The story of a 3 year love affair between John Keats and Fanny Brawne
Which is a lot more thrilling sounding than it actually is. Welcome to Victorian England, where everyone is a bit poncy and lacking in emotion. Like poetry for the most part then.
I’m not a big fan of poetry. You could say its because I just don’t get it, or that I’m an uncultured oik or any number of things. Frankly I think most of what I’ve read of it is a bit shit. My cousin is a poet, I liked some of her stuff that I’ve read and haven’t thought any of it is particularly crap, but I would never go out of my way to buy a poetry book. I don’t know if I’ve read any Keats. If you a fan you may love this film, otherwise you’ll probably find it rather dull.
A big part of the problem seems to be the characters, though not particularly the acting. Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is a flouncy pain in the arse a lot of the time, interested in sewing and dances and not much else. Keats (Ben Wishaw) spends a lot of his time lying about and staring at nothing, looking for inspiration with his best friend Mr Brown (Paul Schneider) who’s a complete shit to everyone. They talk in large formal flowing sentences. Poor Thomas Sangster is relegated to what’s basically a featured extra role, I can’t remember him saying a word through the whole thing.
Edie Martin who plays Toot’s little sister is kind of adorable though. She looks a lot like a ginger version of my girlfriends oldest daughter. And the cat is quite nice too.
It’s just so damned dull though. A lot of what the main characters express is semi-realistic in any age, yes. The longing you feel sometimes, the pain of separation, all that stuff. But it’s portrayed in the “no, you hang up” style. We might all have done that at some point in our lives but it’s not good script material. Stupid to do, but love makes you stupid, and boring to watch. And a lot of it is lacking in any real passion, particularly as the characters aren’t all that relatable.
And there isn’t really any drama. In a film where the main character gets hypothermia, then I’m assuming some kind of pneumonia, then DIES there should be some bloody DRAMA but there isn’t. I didn’t feel any tension at all, couldn’t care less.
There may be a lot I’m missing as I don’t really know anything about the side characters and they aren’t fleshed out. If you’re a poetry nut then give it a shot, if your not then don’t bother. Frankly this should have been shown on a Sunday night on BBC 1 instead of being released as a full on movie.
Next up: 9
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Movie 58: The Cove
I dreaded watching this because I knew what it was about and I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to. Thankfully, if there’s a thankfully here, the part I dreaded was only about 5 minutes long. I did tear up a lot though at the end. Yeah, this review probably won’t have any funny in it.
Richard O’Barry is the guy who brought us Flipper, which subsequently made the popularity of bottle nosed and other dolphins great enough that you can’t go to an aquatic centre that doesn’t have or at least want one. And he regrets that as it comes at a great cost. Rick now does everything he can to free dolphins and is trying to put a stop to the slaughter of 23000 every year in Taiji, Japan.
First off, I’m never setting foot in a dolphin centre again. I’ve seen them in the wild anyway, you can do that here as we have some swimming about locally. Secondly, the people of Japan aren’t to blame as they don’t, or didn’t, really know this was happening for the most part. FIX IT NOW though. And a big fuck you to the government and the “fishermen” (should be “mammalmen”)
I’ll probably sound like a bit of a hippy, but dolphins and other whales are intelligent. And self aware. Recently we’ve discovered they have names. Not the names we give them, they name each other. A species that doesn’t have a sense of self wouldn’t do that because there’d be no point. Yes they can tell each other apart by scent and markings, but I don’t think we’ve learned that anything bar us or some other primates uses nouns. So if your killing a whale, or definetly a dolphin, your killing a someone with a fucking name.
I don’t really know what to write about this without saying how horrible and ridiculous it is over and over. I think you get the message. But I’ll metaphor the bad scene.
There’s a small town, it has 500 people in it of all ages. An army of 12 tanks comes up to the outskirts and starts blasting a noise at something like 300 decibels at the town. It’s unbearable for the people so they try and move away. The tanks follow them in to a valley then bar it so the people are trapped. Then a group comes up and sees who can juggle, dance and generally entertain. Those people (generally teenage girls) are taken away to be kept in jail. Everyone else is herded in to a smaller valley next door, men, women, children, babies, whatever. They are left over night. The next day the guys from the tanks turn up in helicopters and stab them repeatedly, over and over and at random, until the people bleed to death in agony. The valley is literally swimming in blood.
The next day, they move on to the next town and do it again. For 6 months.
THAT is what is happening in Taiji. Not sure if its happening right now, but it starts again in September. I for one think there’s been enough Septembers. I don’t think I’ll be doing this again any time soon but here’s a URL
http://www.takepart.com/thecove/
And people get all excited about fake blue cats getting killed….
Next up: Bright Star
Richard O’Barry is the guy who brought us Flipper, which subsequently made the popularity of bottle nosed and other dolphins great enough that you can’t go to an aquatic centre that doesn’t have or at least want one. And he regrets that as it comes at a great cost. Rick now does everything he can to free dolphins and is trying to put a stop to the slaughter of 23000 every year in Taiji, Japan.
First off, I’m never setting foot in a dolphin centre again. I’ve seen them in the wild anyway, you can do that here as we have some swimming about locally. Secondly, the people of Japan aren’t to blame as they don’t, or didn’t, really know this was happening for the most part. FIX IT NOW though. And a big fuck you to the government and the “fishermen” (should be “mammalmen”)
I’ll probably sound like a bit of a hippy, but dolphins and other whales are intelligent. And self aware. Recently we’ve discovered they have names. Not the names we give them, they name each other. A species that doesn’t have a sense of self wouldn’t do that because there’d be no point. Yes they can tell each other apart by scent and markings, but I don’t think we’ve learned that anything bar us or some other primates uses nouns. So if your killing a whale, or definetly a dolphin, your killing a someone with a fucking name.
I don’t really know what to write about this without saying how horrible and ridiculous it is over and over. I think you get the message. But I’ll metaphor the bad scene.
There’s a small town, it has 500 people in it of all ages. An army of 12 tanks comes up to the outskirts and starts blasting a noise at something like 300 decibels at the town. It’s unbearable for the people so they try and move away. The tanks follow them in to a valley then bar it so the people are trapped. Then a group comes up and sees who can juggle, dance and generally entertain. Those people (generally teenage girls) are taken away to be kept in jail. Everyone else is herded in to a smaller valley next door, men, women, children, babies, whatever. They are left over night. The next day the guys from the tanks turn up in helicopters and stab them repeatedly, over and over and at random, until the people bleed to death in agony. The valley is literally swimming in blood.
The next day, they move on to the next town and do it again. For 6 months.
THAT is what is happening in Taiji. Not sure if its happening right now, but it starts again in September. I for one think there’s been enough Septembers. I don’t think I’ll be doing this again any time soon but here’s a URL
http://www.takepart.com/thecove/
And people get all excited about fake blue cats getting killed….
Next up: Bright Star
Friday, 26 February 2010
Movie 57: Burma VJ
Mainly using smuggled footage filmed by citizen journalists at the risk of being arrested or sometimes killed this film shows the story of the 1997 protests against Burma’s military Junta.
The next couple of movies are documentaries so there might be a couple of shortish reviews.
This is pretty powerful stuff. The footage is a bit grainy a lot of the time, all over the place as they’re trying to keep the cameras hidden, but they get the shots that are needed. It’s fucking terrible to be honest.
I have a lot of respect for Buddhism. If there’s one protest you know won’t get violent, at least against others, it’s one led by Buddhist monks and nuns. So obviously its not going to end well for them now is it? Not when your up against a bunch of bullying bastards.
The big question this left me with is why haven’t we sent in an SAS squad to do the necessary against the dicks in charge then the UN to help until a government can be set up? They have an elected leader who isn’t in charge and there is mass popular support. We’re not talking about Iraq here this one would ACTUALLY be relatively simple. It’s terrible that the governments of the so called civilized world haven’t done something. Mind you I’d say the same about Mugabe and a bunch of others around the world, but we could fix one at a time and do some good.
I suppose they don’t have any oil though…
Watch this as it’s important as hell. And I salute the folks in Burma that are still managing to get some footage out and still trying to improve their country. There’s no way I can fully understand how hard it is for the people there.
Next up: The Cove
The next couple of movies are documentaries so there might be a couple of shortish reviews.
This is pretty powerful stuff. The footage is a bit grainy a lot of the time, all over the place as they’re trying to keep the cameras hidden, but they get the shots that are needed. It’s fucking terrible to be honest.
I have a lot of respect for Buddhism. If there’s one protest you know won’t get violent, at least against others, it’s one led by Buddhist monks and nuns. So obviously its not going to end well for them now is it? Not when your up against a bunch of bullying bastards.
The big question this left me with is why haven’t we sent in an SAS squad to do the necessary against the dicks in charge then the UN to help until a government can be set up? They have an elected leader who isn’t in charge and there is mass popular support. We’re not talking about Iraq here this one would ACTUALLY be relatively simple. It’s terrible that the governments of the so called civilized world haven’t done something. Mind you I’d say the same about Mugabe and a bunch of others around the world, but we could fix one at a time and do some good.
I suppose they don’t have any oil though…
Watch this as it’s important as hell. And I salute the folks in Burma that are still managing to get some footage out and still trying to improve their country. There’s no way I can fully understand how hard it is for the people there.
Next up: The Cove
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Movie 56: The Lovely Bones
Susie Salmon is a young teenage girl, just discovering love and taking a bunch of pictures. Life is pretty good. Then the local peado murderer takes a shine to her, lures her in to his hand made bunker in a field, rapes and murders her, chops up the body and shoves it in a safe. But Susie isn’t all the way gone, she’s in the inbetween. Unable to move on to heaven she watches over her family as they start putting the pieces together.
At least that’s what it tried to be. Alas, they failed. That’s kind of the tagline for this movie, lacking.
Sure the producers wouldn’t use it but it’s true. It has some good points to it. The scenes in the inbetween (that name comes from Susie’s little brother but fuck knows where he heard it) are Terry Gillium trippy. It’s all morphing scenes, suddenly changing situations and seems to match Susie’s mood. It looks pretty good, though a little like that Robin Williams movie….um…whatchamackalit. What Dreams May Come.
Stanley Tucci places the weird peado guy rather well. Rachel Weisz is fantastic as a grieving mother, though I love her quite a lot so that probably contributed. Susan Sarandon is a fantastic drunken, pill popping, chain smoking grandma. And Saoirse Ronan gives a very good performance as Susie. Plus, her sister is played by an actress called Rose McIver. No relation as she’s missing an a from my surname, but nice to see people with my clan name getting work.
There’s also a 5-10 minute, maybe not that long, sequence going through all of Stan the man’s victims that’s extremely well done. If that was just a short film by itself with none of the surrounding material it would be great.
That’s the good.
The bad pretty much outweighs it. This film is disjointed and padded all to hell. Susie randomly trips about in the inbetween for quite a while. Her dad and her brother say they’ve seen her, but no explanation is given (she touches a girl earlier in the movie who barely appears for the rest, and its explained that they are now joined). The suspicions that the dad and sister have towards Stanley Tucci don’t make much sense besides the fact that he lives alone and is a tiny bit creepy. And the young love story is movie nonsense.
Also, have any of you ever watched The Forgotten? It’s a TV show with Christian Slater about a network of people that try and find out who John or Jane Doe’s are so the families can have some closure. It’s pretty good except for one aspect. There is a hugely melodramatic device used in every episode with the victim talking about themselves and their hopes and dreams before they were brutally murdered. Without it it would be a very good show. The Lovely Bones feels like a film version of that, as Susie does a lot of melodramatic blabbing.
AND the title makes fuck all sense, even with the explanation given it’s a shite title.
Could have been good, but it’s too long, too disjointed and the script is a bit arse. Your still on the good side of the scales for me though Mr Jackson, everyone makes mistakes. Looked good though so you did your job kinda.
At least that’s what it tried to be. Alas, they failed. That’s kind of the tagline for this movie, lacking.
Sure the producers wouldn’t use it but it’s true. It has some good points to it. The scenes in the inbetween (that name comes from Susie’s little brother but fuck knows where he heard it) are Terry Gillium trippy. It’s all morphing scenes, suddenly changing situations and seems to match Susie’s mood. It looks pretty good, though a little like that Robin Williams movie….um…whatchamackalit. What Dreams May Come.
Stanley Tucci places the weird peado guy rather well. Rachel Weisz is fantastic as a grieving mother, though I love her quite a lot so that probably contributed. Susan Sarandon is a fantastic drunken, pill popping, chain smoking grandma. And Saoirse Ronan gives a very good performance as Susie. Plus, her sister is played by an actress called Rose McIver. No relation as she’s missing an a from my surname, but nice to see people with my clan name getting work.
There’s also a 5-10 minute, maybe not that long, sequence going through all of Stan the man’s victims that’s extremely well done. If that was just a short film by itself with none of the surrounding material it would be great.
That’s the good.
The bad pretty much outweighs it. This film is disjointed and padded all to hell. Susie randomly trips about in the inbetween for quite a while. Her dad and her brother say they’ve seen her, but no explanation is given (she touches a girl earlier in the movie who barely appears for the rest, and its explained that they are now joined). The suspicions that the dad and sister have towards Stanley Tucci don’t make much sense besides the fact that he lives alone and is a tiny bit creepy. And the young love story is movie nonsense.
Also, have any of you ever watched The Forgotten? It’s a TV show with Christian Slater about a network of people that try and find out who John or Jane Doe’s are so the families can have some closure. It’s pretty good except for one aspect. There is a hugely melodramatic device used in every episode with the victim talking about themselves and their hopes and dreams before they were brutally murdered. Without it it would be a very good show. The Lovely Bones feels like a film version of that, as Susie does a lot of melodramatic blabbing.
AND the title makes fuck all sense, even with the explanation given it’s a shite title.
Could have been good, but it’s too long, too disjointed and the script is a bit arse. Your still on the good side of the scales for me though Mr Jackson, everyone makes mistakes. Looked good though so you did your job kinda.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Movie 55: El Secreto De Sus Ojos
A deputy counsellor, now retired, is still obsessed with a case from 25 years in his past and is writing a novel about it. Told partly in flash back and partly in the present the film shows us what happened then (possibly fictionalised a little as its his book) and where the characters ended up now.
Los Coldo Casion if you will. And damn is it good. This swept the Argentinian Oscars and it’s a shame that the actual Oscars don’t put foreign movies up for other categories as this would be up for make up and cinematography at least.
Before I get in to that, I’ll just briefly say that this is a well written, well acted thriller. I’m not clear on how the justice system works there as the main character appears to work for the court but is also a detective. The dialogue is witty at times, its very well plotted and Guillermo Francella plays a loveable drunk type character. Unfortunately I can’t get in to the plot too much for spoiler reasons.
The cast play themselves then and now and the make up is simple but flawless. Basically your talking hair styles, facial hair and some wrinkles but the effect is perfect. And as for the cinematography…
Well, when you have a copy to hand (which you should) watch the scene at the football match very carefully. I went back and double checked. The camera flies in from a distance to the stadium, over to the pitch to follow the game, in to the crowd where it sits with our characters, then through the crowd, in a chase around the stadium (including a 10 foot drop from a wall) all the way back on to the pitch. Roughly 5 minutes, no visible edits. I don’t know if this is actually one shot, I highly doubt it and can guess where there was a cheat, but it’s either amazing camera work, very good CGI (it cost fuck all so I doubt that) or very masterful editing. Simply STUNNING stuff.
It pulls no punches, has plenty of twists and turns and a heck of a plot but it would be worth it for what was in that last paragraph. Go check it out
Next up: The Lovely Bones
Los Coldo Casion if you will. And damn is it good. This swept the Argentinian Oscars and it’s a shame that the actual Oscars don’t put foreign movies up for other categories as this would be up for make up and cinematography at least.
Before I get in to that, I’ll just briefly say that this is a well written, well acted thriller. I’m not clear on how the justice system works there as the main character appears to work for the court but is also a detective. The dialogue is witty at times, its very well plotted and Guillermo Francella plays a loveable drunk type character. Unfortunately I can’t get in to the plot too much for spoiler reasons.
The cast play themselves then and now and the make up is simple but flawless. Basically your talking hair styles, facial hair and some wrinkles but the effect is perfect. And as for the cinematography…
Well, when you have a copy to hand (which you should) watch the scene at the football match very carefully. I went back and double checked. The camera flies in from a distance to the stadium, over to the pitch to follow the game, in to the crowd where it sits with our characters, then through the crowd, in a chase around the stadium (including a 10 foot drop from a wall) all the way back on to the pitch. Roughly 5 minutes, no visible edits. I don’t know if this is actually one shot, I highly doubt it and can guess where there was a cheat, but it’s either amazing camera work, very good CGI (it cost fuck all so I doubt that) or very masterful editing. Simply STUNNING stuff.
It pulls no punches, has plenty of twists and turns and a heck of a plot but it would be worth it for what was in that last paragraph. Go check it out
Next up: The Lovely Bones
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Movie 54: Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince
The secret is out so the Death Eaters are now attacking blatantly, making things a lot more dangerous in the world. Security at Hogwarts is therefore tightened and everyone is on guard. Harry finds a potions book that was previously owned by someone called The Half Blood Prince. Everyone’s hormones are raging so there’s a whole bunch of hormone related stuff. And there’s a plot to kill Dumbledore.
Ah raging hormones. Didn’t come across as quite as annoying as in the book though. Yes this is the second last Potter book, third last film, and it’s a bit of a dip from the last few. With good reason though.
You see there’s not a huge amount of plot moving forward. This is more of a set up. Some extrapolation, some character building and relationship nonsense. We are dealing with 16 year olds for the most part after all.
It’s all handled relatively well. You’d hardly expect some kind of amazing love story from this universe and the original authors, all be it creative, pen. But it’s not the worst teenage love story I’ve ever seen either. Ron and Hermione’s getting together has been handled rather well, slowly building before it finally bloody happens. There’s been hints coming up and they aren’t suddenly going out at the start of the film.
Same with Harry and Ginny. Oh, there may be spoilers here but if your spoiled you live under…well you know the deal. Patrick from Spongebob is the only one with an excuse. You don’t see to much of Harry and Ginny’s relationship but you know its happened and it makes sense.
There’s no point saying anything about the acting here as its pretty much spot on as usual. Bit of cheesiness from the kids, but the adults are all damned fine cause they’re British and that.
This is a big spoiler if you haven’t read/seen this. The ending has a bit of a different tone to it when you know the deal with the whole series. It’s a little bit heart breaking, but not for the reason that it would have been originally. I feel really bloody sorry for Snape. Rickman plays the scene perfectly. Poor bastard.
Next up: El Secreto De Sus Ojos
Ah raging hormones. Didn’t come across as quite as annoying as in the book though. Yes this is the second last Potter book, third last film, and it’s a bit of a dip from the last few. With good reason though.
You see there’s not a huge amount of plot moving forward. This is more of a set up. Some extrapolation, some character building and relationship nonsense. We are dealing with 16 year olds for the most part after all.
It’s all handled relatively well. You’d hardly expect some kind of amazing love story from this universe and the original authors, all be it creative, pen. But it’s not the worst teenage love story I’ve ever seen either. Ron and Hermione’s getting together has been handled rather well, slowly building before it finally bloody happens. There’s been hints coming up and they aren’t suddenly going out at the start of the film.
Same with Harry and Ginny. Oh, there may be spoilers here but if your spoiled you live under…well you know the deal. Patrick from Spongebob is the only one with an excuse. You don’t see to much of Harry and Ginny’s relationship but you know its happened and it makes sense.
There’s no point saying anything about the acting here as its pretty much spot on as usual. Bit of cheesiness from the kids, but the adults are all damned fine cause they’re British and that.
This is a big spoiler if you haven’t read/seen this. The ending has a bit of a different tone to it when you know the deal with the whole series. It’s a little bit heart breaking, but not for the reason that it would have been originally. I feel really bloody sorry for Snape. Rickman plays the scene perfectly. Poor bastard.
Next up: El Secreto De Sus Ojos
Monday, 22 February 2010
Movie 53: The Milk of Sorrow
IMDB synopsis before I tear in to this:
Fausta is suffering from a rare disease called the Milk of Sorrow, which is transmitted through the breast milk of pregnant women who were abused or raped during or soon after pregnancy. While living in constant fear and confusion due to this disease, she must face the sudden death of her mother. She chooses to take drastic measures to not follow in her mother's footsteps.
No she isn’t and no she doesn’t. If that’s what the film was about it may have actually been good instead of making me want to stop watching ever 2 minutes but forcing myself to continue because I have to blog about it.
For a start, there’s no such thing as the Milk of Sorrow. Fausta is in fact a massively emotionally disturbed girl because of the way she was raised. She terrified of being raped, to the extent that she has (I shit you not) a potato in her vagina. An actual potato. I though the subtitles were broken but they weren’t as is made blatantly clear throughout the movie. She has to walk close to walls so that lost souls won’t get her, so she’s agoraphobic, and she’s scared of men.
Also following the sudden death of her mother she keeps the corpse around for a month as she can’t afford to take her back to their village for a funeral. A corpse that she seems to sleep with and sing to. This is your main character.
An hour and a half with a massively disturbed woman with a tattie in her cooch. It’s as fun as it sounds. She weird and stilted in her movements, and sings a fair bit in a semi in tune manner.
This wouldn’t be so bad if there were good side characters, but there aren’t. The gardener seems like a nice guy, but besides him everyone else seems relatively fucked up. If this is a good representation of Peru I can see why Paddington Bear left.
There seems to be some kind of milkshake that people drink when they watch a lot of movies which makes foreign or black and white films somehow superior to everything else. Add to that films made for a tenner with an indie label. Well I don’t drink your milkshake. I don’t drink it RIGHT UP. (that’s why I said milkshake, just so I could use that line. I am a hack, yes.)
Load of old potato filled toot.
Next up: Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince
Fausta is suffering from a rare disease called the Milk of Sorrow, which is transmitted through the breast milk of pregnant women who were abused or raped during or soon after pregnancy. While living in constant fear and confusion due to this disease, she must face the sudden death of her mother. She chooses to take drastic measures to not follow in her mother's footsteps.
No she isn’t and no she doesn’t. If that’s what the film was about it may have actually been good instead of making me want to stop watching ever 2 minutes but forcing myself to continue because I have to blog about it.
For a start, there’s no such thing as the Milk of Sorrow. Fausta is in fact a massively emotionally disturbed girl because of the way she was raised. She terrified of being raped, to the extent that she has (I shit you not) a potato in her vagina. An actual potato. I though the subtitles were broken but they weren’t as is made blatantly clear throughout the movie. She has to walk close to walls so that lost souls won’t get her, so she’s agoraphobic, and she’s scared of men.
Also following the sudden death of her mother she keeps the corpse around for a month as she can’t afford to take her back to their village for a funeral. A corpse that she seems to sleep with and sing to. This is your main character.
An hour and a half with a massively disturbed woman with a tattie in her cooch. It’s as fun as it sounds. She weird and stilted in her movements, and sings a fair bit in a semi in tune manner.
This wouldn’t be so bad if there were good side characters, but there aren’t. The gardener seems like a nice guy, but besides him everyone else seems relatively fucked up. If this is a good representation of Peru I can see why Paddington Bear left.
There seems to be some kind of milkshake that people drink when they watch a lot of movies which makes foreign or black and white films somehow superior to everything else. Add to that films made for a tenner with an indie label. Well I don’t drink your milkshake. I don’t drink it RIGHT UP. (that’s why I said milkshake, just so I could use that line. I am a hack, yes.)
Load of old potato filled toot.
Next up: Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Movie 52: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Boom, kablowie, Robots, KAPOW, BOOM, SPLAT, SCRAP, KABOOM, ROBOTS, KABLAMO!
Okay, I’ll do it properly.
Lots of explosions, big robots fighting, Megan Fox in tiny shorts.
What? FINE!
At the end of the last film the Decepticons were defeated and went off to lick their wounds. However, some have been showing up and the Autobots along with a secret government agency have been laying the smack down. Meanwhile Sam wants a normal life and is going back to college. He finds a piece of the All Spark in his shirt and accidentally absorbs all of its knowledge. This gets back to the true leader of the Decepticons, The Fallen, who wants what’s in Sam’s head so he can find an ancient device that will destroy the sun to create Energon.
Blabbity bloo bloo. On a side note, why when I accidentally forget to put the apostrophe in what’s does spell checker ALWAYS suggest whets? I never use that word…
So the plot is a load of sci fi bollocks. But I’m actually fine with that. It’s a movie about giant robots that change in to cars and planes blowing the shit out of each other. The fact that there’s anything close to a describable plot is amazing. And I didn’t absolutely hate it like I expected to from all the negativity. It’s far from a good movie though, and it’s not as good as the first one.
One plus side is that the robot fights are easier to make out this time around. I could actually see who was hitting who instead of a big metallic blur with flashes of colour. Optimus Prime is a ninja bad ass huh? Good stuff. So that was all fine. And they obviously pay SOME attention to what’s said as Bumblebee doesn’t have a fixed voice box in the film, one of the big mistakes at the end of the last one.
But I did have plenty of problems, one or two went away after reading the trivia as I’m not a Transformers nerd. I didn’t get why Megatron had a boss for one, but that’s fine. The human form Transform is still a problem for me though. This film really does only have one failing though.
Where the hell was the funny? The jokes seemed to all be farting and leg humping. There’s not really a single laugh in the thing. And the love story is terribly written. I liked the banter in the first one, or seem to remember liking it, but not here. Here is Disaster Movie dialogue at its finest. Not the whole thing, just a lot of the humans.
There seemed to be a hell of a lot more Decepticons that Autobots as well which seems a bit unfair. Didn’t go for the generic warrior types either. If they hadn’t bothered with those it would have improved the movie, just make the Decepticons you use bad asses like the Autobots.
Pish dialogue, decent fight scenes, big explosions. That’s pretty much what it will say on Michael Bay’s grave. I’ll give him one thing. When asked if Transformers 3 would be in 3D he said “no, who the hell would want to see one of my films in 3D? It would make people throw up!” That’s paraphrased obviously. So fair play to you sir, and write a better script for the next one!
Next up: The Milk of Sorrow
Okay, I’ll do it properly.
Lots of explosions, big robots fighting, Megan Fox in tiny shorts.
What? FINE!
At the end of the last film the Decepticons were defeated and went off to lick their wounds. However, some have been showing up and the Autobots along with a secret government agency have been laying the smack down. Meanwhile Sam wants a normal life and is going back to college. He finds a piece of the All Spark in his shirt and accidentally absorbs all of its knowledge. This gets back to the true leader of the Decepticons, The Fallen, who wants what’s in Sam’s head so he can find an ancient device that will destroy the sun to create Energon.
Blabbity bloo bloo. On a side note, why when I accidentally forget to put the apostrophe in what’s does spell checker ALWAYS suggest whets? I never use that word…
So the plot is a load of sci fi bollocks. But I’m actually fine with that. It’s a movie about giant robots that change in to cars and planes blowing the shit out of each other. The fact that there’s anything close to a describable plot is amazing. And I didn’t absolutely hate it like I expected to from all the negativity. It’s far from a good movie though, and it’s not as good as the first one.
One plus side is that the robot fights are easier to make out this time around. I could actually see who was hitting who instead of a big metallic blur with flashes of colour. Optimus Prime is a ninja bad ass huh? Good stuff. So that was all fine. And they obviously pay SOME attention to what’s said as Bumblebee doesn’t have a fixed voice box in the film, one of the big mistakes at the end of the last one.
But I did have plenty of problems, one or two went away after reading the trivia as I’m not a Transformers nerd. I didn’t get why Megatron had a boss for one, but that’s fine. The human form Transform is still a problem for me though. This film really does only have one failing though.
Where the hell was the funny? The jokes seemed to all be farting and leg humping. There’s not really a single laugh in the thing. And the love story is terribly written. I liked the banter in the first one, or seem to remember liking it, but not here. Here is Disaster Movie dialogue at its finest. Not the whole thing, just a lot of the humans.
There seemed to be a hell of a lot more Decepticons that Autobots as well which seems a bit unfair. Didn’t go for the generic warrior types either. If they hadn’t bothered with those it would have improved the movie, just make the Decepticons you use bad asses like the Autobots.
Pish dialogue, decent fight scenes, big explosions. That’s pretty much what it will say on Michael Bay’s grave. I’ll give him one thing. When asked if Transformers 3 would be in 3D he said “no, who the hell would want to see one of my films in 3D? It would make people throw up!” That’s paraphrased obviously. So fair play to you sir, and write a better script for the next one!
Next up: The Milk of Sorrow
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Movie 51: Un Prophete
That’s A Prophet, but in French!
A young Arabic man, Malik, is sent to prison for an unknown crime but he gets six years. Don’t think he’s meant to be much more than a petty criminal though. Prison is tough when your on your own and he ends up whacking a guy to get in with the Corsican’s that run the joint. And slowly works his way up.
That’s less spoilery than every other description I saw.
Part of the idea behind prison is that you supposed to improve yourself so you’ll do well when you get out. By this they mean learning to write, get a degree, some skills, whatever. Invariably people learn to be better criminals. And that’s basically what Malik does. He’s smart and listens, so he learns.
This wasn’t as harrowing as I expected, though there’s a few tough scenes. I also expected a whole crap load of muslim stuff from the title but there isn’t any. The title could refer to two things in my opinion, the second is probably more likely. The first is that Malik literally makes a profit so they may have taken that and spinned it a little bit. Which is actually quite clever, but not likely.
The second is that Malik see’s the guy that he killed for quite a while in his head, and that guy is able to tell him some things before they happen. Unfortunately this is a very minor part of the plot. So minor in fact that it seems it could have been chucked without effecting the movie in any major way. It seems frivolous to me. Why have this supernatural element if it isn’t a bigger part, if it isn’t the main reason that Malik gets somewhere? Because it isn’t. It helps him a little but he did fine without it.
Besides that complaint, and the fact that its not as harsh as it could have been, this is a damned fine prison movie. The plot is organic and it doesn’t feel like your watching for as long as you are. The performances are all good, though nothing particularly blew my socks off. It was certainly a refresher amongst the other drek I’ve watched that’s been nominated for a foreign film Oscar.
Not the most in depth review but with 30 minutes of the film left I had to piss about with the most frustrating laptop in the world and try to get it back on the net (not my computer btw). So I was in a bad mood and lost the thread of the film a bit. OH and it ends with the worst version of Mack the Knife I’ve ever heard. I love that song, so baaaaad French people *smack*
Next up: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
A young Arabic man, Malik, is sent to prison for an unknown crime but he gets six years. Don’t think he’s meant to be much more than a petty criminal though. Prison is tough when your on your own and he ends up whacking a guy to get in with the Corsican’s that run the joint. And slowly works his way up.
That’s less spoilery than every other description I saw.
Part of the idea behind prison is that you supposed to improve yourself so you’ll do well when you get out. By this they mean learning to write, get a degree, some skills, whatever. Invariably people learn to be better criminals. And that’s basically what Malik does. He’s smart and listens, so he learns.
This wasn’t as harrowing as I expected, though there’s a few tough scenes. I also expected a whole crap load of muslim stuff from the title but there isn’t any. The title could refer to two things in my opinion, the second is probably more likely. The first is that Malik literally makes a profit so they may have taken that and spinned it a little bit. Which is actually quite clever, but not likely.
The second is that Malik see’s the guy that he killed for quite a while in his head, and that guy is able to tell him some things before they happen. Unfortunately this is a very minor part of the plot. So minor in fact that it seems it could have been chucked without effecting the movie in any major way. It seems frivolous to me. Why have this supernatural element if it isn’t a bigger part, if it isn’t the main reason that Malik gets somewhere? Because it isn’t. It helps him a little but he did fine without it.
Besides that complaint, and the fact that its not as harsh as it could have been, this is a damned fine prison movie. The plot is organic and it doesn’t feel like your watching for as long as you are. The performances are all good, though nothing particularly blew my socks off. It was certainly a refresher amongst the other drek I’ve watched that’s been nominated for a foreign film Oscar.
Not the most in depth review but with 30 minutes of the film left I had to piss about with the most frustrating laptop in the world and try to get it back on the net (not my computer btw). So I was in a bad mood and lost the thread of the film a bit. OH and it ends with the worst version of Mack the Knife I’ve ever heard. I love that song, so baaaaad French people *smack*
Next up: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Friday, 19 February 2010
Movie 50: Sherlock Holmes
The worlds greatest detective Sherlock Holmes and his friend and companion Dr Watson are faced with an adversary who uses powerful black magic to return from the dead and TAKE OVER THE WORLD! (They’re……..Pinky and the Brain, yes Pinky and the Brain. Sorry, couldn’t resist). Meanwhile Holmes old flame Irene Adler is in town, working under the instruction of a mysterious Professor.
I’m not hugely familiar with the Holmes stories. I could be relatively familiar, I have audio versions of a number of the stories sitting on my computer due to my old job as inventory manager at a now defunct website. But I haven’t had time to listen to them yet. HOWEVER if this film is a semi-decent representation of the Holmes character, hopefully one of you could fill me in, I think I might just give them a listen.
To quote some made up journalist, or possibly some hack from the Daily Star or Heat, this isn’t your grandfathers Sherlock Holmes. He’s all edgy and action packed so he is. And you nearly see some tits like! PHWAR!
I got off track. This isn’t the Holmes that most, hell all, of us will be familiar with from the various TV shows, movies, spoofs and episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. He’s still a genius, he still uses deductive reasoning, he’s still ahead of his time and he still lives in Baker street. BUT for once they include the fact that he used various mind altering substances and they’ve changed a few things (I assume). This Holmes is a bare knuckle boxer and good in a scrap. He can run around. And he’s extremely eccentric. A proper genius who’s mind is constantly working and needs to be distracted with drugs, drink and crazy ideas. Alas he doesn’t have a telly like modern ones do.
Downey Jr is one of the best actors going today. There, I said it. Fact is I’ve always thought he was great, it’s just a shame he got in his own way for a while there. Thankfully he got back out of it. His English accent is spot on, he doesn’t miss any beats and he plays the slightly wrecked genius well. Jude Law is someone I’m not always super happy with, sometimes I think he’s a bit shit really. Not so here. He’s a bloody good Watson. The two of them pair up well and you’d believe they have been friends for years, Watson having to suffer god knows what at Holmes’ hands.
As for the gay talk being spouted about? Where the fuck did that come from?! People who’ve never had a best friend? I didn’t think for a moment that they were gay for each other. Or that Holmes was jealous in that way. He doesn’t want his best mate taken away, he wants to keep playing without a girl interfering. You know who they really are? House and Wilson. The characters are even pretty close. Holmes is a complete genius, unmatched in his field, a bit of a shit, mad as an upside down rabbit in a box and he takes Watson for granted. Watson wants to get away, has had enough of all the crap, but can’t bare to leave and will show up every single time that Holmes needs him. House and Wilson.
And I fucking LOVE House so that’s fine by me. It’s a good fit. This might be a slightly, or largely, poochied version of the Holmes stories but not too badly. I was worried for a while that it might hit 300 levels of slo-mo use but thankfully it’s only a few times and to good effect. It was a clever touch to have Holmes calculate a fight in his head using the same techniques that he uses to solve crimes and they didn’t over use it. And the explosions looked great in that extended scenes. In fact it would have been like everything else if they hadn’t slowed it down.
I haven’t really included any spoilers here, except MAYBE mentioning the Professor but that happens slightly early on and is a B plot. A set up for a second movie. Unless you’ve lived under a rock your whole life, and if you have a spoiler from a Sherlock Holmes movie is the last thing you should be catching up on, you know that Holmes nemesis is Professor Moriarty. The version of Holmes that went over to the dark side, maybe he didn’t get enough hugs. I’m about to say something that could be controversial here.
If they do it right. If it’s scripted very well and they have two master swordsmen duelling with each other with pawns in the middle having to dance for them both. If Holmes gets a bit dark because of it. IF it’s done REALLY REALLY well…..we could be looking at another The Dark Knight. I know I’ll be there and I’ll be hoping. Get it right fellas
Next up: A Prophet
I’m not hugely familiar with the Holmes stories. I could be relatively familiar, I have audio versions of a number of the stories sitting on my computer due to my old job as inventory manager at a now defunct website. But I haven’t had time to listen to them yet. HOWEVER if this film is a semi-decent representation of the Holmes character, hopefully one of you could fill me in, I think I might just give them a listen.
To quote some made up journalist, or possibly some hack from the Daily Star or Heat, this isn’t your grandfathers Sherlock Holmes. He’s all edgy and action packed so he is. And you nearly see some tits like! PHWAR!
I got off track. This isn’t the Holmes that most, hell all, of us will be familiar with from the various TV shows, movies, spoofs and episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. He’s still a genius, he still uses deductive reasoning, he’s still ahead of his time and he still lives in Baker street. BUT for once they include the fact that he used various mind altering substances and they’ve changed a few things (I assume). This Holmes is a bare knuckle boxer and good in a scrap. He can run around. And he’s extremely eccentric. A proper genius who’s mind is constantly working and needs to be distracted with drugs, drink and crazy ideas. Alas he doesn’t have a telly like modern ones do.
Downey Jr is one of the best actors going today. There, I said it. Fact is I’ve always thought he was great, it’s just a shame he got in his own way for a while there. Thankfully he got back out of it. His English accent is spot on, he doesn’t miss any beats and he plays the slightly wrecked genius well. Jude Law is someone I’m not always super happy with, sometimes I think he’s a bit shit really. Not so here. He’s a bloody good Watson. The two of them pair up well and you’d believe they have been friends for years, Watson having to suffer god knows what at Holmes’ hands.
As for the gay talk being spouted about? Where the fuck did that come from?! People who’ve never had a best friend? I didn’t think for a moment that they were gay for each other. Or that Holmes was jealous in that way. He doesn’t want his best mate taken away, he wants to keep playing without a girl interfering. You know who they really are? House and Wilson. The characters are even pretty close. Holmes is a complete genius, unmatched in his field, a bit of a shit, mad as an upside down rabbit in a box and he takes Watson for granted. Watson wants to get away, has had enough of all the crap, but can’t bare to leave and will show up every single time that Holmes needs him. House and Wilson.
And I fucking LOVE House so that’s fine by me. It’s a good fit. This might be a slightly, or largely, poochied version of the Holmes stories but not too badly. I was worried for a while that it might hit 300 levels of slo-mo use but thankfully it’s only a few times and to good effect. It was a clever touch to have Holmes calculate a fight in his head using the same techniques that he uses to solve crimes and they didn’t over use it. And the explosions looked great in that extended scenes. In fact it would have been like everything else if they hadn’t slowed it down.
I haven’t really included any spoilers here, except MAYBE mentioning the Professor but that happens slightly early on and is a B plot. A set up for a second movie. Unless you’ve lived under a rock your whole life, and if you have a spoiler from a Sherlock Holmes movie is the last thing you should be catching up on, you know that Holmes nemesis is Professor Moriarty. The version of Holmes that went over to the dark side, maybe he didn’t get enough hugs. I’m about to say something that could be controversial here.
If they do it right. If it’s scripted very well and they have two master swordsmen duelling with each other with pawns in the middle having to dance for them both. If Holmes gets a bit dark because of it. IF it’s done REALLY REALLY well…..we could be looking at another The Dark Knight. I know I’ll be there and I’ll be hoping. Get it right fellas
Next up: A Prophet
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Movie 49: Crazy Heart
Kris Kristofferson (Jeff Bridges) plays Bad Blake, a washed up country singer playing bowling alleys and shit holes. Life on the road and in the bottle is taking its toll on Bad. But can he find redemption and a new lease on life when an attractive young reporter and her son enter it? Maybe with some help from his former mentee Tommy who’s a big old country star now.
Wow I made that sound like a flippin TV movie. It’s The Wrestler, but with country music instead of pretend hitting.
And it’s good, possibly as good as The Wrestler maybe not quite as good. They have the fact that I think they’re both a bit over rated in common. That’s not saying I didn’t like Crazy Heart, I did, but I don’t quite get the hoo ha. I’ll get to performances in a bit but I want to cover two others things first
First off, the music. I like country music. Well, I like SOME country music. Fact is there probably isn’t a kind of music I don’t like at least some off. So I will happily admit to being a fan of good country, the obvious example being Johnny Cash but I like other stuff too (no, not just The Gambler). And for the most part this film contains good country music. There’s a couple of tunes I didn’t particularly go for, but the music ain’t bad.
Secondly, it’s too damned short. It needs maybe another half hour? There’s a little bit of spoilage here so skip a paragraph if you don’t want spoiled. Yes the love story is a bit rushed but that’s okay here as it’s supposed to be that kind of love. The rush in when you shouldn’t kind. But I would have liked maybe a bit more of bad touring some shit holes first, even a montage. His rehab is skipped over making the whole thing seem to damned simple. “My names Bad, I’m an alcoholic” “I’m cured!”. Now AA meetings and rehab have been done to death in movies, but some kind of struggle to get over what’s probably near 40 years of straight drinkin would have been nice. And finally the ending is far too quick. They literally skip to the end. Exposition in the last 20 minutes is lacking and it looks like someone dropped a bit of the script in a shredder by accident.
And spoilage is done. As for the performances, well there isn’t a bum one in it. I joked that Jeff played Kris Kristofferson and he partly did as he was an inspiration. He’s a damned fine actor and he embodies the drunken country singer perfectly. It didn’t really have the kind of moments I’d expect in a performance that’s being hyped so much though, but I’ll get to that in an oscar post. Maggie Gylenhall does have a couple of those moments, though the majority of the time it’s just an adequate acting job. Adequate sounds harsh, believable. I was pretty damned impressed with Colin Farrell though.
Unfortunately all three suffered a little from what felt like a rushed story. Not enough meat to sink there teeth in too. Oh there was some meat, and it was nice meat, but it left me a bit too hungry after. Leave them wanting more yes, but from the end of the movie not the middle to end. Done right it makes you want to see the characters a while longer, done wrong it makes you feel like you left the room a few times. I got a bit of that feeling.
Still good though.
Next up: Sherlock Holmes
Wow I made that sound like a flippin TV movie. It’s The Wrestler, but with country music instead of pretend hitting.
And it’s good, possibly as good as The Wrestler maybe not quite as good. They have the fact that I think they’re both a bit over rated in common. That’s not saying I didn’t like Crazy Heart, I did, but I don’t quite get the hoo ha. I’ll get to performances in a bit but I want to cover two others things first
First off, the music. I like country music. Well, I like SOME country music. Fact is there probably isn’t a kind of music I don’t like at least some off. So I will happily admit to being a fan of good country, the obvious example being Johnny Cash but I like other stuff too (no, not just The Gambler). And for the most part this film contains good country music. There’s a couple of tunes I didn’t particularly go for, but the music ain’t bad.
Secondly, it’s too damned short. It needs maybe another half hour? There’s a little bit of spoilage here so skip a paragraph if you don’t want spoiled. Yes the love story is a bit rushed but that’s okay here as it’s supposed to be that kind of love. The rush in when you shouldn’t kind. But I would have liked maybe a bit more of bad touring some shit holes first, even a montage. His rehab is skipped over making the whole thing seem to damned simple. “My names Bad, I’m an alcoholic” “I’m cured!”. Now AA meetings and rehab have been done to death in movies, but some kind of struggle to get over what’s probably near 40 years of straight drinkin would have been nice. And finally the ending is far too quick. They literally skip to the end. Exposition in the last 20 minutes is lacking and it looks like someone dropped a bit of the script in a shredder by accident.
And spoilage is done. As for the performances, well there isn’t a bum one in it. I joked that Jeff played Kris Kristofferson and he partly did as he was an inspiration. He’s a damned fine actor and he embodies the drunken country singer perfectly. It didn’t really have the kind of moments I’d expect in a performance that’s being hyped so much though, but I’ll get to that in an oscar post. Maggie Gylenhall does have a couple of those moments, though the majority of the time it’s just an adequate acting job. Adequate sounds harsh, believable. I was pretty damned impressed with Colin Farrell though.
Unfortunately all three suffered a little from what felt like a rushed story. Not enough meat to sink there teeth in too. Oh there was some meat, and it was nice meat, but it left me a bit too hungry after. Leave them wanting more yes, but from the end of the movie not the middle to end. Done right it makes you want to see the characters a while longer, done wrong it makes you feel like you left the room a few times. I got a bit of that feeling.
Still good though.
Next up: Sherlock Holmes
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Movie 48: Nine
This would be the musical Nine, not the animated film 9 which I’ll review in a couple of weeks probably.
Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a legendary director, inspired by Fellini, working on his ninth film. The only problem is that there is no script and no idea. There is a title, Italia, but the director is burned out and overwhelmed with personal issues. Not surprising considering he has a wife, a mistress and is recognised wherever he goes. He’s also coming off a number of flops. So he tries to run away to the country, striving to find inspiration for his next masterpiece
When the first few minutes of a musical consist of people singing “La la la la” you know what your in for and it ain’t good. While that’s not actually all that true in this case it does kind of set the tone.
This is a movie of two elements, a drama and a musical. And the drama is great, fantastic at times though let down for me personally by one element which I’ll get to. The story of a director struggling to find his inspiration and having personal problems is very good. And that director is played by Daniel Day-Lewis but I sort of didn’t realise that for a while as I forgot he was in it.
I don’t know if its because he generally, from what I’ve seen, plays characters that have stand out qualities and mannerisms but I generally didn’t recognise him probably looking more like himself than normal. It’s a sign of a great actor. I got flashes of Lewis, but most of the time I was watching an Italian guy. A bad actor would have flashes of character. And when I say flashes in this case it literally was, just a glance. Great performance here. In fact the majority of the cast is damned good.
Marion Cotillard seemed a bit patchy to me but she had some great moments too. Her accent sounded a bit off. Nothing major to complain about, but just short of constantly good. Penelope Cruz on the other hand… I just don’t get it. I thought she was well cast in Vicky Christina Barcelona (which I found over rated) but she’s a bloody soap actress to me. She prima donna’s about, never has me believing she’s putting in a performance and pouts around. I don’t find her all that attractive but you’d think she was a goddess. A goddess with Meryl Streep hidden inside. She’s not, she’s a bit shit. And she was the weak point of the drama for me, though the character was no doubt meant to be like that.
She did sing admirably though. Everyone has a good set of pipes. But there is a bit problem with the films musical elements. They don’t fit very well. A few do blend in with the narrative but honestly it felt like I was pausing the movie, watching a music video and starting the movie again for most of them. After an hour I actually started dreading musical numbers cropping up. In a bloody MUSICAL that isn’t a good thing.
I’ll be doing Oscar posts soon so I’ll comment on the song that’s been nominated then. It’s “Take It All” but I thought it was “Be Italian”. I’m glad it wasn’t the later as while that’s a good number, it mainly stands out for the tambourines which is hardly a best song. It’s best percussion. And it is good percussion.
Maybe rent this, feel free to hit the skip button on the music numbers to get to the next chapter then listen to the soundtrack after. And next time film makers learn how to blend your music in to the film. I love me a musical, but you fucked this one up.
Next up: Crazy Heart
Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a legendary director, inspired by Fellini, working on his ninth film. The only problem is that there is no script and no idea. There is a title, Italia, but the director is burned out and overwhelmed with personal issues. Not surprising considering he has a wife, a mistress and is recognised wherever he goes. He’s also coming off a number of flops. So he tries to run away to the country, striving to find inspiration for his next masterpiece
When the first few minutes of a musical consist of people singing “La la la la” you know what your in for and it ain’t good. While that’s not actually all that true in this case it does kind of set the tone.
This is a movie of two elements, a drama and a musical. And the drama is great, fantastic at times though let down for me personally by one element which I’ll get to. The story of a director struggling to find his inspiration and having personal problems is very good. And that director is played by Daniel Day-Lewis but I sort of didn’t realise that for a while as I forgot he was in it.
I don’t know if its because he generally, from what I’ve seen, plays characters that have stand out qualities and mannerisms but I generally didn’t recognise him probably looking more like himself than normal. It’s a sign of a great actor. I got flashes of Lewis, but most of the time I was watching an Italian guy. A bad actor would have flashes of character. And when I say flashes in this case it literally was, just a glance. Great performance here. In fact the majority of the cast is damned good.
Marion Cotillard seemed a bit patchy to me but she had some great moments too. Her accent sounded a bit off. Nothing major to complain about, but just short of constantly good. Penelope Cruz on the other hand… I just don’t get it. I thought she was well cast in Vicky Christina Barcelona (which I found over rated) but she’s a bloody soap actress to me. She prima donna’s about, never has me believing she’s putting in a performance and pouts around. I don’t find her all that attractive but you’d think she was a goddess. A goddess with Meryl Streep hidden inside. She’s not, she’s a bit shit. And she was the weak point of the drama for me, though the character was no doubt meant to be like that.
She did sing admirably though. Everyone has a good set of pipes. But there is a bit problem with the films musical elements. They don’t fit very well. A few do blend in with the narrative but honestly it felt like I was pausing the movie, watching a music video and starting the movie again for most of them. After an hour I actually started dreading musical numbers cropping up. In a bloody MUSICAL that isn’t a good thing.
I’ll be doing Oscar posts soon so I’ll comment on the song that’s been nominated then. It’s “Take It All” but I thought it was “Be Italian”. I’m glad it wasn’t the later as while that’s a good number, it mainly stands out for the tambourines which is hardly a best song. It’s best percussion. And it is good percussion.
Maybe rent this, feel free to hit the skip button on the music numbers to get to the next chapter then listen to the soundtrack after. And next time film makers learn how to blend your music in to the film. I love me a musical, but you fucked this one up.
Next up: Crazy Heart
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Movie 47: Star Trek
The Vger probe is heading towards Earth and….wait, I didn’t just watch the one with the bald chick.
JJ Abrams 2009 of the original Star Trek series featuring the first missions of Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. That’s the one.
I’m not actually sure if I can put a plot synopsis that’s more than that up as it could be a spoiler. I’m unsure whether the nefarious deeds of the bad guy are revealed all that early on so I’ll just skip it. What I’ve said is kind of the big deal anyway.
And it is a big deal. Star Trek is 44 years old this year. That’s a LOT of continuity which frankly is all over the bloody place at this point. Just be glad the 100’s of novels aren’t considered cannon or there would be a shit load more contradictions and logic errors. Frankly it’s a bit of a mess. So what do you do?
Wipe them out. All of them.
The thing that annoyed me most in Enterprise, the last of the TV shows, was the stupid bloody time travel plot and the flippin terrorists. Fuck that. The first season was good old pulp sci fi and I loved it before they screwed everything up. So time travel had me a bit iffy about this film. For once they use it correctly.
Eric Bana’s Nero, and old Spock for that matter, travelling back through time create and alternate time line. Because they change stuff. Mainly Nero killing Kirk’s dad. The time line’s diverge and what we’re watching literally ISN’T your parents Star Trek kids. This is a very smart move on there part as it lets them do whatever the hell they want while keeping the classic characters. So there can’t be any fan boy bitching. Although I’m not actually aware of any so they didn’t have to worry.
There is actually a fan production called “Star Trek: New Voyages” which does basically what this film does. They are making season 4 of the original series, with new actors in the parts. But the actors aren’t doing impressions, they are just treating the characters as characters. After all, you don’t go and see someone doing an impression of whoever the first guy to play Macbeth was do you? It would be bloody ridiculous.
Here we have the same classic characters, the same characteristics, but with slightly new spins. Chris Pine’s Kirk has some mannerisms like Shatner’s, but not quite the same stilted speech paterns. He’s still an adventurous rebellious womaniser, possibly more so, but it’s not an impression. Simon Pegg’s Scotty is smart and enthusiastic, which is actually quite close to the young Doohan’s. Karl Urban nails McCoy’s grumpyness, but isn’t quite as gritty as Kelly’s. This probably reflects the fact that he’s a bit younger. They all do a good job basically. Except maybe Anton Yelchin as Chekov. Yes Chekov sounded pretty bad, but the acting wasn’t quite up to it. If they make him less of a parody in the next one it would be an improvement.
And there will be a next one, which is great. Unfortunately I can’t say whether people who don’t like Star Trek will like this as I grew up with it. I’ve seen everything bar Nemesis, the later seasons of Enterprise and a couple of Voyager episodes. I used to be a major Trekkie. I can say that original fans will love this though. There are a lot of little nods in here, and they treated it correctly while bringing plenty new. I for one look forward to Star Trek 2.
It won’t be Wrath of Khan, few things are, but it should still be good
Next up: Nine
JJ Abrams 2009 of the original Star Trek series featuring the first missions of Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. That’s the one.
I’m not actually sure if I can put a plot synopsis that’s more than that up as it could be a spoiler. I’m unsure whether the nefarious deeds of the bad guy are revealed all that early on so I’ll just skip it. What I’ve said is kind of the big deal anyway.
And it is a big deal. Star Trek is 44 years old this year. That’s a LOT of continuity which frankly is all over the bloody place at this point. Just be glad the 100’s of novels aren’t considered cannon or there would be a shit load more contradictions and logic errors. Frankly it’s a bit of a mess. So what do you do?
Wipe them out. All of them.
The thing that annoyed me most in Enterprise, the last of the TV shows, was the stupid bloody time travel plot and the flippin terrorists. Fuck that. The first season was good old pulp sci fi and I loved it before they screwed everything up. So time travel had me a bit iffy about this film. For once they use it correctly.
Eric Bana’s Nero, and old Spock for that matter, travelling back through time create and alternate time line. Because they change stuff. Mainly Nero killing Kirk’s dad. The time line’s diverge and what we’re watching literally ISN’T your parents Star Trek kids. This is a very smart move on there part as it lets them do whatever the hell they want while keeping the classic characters. So there can’t be any fan boy bitching. Although I’m not actually aware of any so they didn’t have to worry.
There is actually a fan production called “Star Trek: New Voyages” which does basically what this film does. They are making season 4 of the original series, with new actors in the parts. But the actors aren’t doing impressions, they are just treating the characters as characters. After all, you don’t go and see someone doing an impression of whoever the first guy to play Macbeth was do you? It would be bloody ridiculous.
Here we have the same classic characters, the same characteristics, but with slightly new spins. Chris Pine’s Kirk has some mannerisms like Shatner’s, but not quite the same stilted speech paterns. He’s still an adventurous rebellious womaniser, possibly more so, but it’s not an impression. Simon Pegg’s Scotty is smart and enthusiastic, which is actually quite close to the young Doohan’s. Karl Urban nails McCoy’s grumpyness, but isn’t quite as gritty as Kelly’s. This probably reflects the fact that he’s a bit younger. They all do a good job basically. Except maybe Anton Yelchin as Chekov. Yes Chekov sounded pretty bad, but the acting wasn’t quite up to it. If they make him less of a parody in the next one it would be an improvement.
And there will be a next one, which is great. Unfortunately I can’t say whether people who don’t like Star Trek will like this as I grew up with it. I’ve seen everything bar Nemesis, the later seasons of Enterprise and a couple of Voyager episodes. I used to be a major Trekkie. I can say that original fans will love this though. There are a lot of little nods in here, and they treated it correctly while bringing plenty new. I for one look forward to Star Trek 2.
It won’t be Wrath of Khan, few things are, but it should still be good
Next up: Nine
Monday, 15 February 2010
Movie 46: Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
No one believes Harry and Dumbledore’s claim that Voldermort has returned so they are derided in the press. The minister for magic flat out refuses to believe it, causing massive political problems for the two of them. When Harry uses magic to protect himself and Dudley from some Dumentors he nearly ends up in Azkaban prison, and the minister is so paranoid that Dumbledore is moving against him that he places a mole in Hogwaters. Power steadily moves to the pink, evil and twisted Dolores Umbridge making life miserable for the kids. Meanwhile, due to the fact they are being taught defensive magic, Harry forms an alternative practical defence against the dark arts class.
That’s the jist, don’t want to give any spoilers in case on of your is one of the 6 people in the world that hasn’t read the Potter books or watched the movies.
This isn’t going to be a book comparison. It’s been a while since I last read Order of the Phoenix and I can’t remember it well enough to do that. Also, it’s not fair. The films and books are different animals as it always is with adaptations. To make a film that includes everything in a book the size of Order of the Phoenix would be ridiculous. You’d have a 7 hour movie. Hell, even small paper backs would cause you some bother.
So yes this is trimmed to hell and back. It’s a bare bones version of the story. Gone are subplots and minor characters. But who cares? What it results in is a lean story that clips along. It doesn’t really feel like bunches of things have been removed. There are still side plots and character moments. They threw Krecher back in for a couple of scenes so that he fits in future books. Grawp could have been cut entirely but they didn’t. Book fans can’t really complain.
It’s also a rare series that gets better as each movie comes out. It could be argued that either this or Goblet of Fire is the high point so far, but there has been steady improvement. Which is understandable as the same could be said about the books. Not so sure about Half Blood Prince, I remember being a bit disappointed and sick of seeing the word snogging on every third page but we’ll get to that when I watch it.
One major thing that this film shows is how damned good British actors are. You know how good? David Tennant had a bit part in the 4th film. Fair enough, that was pre-Doctor Who but he was still a great actor then. How about the fact that Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters and a handful of others don’t get that much screen time but they’re still at the party? We have so many good actors they could be cast as bloody EXTRAS and we wouldn’t be wanting. Take note Hollywood.
This isn’t really one I have to recommend or not as you’ll either watch it, have watched it or don’t care either way. I liked it though.
Next up: Star Trek
That’s the jist, don’t want to give any spoilers in case on of your is one of the 6 people in the world that hasn’t read the Potter books or watched the movies.
This isn’t going to be a book comparison. It’s been a while since I last read Order of the Phoenix and I can’t remember it well enough to do that. Also, it’s not fair. The films and books are different animals as it always is with adaptations. To make a film that includes everything in a book the size of Order of the Phoenix would be ridiculous. You’d have a 7 hour movie. Hell, even small paper backs would cause you some bother.
So yes this is trimmed to hell and back. It’s a bare bones version of the story. Gone are subplots and minor characters. But who cares? What it results in is a lean story that clips along. It doesn’t really feel like bunches of things have been removed. There are still side plots and character moments. They threw Krecher back in for a couple of scenes so that he fits in future books. Grawp could have been cut entirely but they didn’t. Book fans can’t really complain.
It’s also a rare series that gets better as each movie comes out. It could be argued that either this or Goblet of Fire is the high point so far, but there has been steady improvement. Which is understandable as the same could be said about the books. Not so sure about Half Blood Prince, I remember being a bit disappointed and sick of seeing the word snogging on every third page but we’ll get to that when I watch it.
One major thing that this film shows is how damned good British actors are. You know how good? David Tennant had a bit part in the 4th film. Fair enough, that was pre-Doctor Who but he was still a great actor then. How about the fact that Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters and a handful of others don’t get that much screen time but they’re still at the party? We have so many good actors they could be cast as bloody EXTRAS and we wouldn’t be wanting. Take note Hollywood.
This isn’t really one I have to recommend or not as you’ll either watch it, have watched it or don’t care either way. I liked it though.
Next up: Star Trek
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Movie 45: Il Divo
I HAVE to steal the Flixster synopsis, for reasons that will be expanded upon:
For more than 50 years, he has been Italy’s most powerful, feared and enigmatic politician. And as Giulio Andreotti begins his seventh term as Prime Minister, he and his hardliner faction take control of a country reeling from the brazen murders of several high-level bankers, judges and journalists, as well as the kidnapping and assassination of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. But as the Christian Democrat party crumbles in a nationwide bribery scandal, suspicion begins to fall on Andreotti himself as the center of a shocking conspiracy involving the Vatican, the Mafia and the secret neo-Fascist Masonic Lodge P2. In what is called “The Trial of the Century”, Italy’s legendary Senator for Life will stand accused of corruption, collusion and murder.
And now I know what the film I just watched was about. Cause I didn’t have a clue while watching it!
Let’s get the good out of the way first. This film LOOKS great. Not in the same way as #44 but its shot beautifully. I also enjoyed the soundtrack, plenty of good tunes on there. And the Italian language is a beautiful one to listen to, very melodic, so that was nice.
There is one huge over arching problem though. I didn’t know what it was about for the most part. The trial was rather obvious yes, but before then I was quite lost. Characters are thrown in and leave and if you don’t know the history, which I didn’t, you won’t have a clue who they are or if they are important.
The passage of time isn’t all that apparent either. I don’t know if this spanned months or years as it looks the same the whole way through. The montage of mafia killings at the start obviously span years as they are dated, but the main narrative….well it would be nice if there was a calendar or a character that wasn’t old so aging would be obvious. That wouldn’t work if it’s a short time span.
I’m also not entirely sure if it’s a straight narrative or if some of it is out of order. There’s two scenes that make me think that some of it was non-linear, but its hard to tell really.
And as I wasn’t familiar with the history, I don’t know if the central performance by Toni Servillo was good or not. It’s hard to believe he would have such a staid eccentric performance unless Andreotti was actually like that so I’m assuming he did a good job. And everyone else probably did well too. I don’t think anyone sucked or anything, I just have no freakin clue what was going on really.
So it’s pretty, it sounds good and it’s confusing as hell. Wonderful. Exactly what you want in a historical political picture.
Whether he was mobbed up or not, well I guess so? Seemed that way? Dunno. Not even sure if its open to question. But frankly I WANT my Italian politicians to be mobbed up. Berlisconi is a complete criminal bastard, but it’s entertaining as hell to see from the outside. I wouldn’t want him in charge of my country, or anyone like that really, but if the Italian’s just changed the head of their countries title to “Don” and let it be run openly by wise guys I’d be happy. In Parliament they’d be shouting “HEY!” and “Oh!” at each other. It would be GREAT!
Looks like I’m asking for Jersey to take over huh? Eh, couldn’t hoit.
Next up: Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
For more than 50 years, he has been Italy’s most powerful, feared and enigmatic politician. And as Giulio Andreotti begins his seventh term as Prime Minister, he and his hardliner faction take control of a country reeling from the brazen murders of several high-level bankers, judges and journalists, as well as the kidnapping and assassination of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. But as the Christian Democrat party crumbles in a nationwide bribery scandal, suspicion begins to fall on Andreotti himself as the center of a shocking conspiracy involving the Vatican, the Mafia and the secret neo-Fascist Masonic Lodge P2. In what is called “The Trial of the Century”, Italy’s legendary Senator for Life will stand accused of corruption, collusion and murder.
And now I know what the film I just watched was about. Cause I didn’t have a clue while watching it!
Let’s get the good out of the way first. This film LOOKS great. Not in the same way as #44 but its shot beautifully. I also enjoyed the soundtrack, plenty of good tunes on there. And the Italian language is a beautiful one to listen to, very melodic, so that was nice.
There is one huge over arching problem though. I didn’t know what it was about for the most part. The trial was rather obvious yes, but before then I was quite lost. Characters are thrown in and leave and if you don’t know the history, which I didn’t, you won’t have a clue who they are or if they are important.
The passage of time isn’t all that apparent either. I don’t know if this spanned months or years as it looks the same the whole way through. The montage of mafia killings at the start obviously span years as they are dated, but the main narrative….well it would be nice if there was a calendar or a character that wasn’t old so aging would be obvious. That wouldn’t work if it’s a short time span.
I’m also not entirely sure if it’s a straight narrative or if some of it is out of order. There’s two scenes that make me think that some of it was non-linear, but its hard to tell really.
And as I wasn’t familiar with the history, I don’t know if the central performance by Toni Servillo was good or not. It’s hard to believe he would have such a staid eccentric performance unless Andreotti was actually like that so I’m assuming he did a good job. And everyone else probably did well too. I don’t think anyone sucked or anything, I just have no freakin clue what was going on really.
So it’s pretty, it sounds good and it’s confusing as hell. Wonderful. Exactly what you want in a historical political picture.
Whether he was mobbed up or not, well I guess so? Seemed that way? Dunno. Not even sure if its open to question. But frankly I WANT my Italian politicians to be mobbed up. Berlisconi is a complete criminal bastard, but it’s entertaining as hell to see from the outside. I wouldn’t want him in charge of my country, or anyone like that really, but if the Italian’s just changed the head of their countries title to “Don” and let it be run openly by wise guys I’d be happy. In Parliament they’d be shouting “HEY!” and “Oh!” at each other. It would be GREAT!
Looks like I’m asking for Jersey to take over huh? Eh, couldn’t hoit.
Next up: Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Movie 44: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
The amazing Doctor Parnassus is immortal thanks to a deal with the devil, who he continues to wager with. The Doctor has a magical mirror that enables people to enter their imagination and experience they’re perfect world. As part of a previous deal with the devil he has to give up his daughter on her 16th birthday, which is in a couple of days, unless he can win the new wager and get 5 people to make the right choice of path before the Devil gets 5. When the travelling troupe save a hanging man, Tony, it looks like they just might be in with a shot.
That’s a very rough synopsis as its kind of hard to sum this film up. It’s Terry Gilliam and therefore very weird. And this is Dali levels of weird.
I wasn’t a fan of Terry’s Python cartoons really. A lot of the time they felt like a chance to go and make a cuppa before the funny guys came back on again. I have enjoyed a number of his previous movies though. The Monty Python films obviously, Time Bandits, Brazil, Baron Munchausen and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are all movies I can recommend (though Bandits and Baron are vague recommendations as I can’t really remember them all that well). Criminally I haven’t seen Twelve Monkeys yet but that could happen this year, and I wish him luck with this try and Don Quixote as Lost in La Mancha showed some promise. But this here movie? Didn’t quite gel together. Particularly the second half.
The visuals are pretty damned stunning, especially in imagination land. It really IS like a Dali painting and I love me some Dali. So the film looks great, the plot just goes all to fuck later on. Though this might be due to the unfortunately needed re-writes.
This is of course Heath Ledger’s final performance, and he died while they were filming. It worked out quite well that he seemed to have done all of his real life bits though as it enabled other actors to cover the imagination sections. Heath does a great job as always. It annoys me when someone dies and suddenly they’re a genius and a saint, but I honestly haven’t seen him in something that I thought HE was shit in. This is no different though I think that the sections that he wasn’t able to film would have been the real shining ones here.
But Johnny Depp (unfortunately the shortest section), Jude Law and Colin Farrell all fill in admirably. The later two are hit and miss actors but they do an able job here. Alas the same can’t be said for all of the cast which is part of the reason this didn’t click all the way with me.
Andrew Garfield’s Anton is a pain in the butt frankly. That might be the character more than the actor. Verne Troyer is alright, but he’s no Warrick Davis. He has his moments, but nothing special. And Tom Waits…well he’s not primarily an actor is he? The Devil, or Mr Nick here, is a very important character. When he’s played correctly he’s AMAZING. Just look at Reaper for an example. The Devil is one of the best literary characters going, but due to a so-so performance here he’s not. He’s like a zoot suit villain from a B grade 50’s cartoon, without the zazz. I really think that having someone properly capable in this role would have punched the movie up a notch.
As would sorting out that second half. But the fact they pulled it off at all is a miracle. If you don’t like surreal movies, or haven’t like Gilliam in the past then don’t waste your time as this won’t convert you. If you do then don’t expect the best movie you’ve seen from him, but it ain’t bad. And it sure is purdy.
Next up: Il Divo
That’s a very rough synopsis as its kind of hard to sum this film up. It’s Terry Gilliam and therefore very weird. And this is Dali levels of weird.
I wasn’t a fan of Terry’s Python cartoons really. A lot of the time they felt like a chance to go and make a cuppa before the funny guys came back on again. I have enjoyed a number of his previous movies though. The Monty Python films obviously, Time Bandits, Brazil, Baron Munchausen and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are all movies I can recommend (though Bandits and Baron are vague recommendations as I can’t really remember them all that well). Criminally I haven’t seen Twelve Monkeys yet but that could happen this year, and I wish him luck with this try and Don Quixote as Lost in La Mancha showed some promise. But this here movie? Didn’t quite gel together. Particularly the second half.
The visuals are pretty damned stunning, especially in imagination land. It really IS like a Dali painting and I love me some Dali. So the film looks great, the plot just goes all to fuck later on. Though this might be due to the unfortunately needed re-writes.
This is of course Heath Ledger’s final performance, and he died while they were filming. It worked out quite well that he seemed to have done all of his real life bits though as it enabled other actors to cover the imagination sections. Heath does a great job as always. It annoys me when someone dies and suddenly they’re a genius and a saint, but I honestly haven’t seen him in something that I thought HE was shit in. This is no different though I think that the sections that he wasn’t able to film would have been the real shining ones here.
But Johnny Depp (unfortunately the shortest section), Jude Law and Colin Farrell all fill in admirably. The later two are hit and miss actors but they do an able job here. Alas the same can’t be said for all of the cast which is part of the reason this didn’t click all the way with me.
Andrew Garfield’s Anton is a pain in the butt frankly. That might be the character more than the actor. Verne Troyer is alright, but he’s no Warrick Davis. He has his moments, but nothing special. And Tom Waits…well he’s not primarily an actor is he? The Devil, or Mr Nick here, is a very important character. When he’s played correctly he’s AMAZING. Just look at Reaper for an example. The Devil is one of the best literary characters going, but due to a so-so performance here he’s not. He’s like a zoot suit villain from a B grade 50’s cartoon, without the zazz. I really think that having someone properly capable in this role would have punched the movie up a notch.
As would sorting out that second half. But the fact they pulled it off at all is a miracle. If you don’t like surreal movies, or haven’t like Gilliam in the past then don’t waste your time as this won’t convert you. If you do then don’t expect the best movie you’ve seen from him, but it ain’t bad. And it sure is purdy.
Next up: Il Divo
Friday, 12 February 2010
Movie 43: Up In The Air
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is an expert at firing people and he travels from city to city doing it. He lives on planes and in airports, always moving, and has an empty backpack philosophy that he gives talks on about not being weighed down by possessions and connections. One day Ryan is recalled to base as the company is going to replace its current system with a new internet one design by Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Ryan then has to take Natalie along with him to show her how its done which he isn’t happy about but may help him prove his point that this is a face to face thing.
And along his travels he meets up with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a kindred traveller. They form a relationship of sorts. The two women in his life may cause him to rethink his current life goal, hitting 10 million air miles, and aim for a more conventional one of a family.
I think my synopsis lost it a bit at the end there. This is a character piece for all intents and purposes, tied in with a relationship movie. Not a romantic comedy as its not that fluffy.
Character pieces live and die on whether you like the characters and whether they are well formed. I have probably said that already this year. A character like Ryan Bingham should be hard to like. He’s a grim reaper, he swoops in, destroys your life then leaves. But he’s not hard to like. He cares about what he does and he’s somewhat damaged himself. And he’s played by Gorgeous George. It’s not easy to NOT like Gorgeous George and he’s at his best here.
Relationship films only work if the chemistry is there. And it is, Alex and Ryan’s relationship develops naturally and there are nice little coupley type moments that wouldn’t be believable if the two actors didn’t click.
So the film works. I wouldn’t call it outstanding, it might be a bit underdeveloped or something. It won’t be something that gets pulled off my shelf any time soon for a second watch. But it is a well put together movie. But like the main characters it feels like its best if it just flits in to my life then flits off again, maybe being run in to some day on a movie channel and watched for a bit. That sounds like criticism but its not, MOST films are like that if you think about it.
It does have one particularly stand out quality though. Danny McBride. I am not a fan. I thought I might be, but I hadn’t seen him in anything I particularly like him in. He’s a new skool SNL style comic (dunno if he’s ever been in SNL) and his characters, that I’ve seen, were unfunny and just arses. I don’t hate him in this. Sure he’s barely in it, but I didn’t want to skip the scenes he was in. That’s pretty frikkin remarkable to be honest.
Check it out, possibly on pay per view in a hotel.
Next up: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
And along his travels he meets up with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a kindred traveller. They form a relationship of sorts. The two women in his life may cause him to rethink his current life goal, hitting 10 million air miles, and aim for a more conventional one of a family.
I think my synopsis lost it a bit at the end there. This is a character piece for all intents and purposes, tied in with a relationship movie. Not a romantic comedy as its not that fluffy.
Character pieces live and die on whether you like the characters and whether they are well formed. I have probably said that already this year. A character like Ryan Bingham should be hard to like. He’s a grim reaper, he swoops in, destroys your life then leaves. But he’s not hard to like. He cares about what he does and he’s somewhat damaged himself. And he’s played by Gorgeous George. It’s not easy to NOT like Gorgeous George and he’s at his best here.
Relationship films only work if the chemistry is there. And it is, Alex and Ryan’s relationship develops naturally and there are nice little coupley type moments that wouldn’t be believable if the two actors didn’t click.
So the film works. I wouldn’t call it outstanding, it might be a bit underdeveloped or something. It won’t be something that gets pulled off my shelf any time soon for a second watch. But it is a well put together movie. But like the main characters it feels like its best if it just flits in to my life then flits off again, maybe being run in to some day on a movie channel and watched for a bit. That sounds like criticism but its not, MOST films are like that if you think about it.
It does have one particularly stand out quality though. Danny McBride. I am not a fan. I thought I might be, but I hadn’t seen him in anything I particularly like him in. He’s a new skool SNL style comic (dunno if he’s ever been in SNL) and his characters, that I’ve seen, were unfunny and just arses. I don’t hate him in this. Sure he’s barely in it, but I didn’t want to skip the scenes he was in. That’s pretty frikkin remarkable to be honest.
Check it out, possibly on pay per view in a hotel.
Next up: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Movie 42: Coco Before Chanel
Two young girls are left at an orphanage by their father. They grow up to be a cabaret act, though not really a successful one. The eldest hooks up with a baron, and the younger of the two (Coco) slowly ends up with another, and an English gent. She’s harsh and has a taste for simpler fashions than is the style, but has a talent for making hats.
Blah blah. This never clicked with me to be honest. We all know that Coco is going to become a clothes designer as who hasn’t heard of Chanel? Unfortunately I don’t care about clothes. If you do the last 10 minutes will probably be heaven, but it was just a bunch of walking mannequins as far as I’m concerned.
I never really cared about most of the characters either. Coco herself is extremely staid most of the time, basically just grumpy. And the men are either boorish or gentlemanly cads. Two women at a time is never romantic in my book.
So this was a bit of a tough watch and I don’t have much to say about it really. It was a boring period romance in French with some not very good romance.
I did like the little Coco song they were doing in their cabaret act though
Next up: Up In The Air
Blah blah. This never clicked with me to be honest. We all know that Coco is going to become a clothes designer as who hasn’t heard of Chanel? Unfortunately I don’t care about clothes. If you do the last 10 minutes will probably be heaven, but it was just a bunch of walking mannequins as far as I’m concerned.
I never really cared about most of the characters either. Coco herself is extremely staid most of the time, basically just grumpy. And the men are either boorish or gentlemanly cads. Two women at a time is never romantic in my book.
So this was a bit of a tough watch and I don’t have much to say about it really. It was a boring period romance in French with some not very good romance.
I did like the little Coco song they were doing in their cabaret act though
Next up: Up In The Air
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Movie 41: How To Lose Friends And Alienate People
This is also movie 1400 that I’ve rated on Criticker. While that’s not a definitive list, its roughly everything I’ve ever watched. Yay! That’s nearly a movie a week since I was born :S
Anyway, Sydney Young is the writer and editor of Post Modern Magazine, a small magazine about movies and such like. He’s opinionated and a bit of an arse. He gets offered a job in New York working for I want to say Snope’s Magazine, one of the biggest rags in the business. So he goes hoping to shake things up, but finding that he gets corrupted himself.
And when he moved he forgot to pack the funny. This is based on someone’s memoir apparently and god they had a dull life. Okay that’s not quite fair as my own memoir would be a lot more boring, but as this is meant to be a comedy they missed a bit. I laughed once.
Simon Pegg is a damned fine actor, and he can be funny as hell. However, the two non Spaced team movies I can remember seeing him in have been rather flat. This and Run, Fatboy, Run are both relatively generic rom com type fair with Pegg playing someone who’s a bit of a cock. Both have had lacklustre scripts and have just been a bit standard really.
It’s not a terrible film, but there’s nothing particularly great about it either. Pegg and most of the cast do fine, Megan Fox pouts her way through the whole thing (I think the character is supposed to be a bit vapid, but she literally NEVER fully closes her mouth). I can’t actually remember what the one laugh was, but the majority of jokes can be seen coming from a mile away and the love story is generic and not organically developed.
Not saying to avoid it, just don’t go on a hunt.
Next up: Coco Before Chanel
Anyway, Sydney Young is the writer and editor of Post Modern Magazine, a small magazine about movies and such like. He’s opinionated and a bit of an arse. He gets offered a job in New York working for I want to say Snope’s Magazine, one of the biggest rags in the business. So he goes hoping to shake things up, but finding that he gets corrupted himself.
And when he moved he forgot to pack the funny. This is based on someone’s memoir apparently and god they had a dull life. Okay that’s not quite fair as my own memoir would be a lot more boring, but as this is meant to be a comedy they missed a bit. I laughed once.
Simon Pegg is a damned fine actor, and he can be funny as hell. However, the two non Spaced team movies I can remember seeing him in have been rather flat. This and Run, Fatboy, Run are both relatively generic rom com type fair with Pegg playing someone who’s a bit of a cock. Both have had lacklustre scripts and have just been a bit standard really.
It’s not a terrible film, but there’s nothing particularly great about it either. Pegg and most of the cast do fine, Megan Fox pouts her way through the whole thing (I think the character is supposed to be a bit vapid, but she literally NEVER fully closes her mouth). I can’t actually remember what the one laugh was, but the majority of jokes can be seen coming from a mile away and the love story is generic and not organically developed.
Not saying to avoid it, just don’t go on a hunt.
Next up: Coco Before Chanel
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Movie 40: In The Loop
A minor British cabinet minister makes a slip up in an interview and comes across as pro war. His comments cause an escalation on both sides of the pond towards a war stance (its not clear if this is Iraq or an imaginary war) and he finds himself caught in the middle of both sides.
That’s a rough plot description as its hard to synops…synopsis…condense. The plot doesn’t matter too much as this is a big chunk of political satire of both the UK and the US governments. And by big chunk I mean big as the original cut was 4.5 hours, though the theatrical is just under 2.
The two countries to satire a wee bit differently, but not that much. In the US you have The Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher and Fox News. In the UK we’ve got Mock The Week, 8 Out of Ten Cats, Have I Got News for You and in the past Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister, The Day Today and Spitting Image. All worth looking up for clips. This is more in the vein of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister but with a shit load more swearing.
Director and one of the writers Armando Iannucci has been a staple of UK comedy, including the afore mentioned The Day Today. He’s been involved in some great comedy over the years and this is nothing different as its funny as hell. Mainly due to the fact that everyone just insults the hell out of everyone else, with one, well two, big standouts.
Peter Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker works for the press office and he’s a civil servant. He’s also a sweary sweary bastard. And his counter part, the angriest man in Scotland (though they’re both Scottish and Malcolm is much more angry) Jamie Macdonald is pretty much as bad. And they’re pretty damned quotable. You know the Gunnery Sergeant scene in Full Metal Jacket? That for an hour and a half. I’ll save the bother of quoting anything and you can just read the whole quote section on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/quotes
Or just watch the movie. The two of them are hilarious. And the rest of the cast do a damned fine job too.
This looks a bit like the office, as its people working in offices and is shot with hand helds. And frankly I think HBO or someone, The Will Be Swears, should develop a political office type show spanning both sides of the pond as it would be HUGE if the quality lived up to this movie.
Go watch, or I’ll hole punch your face.
Next up: How To Lose Friends And Alienate People
That’s a rough plot description as its hard to synops…synopsis…condense. The plot doesn’t matter too much as this is a big chunk of political satire of both the UK and the US governments. And by big chunk I mean big as the original cut was 4.5 hours, though the theatrical is just under 2.
The two countries to satire a wee bit differently, but not that much. In the US you have The Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher and Fox News. In the UK we’ve got Mock The Week, 8 Out of Ten Cats, Have I Got News for You and in the past Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister, The Day Today and Spitting Image. All worth looking up for clips. This is more in the vein of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister but with a shit load more swearing.
Director and one of the writers Armando Iannucci has been a staple of UK comedy, including the afore mentioned The Day Today. He’s been involved in some great comedy over the years and this is nothing different as its funny as hell. Mainly due to the fact that everyone just insults the hell out of everyone else, with one, well two, big standouts.
Peter Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker works for the press office and he’s a civil servant. He’s also a sweary sweary bastard. And his counter part, the angriest man in Scotland (though they’re both Scottish and Malcolm is much more angry) Jamie Macdonald is pretty much as bad. And they’re pretty damned quotable. You know the Gunnery Sergeant scene in Full Metal Jacket? That for an hour and a half. I’ll save the bother of quoting anything and you can just read the whole quote section on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/quotes
Or just watch the movie. The two of them are hilarious. And the rest of the cast do a damned fine job too.
This looks a bit like the office, as its people working in offices and is shot with hand helds. And frankly I think HBO or someone, The Will Be Swears, should develop a political office type show spanning both sides of the pond as it would be HUGE if the quality lived up to this movie.
Go watch, or I’ll hole punch your face.
Next up: How To Lose Friends And Alienate People
Monday, 8 February 2010
Movie 39: A Serious Man
A Serious Man is a black comedy set in, well lets just say late 60’s as there are some iffy details. Larry Gopnik is possibly up for tenure, his wife is leaving him, his son keeps complaining about the TV signal, he has a minor boundary dispute with his neighbours and his brother Arthur is sleeping on his couch. Basically bad shit keeps happening to Larry.
And to round it out there’s a side plot with his son smoking a fair bit of weed while preparing for his Bar Mitzvah and trying to get a radio back so he can give the big guy he bought the weed from the $20 he owes him that’s stuck in the back.
It’s nice watching a movie without any preconceptions. I didn’t realise until the end that I had read about this a little, I forgot that this was the Coen’s latest. In fact I got the title twisted up with A Single Man and was expecting to see Colin Firth being a gay. This made the pre-credit opening, about a family dealing with a…vampire or demon? A Rabbi who is supposedly dead. Anyway, I wondered what the hell that was doing before A Single Man.
And of course it wasn’t because I’m an idiot. While its still strange to have a scene seemingly, though not entirely, unrelated to the rest of the movie set 100 years before in a Polish village its far from the only strange element in A Serious Man. Hell, most of it is strange. You’ve got a junior Rabbi imploring Larry to look at the car park, a South Korean student who can’t do the physics math and insists he didn’t try and bribe Larry while admitting it and the cuckold of the story, Sy Ableman, being very friendly while trying to get Larry to have a Get (a ritual Jewish divorce, running gag of people not knowing what it is), and in the later half Larry has some vivid and bizarre dreams.
Sy is A Serious Man, and Larry tries to be a serious man. For a film with so many people trying to be serious its damned funny. And very Jewish.
Everyone is good in this, though nothing mind blowing really. Larry is very well played by Michael Stuhlbarg. The performance and character actually reminded me a fair bit of the lead character in Eraserhead. While this is a bit weird it’s obviously not on that level of fucked uppery, but the lead goes through with a puzzled expression. Larry’s a lot like that. Bad stuff keeps happening to him and he has no idea what the hell is going on most of the time, looking like a lost puppy and trying to do good for everyone.
And the experience is much the same for the viewer. Don’t expect a lot of explanations, though its not a hard film to follow. Not everything gets neatly tied up, the film doesn’t conclude with a nice little bow. There’s a lot of religious allusions here, stuff I didn’t really notice as I’m not religious and have never been Jewish (its old testament mainly though) but for those in the know Larry is basically Job.
Character pieces like this live and die on two things. Did you like, or at least find believable, the characters and is the writing any good. A Serious Man ticks both of those boxes. And it kinda reminded me of the Wonder Years in its look which isn’t a bad thing.
Next up: In The Loop
And to round it out there’s a side plot with his son smoking a fair bit of weed while preparing for his Bar Mitzvah and trying to get a radio back so he can give the big guy he bought the weed from the $20 he owes him that’s stuck in the back.
It’s nice watching a movie without any preconceptions. I didn’t realise until the end that I had read about this a little, I forgot that this was the Coen’s latest. In fact I got the title twisted up with A Single Man and was expecting to see Colin Firth being a gay. This made the pre-credit opening, about a family dealing with a…vampire or demon? A Rabbi who is supposedly dead. Anyway, I wondered what the hell that was doing before A Single Man.
And of course it wasn’t because I’m an idiot. While its still strange to have a scene seemingly, though not entirely, unrelated to the rest of the movie set 100 years before in a Polish village its far from the only strange element in A Serious Man. Hell, most of it is strange. You’ve got a junior Rabbi imploring Larry to look at the car park, a South Korean student who can’t do the physics math and insists he didn’t try and bribe Larry while admitting it and the cuckold of the story, Sy Ableman, being very friendly while trying to get Larry to have a Get (a ritual Jewish divorce, running gag of people not knowing what it is), and in the later half Larry has some vivid and bizarre dreams.
Sy is A Serious Man, and Larry tries to be a serious man. For a film with so many people trying to be serious its damned funny. And very Jewish.
Everyone is good in this, though nothing mind blowing really. Larry is very well played by Michael Stuhlbarg. The performance and character actually reminded me a fair bit of the lead character in Eraserhead. While this is a bit weird it’s obviously not on that level of fucked uppery, but the lead goes through with a puzzled expression. Larry’s a lot like that. Bad stuff keeps happening to him and he has no idea what the hell is going on most of the time, looking like a lost puppy and trying to do good for everyone.
And the experience is much the same for the viewer. Don’t expect a lot of explanations, though its not a hard film to follow. Not everything gets neatly tied up, the film doesn’t conclude with a nice little bow. There’s a lot of religious allusions here, stuff I didn’t really notice as I’m not religious and have never been Jewish (its old testament mainly though) but for those in the know Larry is basically Job.
Character pieces like this live and die on two things. Did you like, or at least find believable, the characters and is the writing any good. A Serious Man ticks both of those boxes. And it kinda reminded me of the Wonder Years in its look which isn’t a bad thing.
Next up: In The Loop
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Movie 38: Food, inc
A look at the American food industry, the big problems with industrial farming and highlighting the good side of old skool farming. Along with how big, nasty and powerful the companies are.
Our first documentary! I’m not actually sure how to review a doc. All they come down to is “interesting” “important” or “boring”.
This is one of the important ones. I didn’t learn all that much from it because…well I pay attention and most of us know that cheap food is generally crap food that doesn’t match the outside of the packet. I did learn some though. I had no idea the situation was as bad as it was, and it’s pretty fuckin bad. This isn’t a first term thing for Obama, I want him back and some of the results of changing the way food works will be unpopular to begin with. No one wants to pay more money. But it’s something he should tackle, at least a little, in a second term. You can’t come back anyway so just go for the big boys.
You read my blog right? I know I can’t vote for you, but I get others to.
Anywho, I like many of you have a diet that contains a lot of crap. It’s not entirely by choice. If I had more money I’d buy more of the good stuff. I’m not saying ALL the good stuff, I like drinking a Pepsi and I like some junk food. I’m not a hippy preacher. I did make some minor changes in my diet a couple of years back though. I used to buy a lot of frozen chicken things, like those Bird’s Eye coated breasts. I loved those, particularly the honey mustard one. Emphasis on loved.
I have no idea if they actually degraded in quality or not, though I’m sure I saw a “new recipe” label. Take note, new and improved on the box is probably directed at the shareholders more than at the consumer. They USED to be more of less a chicken breast. Processed sure, but it looked like a bit of meat when you cut in to it and it tasted like meat when you ate it. By this I mean that you could pull apart actual muscle.
I’m a carnivore and proud (well omnivore). I have absolutely no issues with knowing that what I’m munching on was once skipping about, or possibly stuck in a pen which I’m not all that happy about. I WANT to be able to nibble on small individual bits of meat.
Anyway at some point these chicken breast things started to be kinda mush. They were watery and tasteless. There was the occasional bit of what seemed to be actual meat, but that was like finding a triple monkey nut. So I stopped buying them and started just buying lumps of meat. Didn’t cost much more, tasted a whole lot better. It was still cheapish so could have been battery based, but at least it was food and not food product.
Without getting into details I think my digestion improved a fair bit too. I thought it was from eating too late at night, but I don’t think that was the cause of my dodgy guts. Btw, I haven’t eaten at McDonald’s in 3 and a half years either. I felt REALLY ill after eating there the last time and won’t go back (except MAYBE a drunken McChicken Sandwich. No burgers though). I’ll happily pay an extra 2 quid for something less ecoli flavoured.
Wow that’s a lot of rambling. So basically the movie message is it’s worth the extra couple of quid, everyone would still be able to eat fine and we’d be healthier. So buy better food and they’ll make more better food (more better meaning quantity, not bad grammar quality). And they’re right. Pick up some fucking broccoli and get an organic chicken dammit.
Btw, to balance the fact that it looks like I'm bashing Bird's Eye a bit, I picked up some New Southern Fried Bird's Eye Chicken Wings the other day. They're really nice and actual chicken so I can recommend those. The karmic scales are now even.
Next up: A Serious Man
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Movie 37: The Secret of Kells
Nicked synopsis from Criticker/Wikipedia:
The story is set in the 9th century. Twelve year old Brendan is educated by his uncle, Abbot Cellach, who holds a firm grip on his nephew and expects him to follow in his footsteps. One day, Brendan meets Brother Aidan, a master illustrator who shows him the beauty of art and stimulates his creativity and fantasy. Finally, Brendan decides to break free in search of his dream: completing the valuable Book of Kells. On his journey through the forest, he has to face his biggest fears.
His biggest fears being the outside world, wolves, Vikings and the third dimension apparently.
If I said the plot and story had no depth I wouldn’t be being strictly accurate as there is some. It’s a bit tedious and not all that exciting or funny or…anything but its not terrible. Brother Aidan is a likeable character, Abbot Cellach is well voiced by Brendan Gleeson and Aidan’s cat (who going by the end appears to be either immortal, magical or remarkably sprightly for an old cat. I have an 18 year old cat and she’s not anywhere close to as nippy as……..couldn’t make out its name) has some personality about it.
If I said the FILM had no depth though, I’d be right. This is HIGHLY stylised. I guess the style is a bit like Samurai Jack in places but it felt fairly 70’s to me. It’s extremely 2 dimensional, and by that I mean very very flat. Now I have no problem with styles, I like some. But I also don’t like others. It’s a personal taste thing and everyone is the same.
I used to read a fair number of comics. As much as I’m attracted to comics by the writing, Warren Ellis being a particular favourite, art plays a big part. I like the style of The Amazing Wolfman which isn’t the most conventional, but I can’t read Hellboy. Haven’t even tried as the art puts me off too much. I really like the films, well the first one mainly the second is alright, and I love the premise. I’d probably really like the comics writing and plot. But I just can’t read it.
And that’s the main problem I had with this. At times the art was really quite nice. The way the Viking horde was portrayed, bar their long boats, worked quite well though not always. But big square characters, flat forests and rectangular hands annoyed me. I’m guessing it was done in the style of Bible illuminations which makes sense and I can understand, but it just didn’t work for me.
All in all it felt kind of like a student production. There’s 57 companies at the start of this and it appears to be an Irish/Canadian/French/Whoever production which sometimes rings warning bells for me. Your in for some arty nonsense with a narrow appeal when they need funding from all over.
Not terrible, but far from great. The Oscar nomination baffles me a bit but I suppose its so they have an arty entry. I’d not have bothered and given it to Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs myself…
Next up: Food, inc.
The story is set in the 9th century. Twelve year old Brendan is educated by his uncle, Abbot Cellach, who holds a firm grip on his nephew and expects him to follow in his footsteps. One day, Brendan meets Brother Aidan, a master illustrator who shows him the beauty of art and stimulates his creativity and fantasy. Finally, Brendan decides to break free in search of his dream: completing the valuable Book of Kells. On his journey through the forest, he has to face his biggest fears.
His biggest fears being the outside world, wolves, Vikings and the third dimension apparently.
If I said the plot and story had no depth I wouldn’t be being strictly accurate as there is some. It’s a bit tedious and not all that exciting or funny or…anything but its not terrible. Brother Aidan is a likeable character, Abbot Cellach is well voiced by Brendan Gleeson and Aidan’s cat (who going by the end appears to be either immortal, magical or remarkably sprightly for an old cat. I have an 18 year old cat and she’s not anywhere close to as nippy as……..couldn’t make out its name) has some personality about it.
If I said the FILM had no depth though, I’d be right. This is HIGHLY stylised. I guess the style is a bit like Samurai Jack in places but it felt fairly 70’s to me. It’s extremely 2 dimensional, and by that I mean very very flat. Now I have no problem with styles, I like some. But I also don’t like others. It’s a personal taste thing and everyone is the same.
I used to read a fair number of comics. As much as I’m attracted to comics by the writing, Warren Ellis being a particular favourite, art plays a big part. I like the style of The Amazing Wolfman which isn’t the most conventional, but I can’t read Hellboy. Haven’t even tried as the art puts me off too much. I really like the films, well the first one mainly the second is alright, and I love the premise. I’d probably really like the comics writing and plot. But I just can’t read it.
And that’s the main problem I had with this. At times the art was really quite nice. The way the Viking horde was portrayed, bar their long boats, worked quite well though not always. But big square characters, flat forests and rectangular hands annoyed me. I’m guessing it was done in the style of Bible illuminations which makes sense and I can understand, but it just didn’t work for me.
All in all it felt kind of like a student production. There’s 57 companies at the start of this and it appears to be an Irish/Canadian/French/Whoever production which sometimes rings warning bells for me. Your in for some arty nonsense with a narrow appeal when they need funding from all over.
Not terrible, but far from great. The Oscar nomination baffles me a bit but I suppose its so they have an arty entry. I’d not have bothered and given it to Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs myself…
Next up: Food, inc.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Movie 36: The Princess And The Frog
Tiana is a young girl who dreams of owning her own restaurant, a dream that she inherited from her now dead father. Her best friend wants to be a Princess and believes that wishes on stars can come true, though Tiana goes more for hard work. A Prince finally arrives for Charlotte, but unknown to her he’s broke. He falls for the tricks of the Shadow Man, a Voodoo practitioner, and is turned in to a frog. Tiana kisses him in the hopes of getting the rest of the money she needs to start her restaurant but instead of turning him human it makes her a frog. The two set off to try and get back to being human and foil the Shadow Man.
And that’s the broad strokes. Wow, just WOW!
I didn’t expect much of this to be honest. It’s Disney’s first return to hand drawn animation in a few years, and it has some Pixar folks behind it, but I’m not a big Disney guy. Good Disney yes, but much of it isn’t. This is fucking GREAT Disney.
The animation is lovely yes. It harkens back to the old days with classic character designs and the backgrounds are gorgeous. It looks very nostalgic, like this is a lost classic from some alternate universe that’s been dug up. That’s basically what I expected to get from it, looks pretty but generally meh story.
It’s not a meh story. For a start they thrown in lots of little visual gags, probably more than I spotted on a first watch. Tiana is a very positive role model, maybe needs to learn to relax a bit, but a big message of the movie is that you get rewarded for working hard. That might not always be true, but its still better than wishing.
The Prince himself is a bit spoiled, but he’s genuinely funny and charming. He’s a frog for most of the movie but that’s one damned charismatic and funny frog.
Disney movies steadily, to me anyway, started to hang themselves on the funny side characters. And there’s a good pair of them here. Louis, a trumpet playing gator who wants to be human, and Raymond (Ray to his friends) a Cajun bayou firefly with a couple of teeth, a dodgy bum light and who’s in love with Venus who he thinks is a firefly called Evangeline. The two of them are funny as hell, but also well rounded characters.
And Dr “Shadow Man” Facilier….well he’s a classic Disney villain. Out for himself, some scary magic powers and a bit of a nasty piece of work. Some of the stuff around him will scare little kids (he has shadow monster friends) just the right amount. His counter part, Mama Odie, is a quirky old blind woman who lives in a boat in a tree and she’s funny and wise. Like Yoda before he got all grumpy.
The songs by Randy Newman are damned catchy Jazz numbers for the most part, all well performed and toe tapping. So just what you want really.
I can’t recommend this one enough. A word of warning though. Well more than one word. If you’re a big girl like me then take some hankies with you as there’s a moment in this film that’s just tragic and heart breaking. Its something I wouldn’t expect from a Disney movie but its pays off nicely. There shouldn’t be a dry eye in the house, unless you’re a jaded heartless bastard. Which I can be too, but this makes you a kid again.
Stop reading and go fucking see it NOW! Then drag every kid you know to see it cause this should be there Jungle Book or Robin Hood.
Actually I just remembered that good Disney has the no punch pulling sad moments, it makes you laugh and cry then sigh. So I shouldn’t have been surprised at all…
Next up: The Secret of Kells
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Movie 35: The Stone of Destiny
The true (ish) story of a group of students in 1950 who steal the Stone of Destiny back from the English. The Stone is what Scotland’s Kings were crowned on, and is part of the British coronation chair. After a group called the Covenant fail to get a devolved parliament for Scotland the group realise its because people have pretty much given up, so decide they need a symbol and the stone would be perfect.
You get the jist.
RIGHT first off I’m a Scottish Nationalist and proud of that fact. I write Scottish on forms. I vote SNP. I campaigned in the “Vote Yes” referendum that got us a devolved parliament and I also campaigned for the Inverness East constituency in the, I think, 2000 election? Might have been 99. We won anyway and it wasn’t an SNP seat before that. What I’m saying is I’m biased.
So I could go on a big screed here about various reasons WHY people wouldn’t want to be Independent. Why a lot of Scottish people feel the way they do. Little things like Queen Elizabeth the second should actually be called the second and first as Scotland never had a Queen Elizabeth before her, and big things like the Poll Tax. BUT I won’t cause that’s not what this blog is about
I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I already knew the story, think most people do. Scottish kids anyway, I’m pretty sure I heard about it in history class. And they do miss out a big part which is the rumour/myth that the stone which was given back is a fake. If you want to learn a bit about that then watch the final episode of Hamish Macbeth staring Robert Carlyle as that’s what its about. It’s a bit overly patriotic probably, but I’m alright with that cause I can be too.
I did have one big issue with it though, something that dropped a 5 star to 4. You have to go three down the cast list on IMDB to find someone Scottish. The two main actors aren’t from here. The lead, Charlie Cox, is from London and his accent can be fairly patchy. He does an okay job, but I can hear it coming through. The female lead, Kate Mara, is from New York. Her accent at time is decidedly Irish. Now I have heard worse than these two, but couldn’t they find anyone local?! I was available! And the right flippin age!
That aside it is good, if a big capery at the start of the third reel. But we’ve had William Wallace played by an American, Rob Roy played by an Irishman, and now this. Any chance of a Scottish film with more than a Scottish supporting cast please? I work cheap dammit!
Next up: The Princess And The Frog
You get the jist.
RIGHT first off I’m a Scottish Nationalist and proud of that fact. I write Scottish on forms. I vote SNP. I campaigned in the “Vote Yes” referendum that got us a devolved parliament and I also campaigned for the Inverness East constituency in the, I think, 2000 election? Might have been 99. We won anyway and it wasn’t an SNP seat before that. What I’m saying is I’m biased.
So I could go on a big screed here about various reasons WHY people wouldn’t want to be Independent. Why a lot of Scottish people feel the way they do. Little things like Queen Elizabeth the second should actually be called the second and first as Scotland never had a Queen Elizabeth before her, and big things like the Poll Tax. BUT I won’t cause that’s not what this blog is about
I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I already knew the story, think most people do. Scottish kids anyway, I’m pretty sure I heard about it in history class. And they do miss out a big part which is the rumour/myth that the stone which was given back is a fake. If you want to learn a bit about that then watch the final episode of Hamish Macbeth staring Robert Carlyle as that’s what its about. It’s a bit overly patriotic probably, but I’m alright with that cause I can be too.
I did have one big issue with it though, something that dropped a 5 star to 4. You have to go three down the cast list on IMDB to find someone Scottish. The two main actors aren’t from here. The lead, Charlie Cox, is from London and his accent can be fairly patchy. He does an okay job, but I can hear it coming through. The female lead, Kate Mara, is from New York. Her accent at time is decidedly Irish. Now I have heard worse than these two, but couldn’t they find anyone local?! I was available! And the right flippin age!
That aside it is good, if a big capery at the start of the third reel. But we’ve had William Wallace played by an American, Rob Roy played by an Irishman, and now this. Any chance of a Scottish film with more than a Scottish supporting cast please? I work cheap dammit!
Next up: The Princess And The Frog
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Movie 34: W.
Oliver Stone’s first screwball comedy. What would happen if you got an idiot alcoholic who’s always screwing up and made him President? Hilarity insues! Wait…..what do you mean this is a biopic? Oh, Dubya. Shit that did happen didn’t it…
Actually this is, to quote Fox News, a fairly fair and balanced movie. It would be easy to just mock Bush, make him look like a full and a monster and be done with it. It wouldn’t be very good film making though. While I can’t say I ever really got to a point where I’d want to get drunk with the guy, just not my kind of person I guess, this is far from a massive slagging match. It shows some of his mistakes, both youthful and verbal, but also shows that he’s just a guy who took the wrong advice from some folks. And who has MASSIVE daddy issues. Pretty much anyone can see that anyway, hell I’ve been thinking that was part of the reason behind Iraq for years.
It would also have been easy to just characateur the people involved. Jon Stewart does a great job of that, or did, on The Daily Show. So Josh Brolin could have been a laughing monkey, Richard Dreyfus could have been the Penguin from the old Batman series…but they aren’t. They do nail some of the mannerism of the people they’re playing. Dreyfus had the twisted mouth snarl down a few times in the movie. Alas we didn’t get too see too much of what could have been done with the VP, but this movie was called W after all.
At times, hell for most of the movie, you could close your eyes and have trouble telling the difference between Brolin and Bush. He absolutely nails the voice and some of the physical characteristics of Dubya. And all the other notables do pretty damned good too.
But this isn’t Saturday Night Live. It’s not a mocking sketch, it’s not a slander piece from what I can tell, it’s just the story of the man laid out there. He might argue some of the daddy stuff but who wouldn’t. For everyone expecting a liberal hate attack of a “look at the silly monkey man” film you’ll be disappointed. But it’s hardly Frost / Nixon either.
Good, not amazing, and the Republicans among you if there are any will probably still hate it so just give it a miss.
Next up: Stone of Destiny
Actually this is, to quote Fox News, a fairly fair and balanced movie. It would be easy to just mock Bush, make him look like a full and a monster and be done with it. It wouldn’t be very good film making though. While I can’t say I ever really got to a point where I’d want to get drunk with the guy, just not my kind of person I guess, this is far from a massive slagging match. It shows some of his mistakes, both youthful and verbal, but also shows that he’s just a guy who took the wrong advice from some folks. And who has MASSIVE daddy issues. Pretty much anyone can see that anyway, hell I’ve been thinking that was part of the reason behind Iraq for years.
It would also have been easy to just characateur the people involved. Jon Stewart does a great job of that, or did, on The Daily Show. So Josh Brolin could have been a laughing monkey, Richard Dreyfus could have been the Penguin from the old Batman series…but they aren’t. They do nail some of the mannerism of the people they’re playing. Dreyfus had the twisted mouth snarl down a few times in the movie. Alas we didn’t get too see too much of what could have been done with the VP, but this movie was called W after all.
At times, hell for most of the movie, you could close your eyes and have trouble telling the difference between Brolin and Bush. He absolutely nails the voice and some of the physical characteristics of Dubya. And all the other notables do pretty damned good too.
But this isn’t Saturday Night Live. It’s not a mocking sketch, it’s not a slander piece from what I can tell, it’s just the story of the man laid out there. He might argue some of the daddy stuff but who wouldn’t. For everyone expecting a liberal hate attack of a “look at the silly monkey man” film you’ll be disappointed. But it’s hardly Frost / Nixon either.
Good, not amazing, and the Republicans among you if there are any will probably still hate it so just give it a miss.
Next up: Stone of Destiny
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Movie 33: Let The Right One In
Let The Right One In is a tale of adolescent love. The boy, a bullied child with murder fantasies who seems to be a bit obsessed with death, and the girl, a vampire. Okay so maybe it’s not just a sweet little love story. It’s about a boy and his vampire neighbour finding sort of kindred spirits.
And neither of them sparkle. Okay, no more Twilight slagging jokes.
I actually possibly learned something from this movie. As many if not all of the people reading this know, Scotland had a bit of a Viking problem a couple of centuries ago. By problem I mean they raped and pillaged our country a lot. That’s okay though cause they like to drink and their afterlife is kick ass. Anyway, on the east coast a word for something that is good is braw. This appears to be Swedish for good. So that’s probably where we got it from. I found that interesting.
Me discussing the origins of Scots, or possibly Doric, words probably makes you think this was either boring or I didn’t like it which is far from the case. It’s a very well made vampire movie.
Essentially it’s just about the trials of the life. You get to see the various aspects of being a vamp, or looking after one, and the perils that come with it. Eli appears to be similar to a traditional Werewolf rather than a vampire, unhappy with her lot and kinda tired with all the crap that comes with it.
Oskar is bullied in quite nasty ways, probably mainly because he’s bookish and pretty weird. There are a few tense moments, particularly the one at the end, where you wonder how bad its going to be. Which mirrors the main characters situation.
While the acting is occasionally clunky, which will happen with a young cast, the film doesn’t really pull any punches. And the young love story is well handled and includes at least one thing that I’ll bet all the money in my pockets won’t be included in the inevitable American remake “Let Me In”.
If you’ve ever liked a good Vampire movie then check this one out. And by good I mean the like of Near Dark. This isn’t Blade, and I doubt it shares to much with that one I hinted at earlier and will try not to slag too much in case I actually kind of like it when I get there.
Next up: W.
And neither of them sparkle. Okay, no more Twilight slagging jokes.
I actually possibly learned something from this movie. As many if not all of the people reading this know, Scotland had a bit of a Viking problem a couple of centuries ago. By problem I mean they raped and pillaged our country a lot. That’s okay though cause they like to drink and their afterlife is kick ass. Anyway, on the east coast a word for something that is good is braw. This appears to be Swedish for good. So that’s probably where we got it from. I found that interesting.
Me discussing the origins of Scots, or possibly Doric, words probably makes you think this was either boring or I didn’t like it which is far from the case. It’s a very well made vampire movie.
Essentially it’s just about the trials of the life. You get to see the various aspects of being a vamp, or looking after one, and the perils that come with it. Eli appears to be similar to a traditional Werewolf rather than a vampire, unhappy with her lot and kinda tired with all the crap that comes with it.
Oskar is bullied in quite nasty ways, probably mainly because he’s bookish and pretty weird. There are a few tense moments, particularly the one at the end, where you wonder how bad its going to be. Which mirrors the main characters situation.
While the acting is occasionally clunky, which will happen with a young cast, the film doesn’t really pull any punches. And the young love story is well handled and includes at least one thing that I’ll bet all the money in my pockets won’t be included in the inevitable American remake “Let Me In”.
If you’ve ever liked a good Vampire movie then check this one out. And by good I mean the like of Near Dark. This isn’t Blade, and I doubt it shares to much with that one I hinted at earlier and will try not to slag too much in case I actually kind of like it when I get there.
Next up: W.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Movie 32: Kill Switch
Hello February. From now on it gets steadily more difficult to work out if I’m all caught up or not!
I actually got some of the points for the synopsis from reading other ones online and not the movie itself. I’ll address those points after.
Steven Seagal play a detective who is troubled by the fact that he watched the murder of his twin brother when they were children. He’s on the trail of two serial killers, one he catches right at the start and the other he’s hunting for throughout the movie. And the first one gets out on appeal mainly because he was too heavy handed in the arrest so he has to catch him again.
It’s a dumb action movie, so plot schmot. Actually its trying to be a smart detective story but it doesn’t get past sm. Inexplicably Seagal has a…well I think its New Orleans accent. This is inexplicable for two reasons. 1) The film is set in Memphis and 2) he appears to be from the precinct that he’s working in. Going by the last few minutes, where I was essentially asking the screen what the fuck was going on, he travels back to his family in somewhere that people speak French. And everyone gets presents. I’m not sure if its meant to be Christmas or not. I thought he had a relationship with one of the cops who he appeared to live with, but either he doesn’t or they’re just friends or she’s a bit on the side. It’s not really clear.
As for the twin brother murder flash backs. I didn’t realise it was his twin brother. They seem to be at a birthday party and the cake seemed to only have “Happy Birthday Daniel” on it. It might have had two names, I have no idea. And the kids might have looked the same, in fact that would explain some of the confusion I had as two who was going to be murdered. I don’t remember him ever actually addressing the whole thing in the present day.
I know I said a few reviews ago that I like Seagal movies. Not all of them though. This is utter DREK. The dialogue is damned awful and half the time I couldn’t understand his “obligatory pithy one liners”. And the god damned editing is atrocious. Every single fight scene is like MTV on steroids, and has repeat shots like old kung fu movies. And in two separate action scenes they intersplice shots of Seagal looking stoic. But it’s the same damned shot over and over. Very noticeably the same shot. That’s just lazy.
Sure this cost about $5 to make and sure its just a dumb DTDVD movie, but it could have been way better if a writer had taken a shot at the script, someone had directed it and they had a decent supporting cast. But none of those things happened so I just wasted 90 minutes and lost a tiny piece of my soul.
Next up: Let The Right One In
I actually got some of the points for the synopsis from reading other ones online and not the movie itself. I’ll address those points after.
Steven Seagal play a detective who is troubled by the fact that he watched the murder of his twin brother when they were children. He’s on the trail of two serial killers, one he catches right at the start and the other he’s hunting for throughout the movie. And the first one gets out on appeal mainly because he was too heavy handed in the arrest so he has to catch him again.
It’s a dumb action movie, so plot schmot. Actually its trying to be a smart detective story but it doesn’t get past sm. Inexplicably Seagal has a…well I think its New Orleans accent. This is inexplicable for two reasons. 1) The film is set in Memphis and 2) he appears to be from the precinct that he’s working in. Going by the last few minutes, where I was essentially asking the screen what the fuck was going on, he travels back to his family in somewhere that people speak French. And everyone gets presents. I’m not sure if its meant to be Christmas or not. I thought he had a relationship with one of the cops who he appeared to live with, but either he doesn’t or they’re just friends or she’s a bit on the side. It’s not really clear.
As for the twin brother murder flash backs. I didn’t realise it was his twin brother. They seem to be at a birthday party and the cake seemed to only have “Happy Birthday Daniel” on it. It might have had two names, I have no idea. And the kids might have looked the same, in fact that would explain some of the confusion I had as two who was going to be murdered. I don’t remember him ever actually addressing the whole thing in the present day.
I know I said a few reviews ago that I like Seagal movies. Not all of them though. This is utter DREK. The dialogue is damned awful and half the time I couldn’t understand his “obligatory pithy one liners”. And the god damned editing is atrocious. Every single fight scene is like MTV on steroids, and has repeat shots like old kung fu movies. And in two separate action scenes they intersplice shots of Seagal looking stoic. But it’s the same damned shot over and over. Very noticeably the same shot. That’s just lazy.
Sure this cost about $5 to make and sure its just a dumb DTDVD movie, but it could have been way better if a writer had taken a shot at the script, someone had directed it and they had a decent supporting cast. But none of those things happened so I just wasted 90 minutes and lost a tiny piece of my soul.
Next up: Let The Right One In
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)