable to get completely drawn into the novel. In addition, the 'memory' sequences seemed a little cliche compared to the raw experiences on deck. Overall it was a pleasant surprise and I hope Balint grows into a great home grown author.
-Judith Koll Healey
I have a soft spot for easy to read historical fiction, on one condition: that it isn't completely 'out there'. Unfortunately, this does seem to stray more on the fictional side of things rather than the historical. Its style, however, does make up for this. It is very easy to read and even though it is very predictable in its plot developments, the book does not bore. A light and easy read if you like a little bit of romance and intrigue set amongst those European royal houses of old.
The Lady in Blue
- Javier Sierra
This novel is a little bit of a Davinci Code, but fortunately the author has more literary style. The novel is set around the mystery of the Blue Lady, a nun that appeared to the Native Indians in Mexico 400 years ago and converted them to Christianity before the Spanish monks ever arrived. Sierra takes the reader down the paths of several characters in different times, all in some way connected to this enigmatic lady and wanting to solve her mystery. Naturally, the church is involved and perhaps their motives are not entirely as pure as they should be. The book keeps you guessing all the way, is not afraid to embrace the supernatural while not coming off as cliche, and though slow to get started, genuinely enthralls the reader with this facinating mystery. Well researched and well written, and puts Dan Brown to shame in my opinion.
The Salt Letters
-Christine Balint
I was drawn to this book for two reasons. One of my university lecturers reviewed it and it was written by an Australian while writing her Honours thesis. It facinates me how anyone could have the time or patience to write something else while attempting a piece of academic writing (having gone through my honours project recently) let alone how Balint managed to get shortlisted for the 1998 Australian/Vogel Literary Award while doing so! This aside, the book has enlarged upon a letter that the author read from Louisa Cobden to her daughter, Sarah, who had boarded a boat from Old England to New Holland. Balint has vividly written the journey of Sarah both upon the boat and in her mind as she experiences the many trials and few pleasures of being a single woman of no rank alone on the open sea, destined for a new life. It is clear that Balint studied the conditions on ship well and one is made to feel genuinely for our ancestors that made that journey. Balint's style, though accomplished, is a little unfocused however. I feel that this may have been purposeful, imitating the unfocused and wavering consciousness of the protagonist, but it left me unable to get completely drawn into the novel. In addition, the 'memory' sequences seemed a little cliche compared to the raw experiences on deck. Overall it was a pleasant surprise and I hope Balint grows into a great home grown author.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
The Golden Compass (2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385752/
Director and Screen Writer: Chris Weitz
Novel: Philip Pullman
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Dakota Blue Richards
Voices: Ian McKellen (Iorek), Freddie Highmore (Pan), Kristin Scott Thomas (Stelmaria)
Spoilers ahoy!
Adapted from the much loved first book of the 'His Dark Material's' trilogy, written by Philip Pullman, 'The Golden Compass' is set in a parallel world to our own where (we are told by the movie) people's souls live outside their bodies in the form of animals, called daemons. We see the compulsively good liar Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) get caught up with the mystery of dust, something her Uncle Asriel (Daniel Craig) seems to be in search of, and Mrs Coulter (Nicole Kidman) seems highly suspicious of. When Lyra's best friend, Roger, is kidnapped along with many other children by the 'Gobblers', Lyra begins an epic journey both in search of Roger and also to find out what 'dust' is.
Director and Screen Writer: Chris Weitz
Novel: Philip Pullman
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Dakota Blue Richards
Voices: Ian McKellen (Iorek), Freddie Highmore (Pan), Kristin Scott Thomas (Stelmaria)
Spoilers ahoy!
Adapted from the much loved first book of the 'His Dark Material's' trilogy, written by Philip Pullman, 'The Golden Compass' is set in a parallel world to our own where (we are told by the movie) people's souls live outside their bodies in the form of animals, called daemons. We see the compulsively good liar Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) get caught up with the mystery of dust, something her Uncle Asriel (Daniel Craig) seems to be in search of, and Mrs Coulter (Nicole Kidman) seems highly suspicious of. When Lyra's best friend, Roger, is kidnapped along with many other children by the 'Gobblers', Lyra begins an epic journey both in search of Roger and also to find out what 'dust' is.
There would have been two types of viewers to this movie: those who had read the book, and those who had not. I am afraid that both of these viewers will be/would have been disappointed. Those who have not read the book will have been confused by the fast pace, off hand references to major plot points and, of course, who exactly Lyra is. Those who have read the book will be disappointed that all the very important character development and story development is skipped for pointless extended scenes involving running around the streets, walking over an ice bridge (ooooohhh scary!!!!) and the fight scenes, not to mention inserted scenes, for example those concerning the magisterium who in fact play no part in the first book but are meant to be a looming threat.
So, where do I think they went wrong? Many other reviewers have attacked the actors. I heartilly disagree with them. I found all the actors and actresses superb for their roles. Where the script allowed them to, character interaction was spot on. The portrayal of the daemons I felt was adequate, though was not on the level that my imagination allowed. Alas! CGI can only go so far. The one exception to this statement is the voice of Iorek, given by Ian McKellen. Those who watched the early trailers released for 'The Golden Compass' may remember a very gruff deep animal voice for Iorek, very much inline with a vicious, regal, impulsive, very-strong-and-scary-to-a-little-girl polar bear. This was Nonso Anozie. New Line, for commercial reasons, changed this to Ian McKellen, who is more wise, sagely and, dare I say, GANDALFY! Bad New Line Cinemas. BAD! This is a movie, with characters. Those persons chosen to portray characters should be able to portray what that character is.
At fault, very much, was the director/screen adaptor Chris Weitz. The movie allows no adaptation of how Lyra's adventure evolves and therefore does not allow for her character development. For example, why are the 'Gobblers' suddenly mentioned in conversation between Roger and Lyra and never really mentioned again. Is the audience meant to understand and comprehend the importance of this plot point when it only lasts for a few seconds and pops up again much later? What about the link between a person's daemon and themself. Are we just meant to comprehend that another human is not meant to touch another person's daemon, that one can inflict pain through the other. This is never fully developed, so when Lyra faints when someone grabs her daemon, half of our cinema was left completely confused. Also, who exactly are the Gyptians and why exactly were they watching Lyra? To put it gently, short cuts were taken, to put it accurately, the plot at times was ignored.
Chris Weitz also does not seem to acknowledge that this is the epic fantasy adventure, which requires for linkage between going from one place to another. After all, Lyra journeys from Oxford in the UK to the 'North'. This journey was shown in snippets, each seeming disjointed from the other, so that we only get a small insight to the huge journey this little girl has taken. Those who loved the book will be completely outraged when they see that these snippets aren't even in the right order. Chris Weitz has definitely taken liberties with the sequence of the plot and added scenes, such as Lyra's scrambling through London factories being chased by the Gobblers (she is supposed to be caught by the docks, the most natural place for the Gyptians to find her). I have only given some examples here, but I have my mother ranting more at me from the next room. These shortcuts and snipping may have been forgiven if Weitz had not inserted scenes. For example, the Magisterium is simply a looming threat in the first book and had no place in the adaptation (much like Mordor is a looming threat in the first book/movie of LOTR but we don't get to see it until the 3rd!) .
This said, Chris Weitz is a promising director. There are some beautiful landscape shots. Scenes between characters, where they are allowed the time and the script is competent, are spot on and one can feel oneself beginning to be engaged by the characters. But unfortunately the movie jumps forward again and leaves you cold.
I could rant a lot longer, but I feel I am starting to knit pick into a scene by scene break down. I will finish with the thought that Chris Weitz may have been the right guy for the direction, but the script should have stayed in the hands of someone else (perhaps the previous choice of Tom Stoppard, who's adaptation was scrapped by Weitz in preference for adapting the work himself). I believe it may also have been a lot more promising if New Line Cinemas had backed off. I know it is important for a studio to look after its investment, but I believe the changes they made for commercial reasons may have ended up hindering the creativity of this film and its appeal, rather than helped it. They were deservedly punished when it did not open well and Enchanted kicked its arse. In the end, this movie, that could and should have been excellent, only reaches mediocrity.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Director: Wes Anderson
I'd better confess at the beginning, if I'm going to write a post titled 'Wes Anderson'. I haven't seen The Royal Tenenbaums. I'm sorry. It's on my list- promise.
The Darjeeling Limited
(2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0838221/
By the time I reached home from the cinema I still hadn't decided if I liked this movie or not. It's not a question of whether it was bad or good (it is quirky) but whether the irritating aspects outweigh the engaging ones. Brief synopsis: Three brothers go on a spiritual journey in India.
So weighing in on a strange, biased and corrupt scale...:
SPOLIERS AHOY!
Engagingly, we have Adrian Brody. Kudos to the costume and props departments- he looks fantastic in that gray suit. And Dad's glasses- seriously! I am certain I'm not the only one who wants a pair after seeing this movie. They are gosh-darn fashionable. Even though Adrian Brody is likely the only person who can actually pull them off. And he manages to be the least irritating brother without seeming unrelated.
The soundtrack. Locationally appropriate and is appropriated from the original scores of some Indian films.
The train carriages scene near the end of the film. This was a stunning moment, a highly articulate piece of filmmaking. I loved it. It was also placed well in the timeline, drawing me back into the film...but perhaps I shouldn't need to be drawn back in the primary instance? However it was effective.
Annoyingly, we have Jason Schwartzman. Well, Jack, his character. No, wait, Schwartzman has writing credits. So both! If I find out it wasn't Jason who wrote the thankfully-brief-already-too-long part one, nor his scenes with the attendant, I might have to apologise for this. Jack is a pathetic, repulsive, egocentric little man. Is he supposed to be? I was glad he shared scenes with Peter (Brody) so that I didn't have to look at him. Believability factor takes a beating as women are seduced by him. A friend compared him to Tom Cruise- this is not a compliment.
Part one is an off-putting, alienating start to the film, especially if you don't know it is coming (and perhaps if you haven't seen a Wes Anderson film before). So if you're reading this as someone who hasn't seen the movie yet, then you're already in a better position than I was. Along the same vein- there isn't a Part 3. Don't bother waiting till the end of the credits for it, I've checked for you.
Owen Wilson's character, Francis, is annoying, but he is supposed to be, and it is entertaining. Yet I find it difficult to not expect him at any moment to challenge someone to a 'walk-off'. That face and manner of speaking! Even with the bandages and older-brother wrinkles it remains so distinctive- and so fitting to the role he played in Zoolander. I wouldn't say he's a bad actor- I shall hope to see him in a future role where he doesn't trigger the memory.
I seem to be still fencing sitting on this one. When it was good it was very very good and when it was bad it was urgh. Forget the scales and hand me some editing tools!
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
(2004)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/
I liked this one. Bit slow on pacing particularly from the second quarter on, but it is imitating a nature documentary after all (whoa back off nature buffs! I loved that penguin movie...old stereotypes die hard, tongues in cheeks all that) The hypercolour is fun, Bill Murray is good, and the shots of the sliced ship interior are cheeky and well played. There's a bit too much of the father/son 'drama' which I get bored of easily, time that would have been better spent sketching out some of the other characters- for example Noah Taylor, who is a fantastic actor, gets a number of short lines I could probably count on my fingers alone.
The soundtrack is awesome. David Bowie songs arranged for acoustic guitar and sung in Portuguese, the arrangements and performances done by one of the actors: Seu Jorge. (At least playing the songs resulted in this talented actor getting more screentime). Yes. Great soundtrack.
I think Wes Anderson's favourite colour is over-saturated yellow. Just a guess.
The Darjeeling Limited
(2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0838221/
By the time I reached home from the cinema I still hadn't decided if I liked this movie or not. It's not a question of whether it was bad or good (it is quirky) but whether the irritating aspects outweigh the engaging ones. Brief synopsis: Three brothers go on a spiritual journey in India.
So weighing in on a strange, biased and corrupt scale...:
SPOLIERS AHOY!
Engagingly, we have Adrian Brody. Kudos to the costume and props departments- he looks fantastic in that gray suit. And Dad's glasses- seriously! I am certain I'm not the only one who wants a pair after seeing this movie. They are gosh-darn fashionable. Even though Adrian Brody is likely the only person who can actually pull them off. And he manages to be the least irritating brother without seeming unrelated.
The soundtrack. Locationally appropriate and is appropriated from the original scores of some Indian films.
The train carriages scene near the end of the film. This was a stunning moment, a highly articulate piece of filmmaking. I loved it. It was also placed well in the timeline, drawing me back into the film...but perhaps I shouldn't need to be drawn back in the primary instance? However it was effective.
Annoyingly, we have Jason Schwartzman. Well, Jack, his character. No, wait, Schwartzman has writing credits. So both! If I find out it wasn't Jason who wrote the thankfully-brief-already-too-long part one, nor his scenes with the attendant, I might have to apologise for this. Jack is a pathetic, repulsive, egocentric little man. Is he supposed to be? I was glad he shared scenes with Peter (Brody) so that I didn't have to look at him. Believability factor takes a beating as women are seduced by him. A friend compared him to Tom Cruise- this is not a compliment.
Part one is an off-putting, alienating start to the film, especially if you don't know it is coming (and perhaps if you haven't seen a Wes Anderson film before). So if you're reading this as someone who hasn't seen the movie yet, then you're already in a better position than I was. Along the same vein- there isn't a Part 3. Don't bother waiting till the end of the credits for it, I've checked for you.
Owen Wilson's character, Francis, is annoying, but he is supposed to be, and it is entertaining. Yet I find it difficult to not expect him at any moment to challenge someone to a 'walk-off'. That face and manner of speaking! Even with the bandages and older-brother wrinkles it remains so distinctive- and so fitting to the role he played in Zoolander. I wouldn't say he's a bad actor- I shall hope to see him in a future role where he doesn't trigger the memory.
I seem to be still fencing sitting on this one. When it was good it was very very good and when it was bad it was urgh. Forget the scales and hand me some editing tools!
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
(2004)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/
I liked this one. Bit slow on pacing particularly from the second quarter on, but it is imitating a nature documentary after all (whoa back off nature buffs! I loved that penguin movie...old stereotypes die hard, tongues in cheeks all that) The hypercolour is fun, Bill Murray is good, and the shots of the sliced ship interior are cheeky and well played. There's a bit too much of the father/son 'drama' which I get bored of easily, time that would have been better spent sketching out some of the other characters- for example Noah Taylor, who is a fantastic actor, gets a number of short lines I could probably count on my fingers alone.
The soundtrack is awesome. David Bowie songs arranged for acoustic guitar and sung in Portuguese, the arrangements and performances done by one of the actors: Seu Jorge. (At least playing the songs resulted in this talented actor getting more screentime). Yes. Great soundtrack.
I think Wes Anderson's favourite colour is over-saturated yellow. Just a guess.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Trailer Watch
Get Smart
Starring: Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock)
They probably ruined it! :( I think Anne Hathaway may be a good 99 but the trailer focuses completely on Steve Carell.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftoh87AYsJA
Nim's Island
Starring: Abigail Breslin, Jodie Foster, Gerard Butler
Look's like good family fun. Great to see Jodie Foster in something light hearted for a change.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapI8twO0O8
Definitely, Maybe
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Rachel Weisz, Isla Fisher, Elizabeth Banks
AAAAAWWWWWWWWWW. Looks sweet. Plus I have a thing for Ryan Reynolds and Rachel Weisz, and he looks like such a sweety in this movie. Probably will need box of chocolates.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov0GOQopBWw
The Accidental Husband
Starring: Colin Firth, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Uma Thurman
It is trying so hard to be a good romantic comedy but I am afraid it might just end up being tragic. How does Colin Firth get himself into these movies?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoMkLcpiy6c
In the Name of the King: a dungeon seige tale
Starring: Jason Stratham, Leelee Sobieski, John-Rhys Davies, Claire Forlani, Ron Perlman
Cool fantasy action movie with seriously bad acting! Right up my ally!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cGhxixal5A
Over Her Dead Body
Starring: Eva Longoria, Paul Rudd, Jason Biggs
ummmm.... crap?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCE24UP6srU
Fool's Gold
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson, Donald Sutherland
I am undecided. It seems a pretty basic equation of couple going through trouble until one realises that they underestimated the other in some way... just shot in Australia with lots of water stunts and involving searching for lost treasure.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLurdtyKuz0
The Signal
I usually do not watch horror movies, but this one's tagline is "Do you have the crazy?" so I thought I would take a peep. The music to the trailer is nice, and if anyone knows what it is please do tell. The content is not for my personal viewing pleasure, though the concept seems to be slightly philosophical. Looks to be gory.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnUcuy6078
The Orphanage
Spanish language film
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Another Horror, it was the director that attracted me to have a look though. I hate trailers that have bad voice overs, but as this is a Spanish film getting pimped to an English audience I suppose it was unavoidable (though they managed well enough for Pan's Labyrinth). Does look scary though!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trL-n4PzcIk
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Yes please!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqzYukVDqy4
The Duchess
Starring: Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes
Period drama! The selling point is clearly made in the trailer as being Keira Knightley, so it takes some time to get to the plot. But, I shall enjoy watching... especially if the end piece of the trailer lives up to expectations! Plus, it is good to see Ralph Fiennes getting back to his English roots.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM7aXlh7YwU
Starring: Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock)
They probably ruined it! :( I think Anne Hathaway may be a good 99 but the trailer focuses completely on Steve Carell.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftoh87AYsJA
Nim's Island
Starring: Abigail Breslin, Jodie Foster, Gerard Butler
Look's like good family fun. Great to see Jodie Foster in something light hearted for a change.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapI8twO0O8
Definitely, Maybe
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Rachel Weisz, Isla Fisher, Elizabeth Banks
AAAAAWWWWWWWWWW. Looks sweet. Plus I have a thing for Ryan Reynolds and Rachel Weisz, and he looks like such a sweety in this movie. Probably will need box of chocolates.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov0GOQopBWw
The Accidental Husband
Starring: Colin Firth, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Uma Thurman
It is trying so hard to be a good romantic comedy but I am afraid it might just end up being tragic. How does Colin Firth get himself into these movies?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoMkLcpiy6c
In the Name of the King: a dungeon seige tale
Starring: Jason Stratham, Leelee Sobieski, John-Rhys Davies, Claire Forlani, Ron Perlman
Cool fantasy action movie with seriously bad acting! Right up my ally!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cGhxixal5A
Over Her Dead Body
Starring: Eva Longoria, Paul Rudd, Jason Biggs
ummmm.... crap?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCE24UP6srU
Fool's Gold
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson, Donald Sutherland
I am undecided. It seems a pretty basic equation of couple going through trouble until one realises that they underestimated the other in some way... just shot in Australia with lots of water stunts and involving searching for lost treasure.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLurdtyKuz0
The Signal
I usually do not watch horror movies, but this one's tagline is "Do you have the crazy?" so I thought I would take a peep. The music to the trailer is nice, and if anyone knows what it is please do tell. The content is not for my personal viewing pleasure, though the concept seems to be slightly philosophical. Looks to be gory.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnUcuy6078
The Orphanage
Spanish language film
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Another Horror, it was the director that attracted me to have a look though. I hate trailers that have bad voice overs, but as this is a Spanish film getting pimped to an English audience I suppose it was unavoidable (though they managed well enough for Pan's Labyrinth). Does look scary though!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trL-n4PzcIk
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Yes please!
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqzYukVDqy4
The Duchess
Starring: Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes
Period drama! The selling point is clearly made in the trailer as being Keira Knightley, so it takes some time to get to the plot. But, I shall enjoy watching... especially if the end piece of the trailer lives up to expectations! Plus, it is good to see Ralph Fiennes getting back to his English roots.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM7aXlh7YwU
Friday, 4 January 2008
Atonement (2007)
Starring: Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Brenda Blethyn, Romola Gurai
Director: Joe Wright
Based on the excellent novel by Ian McEwan (I will not give a synopsis but just tell you to READ THE BOOK), Screenwriter Christopher Hampton and Director Joe Wright had a lot to live up to. For once, I am happy to say, the beauty of the book was matched. With the excellent score by Dario Marianelli, beautiful direction by Joe Wright, and excellent choices of both costuming and setting to create the heartwrenching reality of both the period leading up to and during WW2 and of the storyline.
The cast was completely inspired. Keira, who in the past always seems to be trying to hard at times hit the nail on the head. Some have said that they hated her in this movie, but having read the book I absolutely loved what she did with Cecelia Tallis. James McAvoy has long been a favourite and I always adore his acting, but as Robbie Turner, this is by far his best role yet. Romola Gurai is going from strength to strength and was a perfect Briony, as were the two women that played the younger and elder Briony.
The direction was perfect. Wright used light exquisitly and he shows such a maturation of the promise that was shown in Pride and Prejudice. Where in P&P the dialogue and characters sat awkward in the beautiful frames provided by the direction, here the connection is seemless and perfect to recreate the dual perception of the unfolding story.
Dario Marianelli is fast becoming my most favourite movie score Composer.
So, in the end, if you haven't already noticed, I loved the film. I can admit though, that not everyone will love this film. It is a slow moving film that is extremely serious in everything it does which will come across as tedious for many. For me, however, who is in love with the story and the characters, I will treasure this masterpiece for a long time.
Oh, and a quick note, bring a fan for the library scene. COLD SHOWER WILL BE NEEDED! :P
Director: Joe Wright
Based on the excellent novel by Ian McEwan (I will not give a synopsis but just tell you to READ THE BOOK), Screenwriter Christopher Hampton and Director Joe Wright had a lot to live up to. For once, I am happy to say, the beauty of the book was matched. With the excellent score by Dario Marianelli, beautiful direction by Joe Wright, and excellent choices of both costuming and setting to create the heartwrenching reality of both the period leading up to and during WW2 and of the storyline.
The cast was completely inspired. Keira, who in the past always seems to be trying to hard at times hit the nail on the head. Some have said that they hated her in this movie, but having read the book I absolutely loved what she did with Cecelia Tallis. James McAvoy has long been a favourite and I always adore his acting, but as Robbie Turner, this is by far his best role yet. Romola Gurai is going from strength to strength and was a perfect Briony, as were the two women that played the younger and elder Briony.
The direction was perfect. Wright used light exquisitly and he shows such a maturation of the promise that was shown in Pride and Prejudice. Where in P&P the dialogue and characters sat awkward in the beautiful frames provided by the direction, here the connection is seemless and perfect to recreate the dual perception of the unfolding story.
Dario Marianelli is fast becoming my most favourite movie score Composer.
So, in the end, if you haven't already noticed, I loved the film. I can admit though, that not everyone will love this film. It is a slow moving film that is extremely serious in everything it does which will come across as tedious for many. For me, however, who is in love with the story and the characters, I will treasure this masterpiece for a long time.
Oh, and a quick note, bring a fan for the library scene. COLD SHOWER WILL BE NEEDED! :P
Enchanted (2007)
Starring: Patrick Dempsey, Amy Adams, James Marsden, Susan Sarandon
Director: Kevin Lima
Brought to you by Disney (of course)
Disney has a habit of trying to one up itself. Well aware that the traditional disney cartoon has been replaced by digital animation, Disney had to play with the question "why did the wonderful world of Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty etc. no longer the please the crowd?". Enchanted seems to be the result, with the uncanny answer that people in today's western society could just no longer swallow that kind of lovey dovey, idealistic, happily ever after (dare I say) crap.
Exibit 'a': Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a 30 something divorce lawyer, divorced himself, who's ideal present for his eight year old daughter is not a collection of fairy stories, but a collection of mini-biographies of the world's greatest women because he doesn't want to give his daughter high hopes. Robert comes in contact with Giselle (Amy Adams), a beautiful girl in the largest, puffiest white princess dress known to New York, after she was hurled from her fairy tale land by the evil step mother and sorceress (Susan Sarandon) of her one true love Prince Edward (James Marsden). Giselle comes across as completely deranged, and Robert is at first very reluctant to help this damsel back to her fairy tale world of Andalasia. But, of course, slowly, the idealistic beauty, bent on being rescued by her one true love, is taken in and introduced to New York. The result is, she finds out that perhaps her ideal happily ever after hasn't been thought through properly, and Robert is reintroduced to the idea that perhaps dreams can come true.
It is a beautifully entertaining movie with a cleverly crafted script that debates the idea of how much reality and how much fiction is too much for the younger, and indeed the elder, generations. This is of course a constant concern in parenting circles, every parent wanting their child to have hope, but not to have unrealistic expectations of the world around them. Disney may have been a little too clever however. The musical scenes and very fairy tale aspects are sure to entertain the younger audience, but there are definitely large aspects of the movie that children may not be able to grasp, or will get bored with. While Shrek, for example, had both parents and children happy, I think the parents will end up enjoying this one more than the children. For me, the endless romantic, however, the movie was gorgeous. Amy Adams is fantastic and a comic delight, and though Patrick Dempsey's character doesn't have to stretch the acting skills too far from McDreamy, he is perfect in the part. James Marsden and Susan Sarandon are perfect for their parts, but are completely outshone by Amy Adams.
I recommend this movie for a time when you just need to know that sometimes there is a reason for fairy stories.
Director: Kevin Lima
Brought to you by Disney (of course)
Disney has a habit of trying to one up itself. Well aware that the traditional disney cartoon has been replaced by digital animation, Disney had to play with the question "why did the wonderful world of Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty etc. no longer the please the crowd?". Enchanted seems to be the result, with the uncanny answer that people in today's western society could just no longer swallow that kind of lovey dovey, idealistic, happily ever after (dare I say) crap.
Exibit 'a': Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a 30 something divorce lawyer, divorced himself, who's ideal present for his eight year old daughter is not a collection of fairy stories, but a collection of mini-biographies of the world's greatest women because he doesn't want to give his daughter high hopes. Robert comes in contact with Giselle (Amy Adams), a beautiful girl in the largest, puffiest white princess dress known to New York, after she was hurled from her fairy tale land by the evil step mother and sorceress (Susan Sarandon) of her one true love Prince Edward (James Marsden). Giselle comes across as completely deranged, and Robert is at first very reluctant to help this damsel back to her fairy tale world of Andalasia. But, of course, slowly, the idealistic beauty, bent on being rescued by her one true love, is taken in and introduced to New York. The result is, she finds out that perhaps her ideal happily ever after hasn't been thought through properly, and Robert is reintroduced to the idea that perhaps dreams can come true.
It is a beautifully entertaining movie with a cleverly crafted script that debates the idea of how much reality and how much fiction is too much for the younger, and indeed the elder, generations. This is of course a constant concern in parenting circles, every parent wanting their child to have hope, but not to have unrealistic expectations of the world around them. Disney may have been a little too clever however. The musical scenes and very fairy tale aspects are sure to entertain the younger audience, but there are definitely large aspects of the movie that children may not be able to grasp, or will get bored with. While Shrek, for example, had both parents and children happy, I think the parents will end up enjoying this one more than the children. For me, the endless romantic, however, the movie was gorgeous. Amy Adams is fantastic and a comic delight, and though Patrick Dempsey's character doesn't have to stretch the acting skills too far from McDreamy, he is perfect in the part. James Marsden and Susan Sarandon are perfect for their parts, but are completely outshone by Amy Adams.
I recommend this movie for a time when you just need to know that sometimes there is a reason for fairy stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)