So here is my review of 2009. 2009 was not the best year for film. Most films, especially the highly awaited ones were very mediocre. 2009 provided only a handful of really good films and not all of those did well at the box office. January started well with the fantastic Frost/Nixon, the enjoyable Australia, with Slumdog Millionaire and Defiance worth a mention as great films. A definitely above average Oscar season. The post-Oscar season in February was drab as usual with Bolt being particularly disappointing, Franklyn was a highlight as a very well made film. One of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year was Watchmen. Unfortunately Zach Snyder decided to make it long and depressing rather than a watchable film experience. March was redeemed by the Damned United, a well made and enjoyable film and Duplicity which was enjoyable but just that small x-factor (not the tv show) short of achieving the same stylishness of Oceans 11. April saw 2 poor British films in The Boat that Rocked and In the Loop but 2 much better American films in State of Play and Monsters vs Aliens. May saw the Summer start well Coraline and Angels and Demons were both good films but were both overshadowed by Star Trek, the film that set the benchmark for this Summer's films. June saw Terminator: Salvation and Night at the Museum 2 entertain but not even get close to Star Trek. July saw the 2 big films Transformer 2 and Harry Potter 6 both live up to expectations and compete with Star Trek as great films. Michael Mann's Public Enemies was disappointing and Year One leads the race for the worst film of the year. August saw a host of mediocre films, Ice Age 3 had its moments but was not as good as its predecessors and The Hurt Locker is boring, not much happens and is not worth all the awards and nominations it is getting. September saw the rejected Oscar films and District 9. No one saw District 9 coming. It did so well mostly due to lack of competition but was well acted and compelling. The Soloist and Dorian Grey were ok but why they were out is September was understandable. Julie and Julia was the highlight of September, it was charming, funny, made you laugh and made you cry. Possibly a bit too nice for the Oscars but Meryl Streep and Amy Adams were superb. October half term was flooded with kids films of which 2 were outstanding, Up and the Fantastic Mr Fox. Up was a great film, it may suffer from not being quite up to the standard of Pixar's best but was the best animated film of the year. November was all about Twilight 2 which was better than the first, silly in places but was clearly still trying to be a good film and was therefore ultimately not. The Men Who Stare at Goats was entertaining while a Christmas Carol was terrible. December saw Glorious 39 be almost brilliant but not, The Informant and Where the Wild Things are disappoint and Avatar be exactly what we wanted.
After all that my shortlist for Film of 2009 is: Avatar, Up, The Fantastic Mr Fox, Julie and Julia, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, The Damned United, Monsters vs Aliens, State of Play and Star Trek.
Excluded due to Pete Award Nominations: Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire and Defiance.
My film of 2009 is Julie and Julia, 2nd, Up and 3rd, Star Trek.
Sunday 17 January 2010
Thursday 3 December 2009
December Films
Glorious 39
This is the latest Brit indie film from Stephen Poliakoff who has recent specialised in TV. The cast is an assembly of some of the best British talent: Romola Garai (the central performer who recently appeared on TV as Emma), Bill Nighy, Julie Christie, David Tennant, Christopher Lee, Charlie Cox and Jenny Agutter among others. Consequently the acting is good and the direction is good maintaining tension for the first 3/4 of the film. The plot is a kind of 1930s 39 Steps, and espionage thriller about a group of people who don't want Britain to go to war with Germany (not because of ideology but because they don't want a war) so are attempting to remove any opposition to the Chamberlain government. Romola Garai and her boyfriend Charlie Cox find out about this but are helpless when everybody they tell dies. The downfall of this film is that it tries to be indie, it tries to defy convention when if it had decided to go with the conventional ending it could have been a fantastic film. Unfortunately it tries to be different and distinctive and unfortunately falls flat at the end with an ending that serves little point when it could have been the spy film of the decade.
The Informant
Steven Soderbergh must be close to winning the prize for the worst year in cinema. His biopic of Che Guevara was released too late for the Oscars and split in 2 both parts of which flopped at the box office (so badly they finished before I had a chance to see either) after lukewarm reviews and a realisation that very few people are actually fascinated with Che Guevara and lots of people don't consider him the good guy. After that he made this film which has flopped to the extent that I caught its last showing at my cinema 2 weeks after release. I can see why too. The Informant is about a man who appears to be a whistleblower on corporate corruption but end up having also stolen millions from his company and being a compulsive liar. The film presents itself as light-hearted but ends up spending too much time trying to help you understand its complex story to make you laugh and gimmicks such as the Matt Damon voiceover that never says anything to do with the plot becomes stale after a while. This film feels a bit like Soderbergh is trying to do what he did with Oceans 11 except that it lacks the style and coolness of Oceans 11 and lacks the jokes to be a comedy. Parts of the film in music and camera angles are as though Soderbergh is sending up 70s spy film (James Bond at least twice) but these are not more than vague references to films that very few people watched and even fewer remember, not stylish or funny enough and to be honest slightly boring, 6/10.
Law Abiding Citizen
Gerard Butler is obviously the cheapest "name" actor in Hollywood as he is churning out mediocre films at an alarming rate. The plot of this film is that Gerard Butler's home is broken into by 2 assailants; he is knocked unconscious while his wife and daughter are murdered. James Foxx's career driven prosecutor, afraid of the prospect of losing, gets one of the offenders to testify against the other resulting in one of the perpetrators getting the death penalty and the other going free much to the anger of Gerard Butler who sees this as an injustice. 10 years later the execution of the convicted killer goes wrong and ends up being much more painful than it should have been. Shortly after the other killer is brutally killed and Gerard Butler confesses to the crime and is imprisoned. However, killings continue and it becomes clear that Gerard Butler wants to bring down the legal system that denied him justice but how s he doing it from prison. The film plays out its plot well, there is a sense that Butler and Foxx are doing for the pay check not the quality of script but the film is executed well enough. The opening scenes are more violent than necessary and if the film had understood that it isn't that good and inserted a bit more fun into the mix it would have been improved. The quality of twist at the end was always going to decide the quality of this film an it is quite good, 6/10.
Where The Wild Things Are
Max, a young boy, gets angry at his Mum, runs away to an island populated by wild things. They make him their king and together they build a fort, however, things don't go to plan and Max decides to leave and go home. Spike Jonze directed music videos before films, the trailer was a music video and this film has a sense that he wants it to be a music video. The film does some things well, the wild things are wild and have their dark side and everything about the films looks brilliant. However, the lack of plot tells in the film, there is not enough fun and enjoyment in the film, the poetic elements of the filming don't quite work and the film ends up being a serious examination of childhood when childhood is meant to be about fun and innocence. I needed to be able to enjoy the film and I didn't 5/10.
Avatar
This is the one we have been waiting for, the special effects adventure to end all special effects adventures. The plot is basically the evil military company wants the resources under the home of the peaceful forest dwelling Navi who won't leave their home. Sam Worthington uses an Avatar (Navi body) to spy on the Navi and ends up liking them falling in love with one of them and leading them to battle the vastly technologically superior humans. Visually the film is fantastic, all the money that went into technology was well spent. The rest of the film is standard blockbuster fare, well executed and very enjoyable. The film is also very well acted from a comparatively little known cast and has illusions from Iraq to global warming. If the film has faults they are these: at almost 3 hours it is a little over long for a not incredibly complex plot and the final battle where they are saved by mother nature is a bit of a stretch. A great film nonetheless, 8/10.
This is the latest Brit indie film from Stephen Poliakoff who has recent specialised in TV. The cast is an assembly of some of the best British talent: Romola Garai (the central performer who recently appeared on TV as Emma), Bill Nighy, Julie Christie, David Tennant, Christopher Lee, Charlie Cox and Jenny Agutter among others. Consequently the acting is good and the direction is good maintaining tension for the first 3/4 of the film. The plot is a kind of 1930s 39 Steps, and espionage thriller about a group of people who don't want Britain to go to war with Germany (not because of ideology but because they don't want a war) so are attempting to remove any opposition to the Chamberlain government. Romola Garai and her boyfriend Charlie Cox find out about this but are helpless when everybody they tell dies. The downfall of this film is that it tries to be indie, it tries to defy convention when if it had decided to go with the conventional ending it could have been a fantastic film. Unfortunately it tries to be different and distinctive and unfortunately falls flat at the end with an ending that serves little point when it could have been the spy film of the decade.
The Informant
Steven Soderbergh must be close to winning the prize for the worst year in cinema. His biopic of Che Guevara was released too late for the Oscars and split in 2 both parts of which flopped at the box office (so badly they finished before I had a chance to see either) after lukewarm reviews and a realisation that very few people are actually fascinated with Che Guevara and lots of people don't consider him the good guy. After that he made this film which has flopped to the extent that I caught its last showing at my cinema 2 weeks after release. I can see why too. The Informant is about a man who appears to be a whistleblower on corporate corruption but end up having also stolen millions from his company and being a compulsive liar. The film presents itself as light-hearted but ends up spending too much time trying to help you understand its complex story to make you laugh and gimmicks such as the Matt Damon voiceover that never says anything to do with the plot becomes stale after a while. This film feels a bit like Soderbergh is trying to do what he did with Oceans 11 except that it lacks the style and coolness of Oceans 11 and lacks the jokes to be a comedy. Parts of the film in music and camera angles are as though Soderbergh is sending up 70s spy film (James Bond at least twice) but these are not more than vague references to films that very few people watched and even fewer remember, not stylish or funny enough and to be honest slightly boring, 6/10.
Law Abiding Citizen
Gerard Butler is obviously the cheapest "name" actor in Hollywood as he is churning out mediocre films at an alarming rate. The plot of this film is that Gerard Butler's home is broken into by 2 assailants; he is knocked unconscious while his wife and daughter are murdered. James Foxx's career driven prosecutor, afraid of the prospect of losing, gets one of the offenders to testify against the other resulting in one of the perpetrators getting the death penalty and the other going free much to the anger of Gerard Butler who sees this as an injustice. 10 years later the execution of the convicted killer goes wrong and ends up being much more painful than it should have been. Shortly after the other killer is brutally killed and Gerard Butler confesses to the crime and is imprisoned. However, killings continue and it becomes clear that Gerard Butler wants to bring down the legal system that denied him justice but how s he doing it from prison. The film plays out its plot well, there is a sense that Butler and Foxx are doing for the pay check not the quality of script but the film is executed well enough. The opening scenes are more violent than necessary and if the film had understood that it isn't that good and inserted a bit more fun into the mix it would have been improved. The quality of twist at the end was always going to decide the quality of this film an it is quite good, 6/10.
Where The Wild Things Are
Max, a young boy, gets angry at his Mum, runs away to an island populated by wild things. They make him their king and together they build a fort, however, things don't go to plan and Max decides to leave and go home. Spike Jonze directed music videos before films, the trailer was a music video and this film has a sense that he wants it to be a music video. The film does some things well, the wild things are wild and have their dark side and everything about the films looks brilliant. However, the lack of plot tells in the film, there is not enough fun and enjoyment in the film, the poetic elements of the filming don't quite work and the film ends up being a serious examination of childhood when childhood is meant to be about fun and innocence. I needed to be able to enjoy the film and I didn't 5/10.
Avatar
This is the one we have been waiting for, the special effects adventure to end all special effects adventures. The plot is basically the evil military company wants the resources under the home of the peaceful forest dwelling Navi who won't leave their home. Sam Worthington uses an Avatar (Navi body) to spy on the Navi and ends up liking them falling in love with one of them and leading them to battle the vastly technologically superior humans. Visually the film is fantastic, all the money that went into technology was well spent. The rest of the film is standard blockbuster fare, well executed and very enjoyable. The film is also very well acted from a comparatively little known cast and has illusions from Iraq to global warming. If the film has faults they are these: at almost 3 hours it is a little over long for a not incredibly complex plot and the final battle where they are saved by mother nature is a bit of a stretch. A great film nonetheless, 8/10.
November Films
Twilight: New Moon
The Twilight series is the film executive's dream. The first film was successful despite having no "big" name actors, very few special effects, a poor script, no plot and is completely resistant to all bad reviews. The first film, which I didn't review in this blog due to the fact that I didn't bother to see it in the cinema (although I did finally see it on DVD) had one attraction which was that it was so bad that it was very funny in places. The second in the series has a new director (Chris Weitz) and some new cast (Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning) and is better. The film starts slowly but once it gets going it is funny in places, particularly the cinema scene, and there are some action sequences, particularly the forest scene, that are good. Having said that the key cast is very poor, the plot is terrible and the result of the film not being quite so bad also means that it is less laughable. All these flaws, however, you know going into the film, going into the film you know there will be a dim girl, vampires and attractive men showing off their torsos and that's exactly what you get, 6/10.
The Men Who Stare at Goats.
This is a comedy about a journalist (Ewan McGregor) who goes on a trip into Iraq in 2003 with a retired psychic warrior or Jedi (George Clooney). Over the course of the trip the journalist finds out all about the Us Army's Jedi programme, its founder (Jeff Bridges) and the ambitious soldier who brings it down (Kevin Spacey). This is a fun romp poking fun at all the Iraq war films and the US military as well as a lot of Colod War spy thrillers. Clooney is on form as his Jedi warrior, playing it entirely dead pan as is Bridges who is fantastically realised as the hippie army commander and Kevin Spacey the ambitious youngster. The film falls down in that it is constantly being silly but never really makes you laugh hard. There are very few actual jokes, one liners or bits when you are meant to laught the film is just silly and for a film which is an unadulterated comedy it is not quite enough. A good film but could be funnier, 7/10.
Taking Woodstock.
This is the story of an intelligent, popular Jewish boy who turns down his prospects of a successful lifestyle to resurrect his parents failing farm/hotel by persuading the town to hold the Woodstock music festival. The film for the first 3/4 is a charming and funny story of a new graduate who turns down the opportunity to move to San Francisco and pursue his dreams to save his Polish immigrant parents hotel from bankruptcy and explores his relationship with his parents. The acting is good, Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodwin are particular highlights with good support from Liev Schreiber. The final part where the festival actually takes place is slow with no particular plot and a pointless and unfunny drug trip with Paul Dano. The film tries to capture the Woodstock sub culture by including lots of drugs and nudity which goes over the top and distracts from the central point of the film which is a much more moral story about parental relationships and money. This could have been a great film but ultimately is just unfulfilled potential, 6/10.
A Christmas Carol
Robert Zemekis has been working motion capture technology ever since it became viable in an attempt to make everyone else catch on. With the upcoming Tintin films, made with updated mocap technology developed for Avatar, maybe it will but Zemekis has made the Polar Express, Beowolf and now Christmas Carol without really showing the technology to be any better than real life or making any really good films in the process. I will admit that the bar for a good adaptation of A Christmas Carol is very high with great versions from Alistair Sim, Patrick Stewart and the best of them all from the Muppets it was always going to be hard to make this good. Zemekis goes for over the top accents and action sequences to try and bring a new flavour to this film. However, the fun bits of this aren't funny and the serious bits aren't sad, the film fails to draw in the viewer. The ghosts, particularly the ghost of Christmas past, are poorly presented and Jim Carrey is not on great form as Scrooge. Bearing in mind the quality of the previous adaptations of this Dickens novel you need to have a good idea and a new perspective to bring on this tale if you want to tell it, Zemekis has no new ideas just a new technology toybox and technology alone does not make great films, 4/10.
The Twilight series is the film executive's dream. The first film was successful despite having no "big" name actors, very few special effects, a poor script, no plot and is completely resistant to all bad reviews. The first film, which I didn't review in this blog due to the fact that I didn't bother to see it in the cinema (although I did finally see it on DVD) had one attraction which was that it was so bad that it was very funny in places. The second in the series has a new director (Chris Weitz) and some new cast (Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning) and is better. The film starts slowly but once it gets going it is funny in places, particularly the cinema scene, and there are some action sequences, particularly the forest scene, that are good. Having said that the key cast is very poor, the plot is terrible and the result of the film not being quite so bad also means that it is less laughable. All these flaws, however, you know going into the film, going into the film you know there will be a dim girl, vampires and attractive men showing off their torsos and that's exactly what you get, 6/10.
The Men Who Stare at Goats.
This is a comedy about a journalist (Ewan McGregor) who goes on a trip into Iraq in 2003 with a retired psychic warrior or Jedi (George Clooney). Over the course of the trip the journalist finds out all about the Us Army's Jedi programme, its founder (Jeff Bridges) and the ambitious soldier who brings it down (Kevin Spacey). This is a fun romp poking fun at all the Iraq war films and the US military as well as a lot of Colod War spy thrillers. Clooney is on form as his Jedi warrior, playing it entirely dead pan as is Bridges who is fantastically realised as the hippie army commander and Kevin Spacey the ambitious youngster. The film falls down in that it is constantly being silly but never really makes you laugh hard. There are very few actual jokes, one liners or bits when you are meant to laught the film is just silly and for a film which is an unadulterated comedy it is not quite enough. A good film but could be funnier, 7/10.
Taking Woodstock.
This is the story of an intelligent, popular Jewish boy who turns down his prospects of a successful lifestyle to resurrect his parents failing farm/hotel by persuading the town to hold the Woodstock music festival. The film for the first 3/4 is a charming and funny story of a new graduate who turns down the opportunity to move to San Francisco and pursue his dreams to save his Polish immigrant parents hotel from bankruptcy and explores his relationship with his parents. The acting is good, Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodwin are particular highlights with good support from Liev Schreiber. The final part where the festival actually takes place is slow with no particular plot and a pointless and unfunny drug trip with Paul Dano. The film tries to capture the Woodstock sub culture by including lots of drugs and nudity which goes over the top and distracts from the central point of the film which is a much more moral story about parental relationships and money. This could have been a great film but ultimately is just unfulfilled potential, 6/10.
A Christmas Carol
Robert Zemekis has been working motion capture technology ever since it became viable in an attempt to make everyone else catch on. With the upcoming Tintin films, made with updated mocap technology developed for Avatar, maybe it will but Zemekis has made the Polar Express, Beowolf and now Christmas Carol without really showing the technology to be any better than real life or making any really good films in the process. I will admit that the bar for a good adaptation of A Christmas Carol is very high with great versions from Alistair Sim, Patrick Stewart and the best of them all from the Muppets it was always going to be hard to make this good. Zemekis goes for over the top accents and action sequences to try and bring a new flavour to this film. However, the fun bits of this aren't funny and the serious bits aren't sad, the film fails to draw in the viewer. The ghosts, particularly the ghost of Christmas past, are poorly presented and Jim Carrey is not on great form as Scrooge. Bearing in mind the quality of the previous adaptations of this Dickens novel you need to have a good idea and a new perspective to bring on this tale if you want to tell it, Zemekis has no new ideas just a new technology toybox and technology alone does not make great films, 4/10.
Thursday 19 November 2009
October Films
October and half term arrived on time as usual and with a bigger than usual collection of family films that were either held back to avoid an over congested Summer after an over congested Summer 2008 or pushed forward to avoid Avatar and New Moon at Christmas.
Up, this year's Pixar film suffered from being moved from a Summer release in the UK (though it had one in the US) so that Disney's G-Force wouldn't crash and burn at the box office. The story is of a man who marries his childhood sweetheart who shares his dream of going to South America and exploring. They live their lives together unable to fulfil their dream and she dies without being able to live her dream, and this is just the first 5 minutes. Her husband is about to be put in an old person's home so decides to fly his house to South America using helium balloons. On the way he discovers that on his porch is a boy scout who is trying desperately to get his helping the elderly badge (it's the only one he need) so that his father will come to the awarding ceremony. They get to South America to find - in short - a weird bird, talking dogs and a bad guy. Pixar make sentimental films, Wall-E was sentimental but the 2001 factor made it work, Cars on the other hand is the worst Pixar to date because it sacrificed humour for sentimentality. Up almost does this. The plot, once in South America is fairly run of the mill and before South America is more sentimental than interesting and the film needs moments, the dogs in particular help, to make the film amusing. I say this not because Up is a bad film in any way but because Pixar set themselves a higher standard of excellence than any other filmmakers and while Up is certainly good it doesn't measure up to Monsters Inc, the Incredibles or Wall-E, 8/10.
The Fantastic Mr Fox, the other animated (I count stop motion as animation) film of the half term couldn't be more different from Up or pretty much anything else. It is the story of Mr Fox who was a chicken thief, gave up because of a request from his wife and decides to go back into thievery one last time. He doesn't, however, count on the persistence of the farmers who try to catch him in revenge. This film was adapted and directed by Wes Anderson whos films have never quite caught mine, or indeed mainstream cinemas imagination. He has a unique brand of humour that is so subtle at time that it forgets to make you laugh. The Fantastic Mr Fox, however, moves at a frantic yet very stylish pace, is funny and entertaining. The voice acting is good, the imagery is fantastic and works as a film. Wes Anderson completely succeeds with what he is trying to do and this is his best film to date, 8/10.
Surrogates, a futuristic thriller about the possible angers in store starring Bruce Willis. This is exactly the sort of film, like for example Eagle Eye, that critics hate and I like. I like good fun thrillers, Surrogates, however, is neither. It is predictable, takes itself much too seriously and ends up very confused and even Bruce Willis with hair can't save it. Transformers, Eagle Eye and friends are all successful because at the heart of the film is fun, their aim is to entertain. Surrogates seems more interested in trying to make a point except that the point in question is that using robots instead of our own bodies may not be a good idea, a topic I have never seriously thought about because it is completely irrelevant to life. Gattaca worked because designer babies may well be just around the corner, robots, I'm not so sure, 5/10.
The Vampire's Assistant, I went into this with low expectations and was surprised. This film was clearly aimed at 14 year old boys to try and compete with Twilight taking the girls market. While this will never draw the kind of audiences Twilight draws it is a better film. The two main characters are well developed if not so well acted and John C Reilly's vampire is very good as is the villain Mr Tiny. Not the best film but perfectly enjoyable, 7/10.
9, not to be confused with the upcoming Oscar contender Nine, this is a computer animation set in a post apocalyptic future where mankind and robots have virtually wiped each other out. The best post apocalyptic films, the Matrix and City of Ember (last October half term's post apocalyptic film), thrive on believability that it could actually happen. 9 is aimed at kids, assume that they don't know what is possible so the main plot consists of the sack doll 9 waking up in this post apocalypse meeting another sack doll who is promptly kidnapped by a robot dog. On a journey to save this doll 9 accidentally kills it by feeding its should to the master machine which wakes up and tries to eat all the sack dolls souls. If you are not 6 years old and you don't take this at face value then the entire film becomes absurd and if you are six years only then you will be too scared and saddened by the film as half the characters die and the evil machine is very scary and you will cry all film and mummy or daddy will wish they hadn’t taken you. The film also is very intense and hard gives you a laugh in its thankfully short running time. This film simply is too scary and sad for the children and has nothing for anyone older and from a film produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekbambatov among others I expected much better, 4/10.
Up, this year's Pixar film suffered from being moved from a Summer release in the UK (though it had one in the US) so that Disney's G-Force wouldn't crash and burn at the box office. The story is of a man who marries his childhood sweetheart who shares his dream of going to South America and exploring. They live their lives together unable to fulfil their dream and she dies without being able to live her dream, and this is just the first 5 minutes. Her husband is about to be put in an old person's home so decides to fly his house to South America using helium balloons. On the way he discovers that on his porch is a boy scout who is trying desperately to get his helping the elderly badge (it's the only one he need) so that his father will come to the awarding ceremony. They get to South America to find - in short - a weird bird, talking dogs and a bad guy. Pixar make sentimental films, Wall-E was sentimental but the 2001 factor made it work, Cars on the other hand is the worst Pixar to date because it sacrificed humour for sentimentality. Up almost does this. The plot, once in South America is fairly run of the mill and before South America is more sentimental than interesting and the film needs moments, the dogs in particular help, to make the film amusing. I say this not because Up is a bad film in any way but because Pixar set themselves a higher standard of excellence than any other filmmakers and while Up is certainly good it doesn't measure up to Monsters Inc, the Incredibles or Wall-E, 8/10.
The Fantastic Mr Fox, the other animated (I count stop motion as animation) film of the half term couldn't be more different from Up or pretty much anything else. It is the story of Mr Fox who was a chicken thief, gave up because of a request from his wife and decides to go back into thievery one last time. He doesn't, however, count on the persistence of the farmers who try to catch him in revenge. This film was adapted and directed by Wes Anderson whos films have never quite caught mine, or indeed mainstream cinemas imagination. He has a unique brand of humour that is so subtle at time that it forgets to make you laugh. The Fantastic Mr Fox, however, moves at a frantic yet very stylish pace, is funny and entertaining. The voice acting is good, the imagery is fantastic and works as a film. Wes Anderson completely succeeds with what he is trying to do and this is his best film to date, 8/10.
Surrogates, a futuristic thriller about the possible angers in store starring Bruce Willis. This is exactly the sort of film, like for example Eagle Eye, that critics hate and I like. I like good fun thrillers, Surrogates, however, is neither. It is predictable, takes itself much too seriously and ends up very confused and even Bruce Willis with hair can't save it. Transformers, Eagle Eye and friends are all successful because at the heart of the film is fun, their aim is to entertain. Surrogates seems more interested in trying to make a point except that the point in question is that using robots instead of our own bodies may not be a good idea, a topic I have never seriously thought about because it is completely irrelevant to life. Gattaca worked because designer babies may well be just around the corner, robots, I'm not so sure, 5/10.
The Vampire's Assistant, I went into this with low expectations and was surprised. This film was clearly aimed at 14 year old boys to try and compete with Twilight taking the girls market. While this will never draw the kind of audiences Twilight draws it is a better film. The two main characters are well developed if not so well acted and John C Reilly's vampire is very good as is the villain Mr Tiny. Not the best film but perfectly enjoyable, 7/10.
9, not to be confused with the upcoming Oscar contender Nine, this is a computer animation set in a post apocalyptic future where mankind and robots have virtually wiped each other out. The best post apocalyptic films, the Matrix and City of Ember (last October half term's post apocalyptic film), thrive on believability that it could actually happen. 9 is aimed at kids, assume that they don't know what is possible so the main plot consists of the sack doll 9 waking up in this post apocalypse meeting another sack doll who is promptly kidnapped by a robot dog. On a journey to save this doll 9 accidentally kills it by feeding its should to the master machine which wakes up and tries to eat all the sack dolls souls. If you are not 6 years old and you don't take this at face value then the entire film becomes absurd and if you are six years only then you will be too scared and saddened by the film as half the characters die and the evil machine is very scary and you will cry all film and mummy or daddy will wish they hadn’t taken you. The film also is very intense and hard gives you a laugh in its thankfully short running time. This film simply is too scary and sad for the children and has nothing for anyone older and from a film produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekbambatov among others I expected much better, 4/10.
Thursday 5 November 2009
September Films
This September has been the dumping ground for the films that studios have either rejected as not good enough for the Oscars or not big enough to compete in blockbuster season.
District 9: this is the film not big enough to compete against Transformers 2 in the Summer or Avatar at Christmas but is still a big special effects film. The story is of an alien spacecraft that mysteriously stops over Johannesburg and the aliens inside are unable to restart it and live in their own ghetto called District 9 just outside the city. The man charged with relocating the aliens to a concentration camp (see the parallels) away from populated areas accidentally ingests a liquid that gradually turns him into an alien. The evil arms company experiment on him to try and exploit the alien technology that they have been unable to use. Enough explaining the plot. District 9 is a good film, it has its flaws, it is not as original as it thinks it is, it is very intense, a joke or a moment where the main character isn't in excruciating pain would have helped. Those elements aside the acting, from a virtually unknown cast, is very good, the effects are good and the plot is well told, 7/10.
Julie and Julia: a film put here as the end product is not considered Oscar potential. The film is 2 stories, one of the American chef Julia Child (Meryl Streep) who moves to France in the late 1940s as her husband is an embassy worker and is bored so takes cookery lessons. She proceeds to be so successful that she co writes a cook book that she then struggles to publish. At the same time although actually in 2002 Julie (Amy Adams) moves into a house that she dislikes, does a job she dislikes and she decides her outlet is to cook all 420 (I think) recipes from Julia Child's cook book in a year and she writes a blog about this. The acting in this film as you would expect from Streep, Adams and Tucci (playing Julia Child's husband) is sensational, Streep playing the more comic role while Adams is more serious. The film is very charming and light hearted but makes you run the full gamut of emotions; it makes you laugh and makes you cry. There are 2 flaws with the film, the first it tells you neither time period at the start of the film which is confusing and takes time to work out although it is actually quite important to know and secondly the ending is a bit drab and there is no climax. Being based on a true story the film doesn't have the Hollywood ending but the ending does feel slightly anticlimactic. The film I think was considered too nice to win awards but for me will take some beating this Oscar season, 9/10.
The Soloist: another film that missed out on an Oscar pick. This film is another true story that of a journalist in LA who specialises in human interest stories meets a man who is homeless but an accomplished cellist and attempts to get him somewhere to live. I haven't been the biggest Joe Wright fan after a poor pride and prejudice and a mediocre Atonement he has come to less literary and more American material. The acting is good but the film is harrowing and ultimately there is not much actual progression in the situation of the cellist from beginning to end and one wonders whether the story which is neither uplifting or ultimately of success if necessarily film worthy especially when compared to its 90s predecessor "Shine" where the main character ultimately becomes a successful pianist again, 6/10.
Dorian Gray, another attempt by the British film industry to hit the mainstream. The problem with independent British cinema is that it tries to be too clever, their previous film to try and hit the mainstream, Franklyn, was too clever and not enjoyable enough to break despite having all the potential. Dorian Gray has a good cast, Colin Firth being especially good, and is well put together. It captures the Gothic feel well and makes its moral point. However, in a search for thrills and excitement goes somewhat over the top at times, the picture going uuurrrgggghhhhh was at times more humorous than scary. The film also had little to enjoy about it at times making less enjoyable to watch and ultimately making me give it a lower rating than it necessarily deserves, 6/10.
District 9: this is the film not big enough to compete against Transformers 2 in the Summer or Avatar at Christmas but is still a big special effects film. The story is of an alien spacecraft that mysteriously stops over Johannesburg and the aliens inside are unable to restart it and live in their own ghetto called District 9 just outside the city. The man charged with relocating the aliens to a concentration camp (see the parallels) away from populated areas accidentally ingests a liquid that gradually turns him into an alien. The evil arms company experiment on him to try and exploit the alien technology that they have been unable to use. Enough explaining the plot. District 9 is a good film, it has its flaws, it is not as original as it thinks it is, it is very intense, a joke or a moment where the main character isn't in excruciating pain would have helped. Those elements aside the acting, from a virtually unknown cast, is very good, the effects are good and the plot is well told, 7/10.
Julie and Julia: a film put here as the end product is not considered Oscar potential. The film is 2 stories, one of the American chef Julia Child (Meryl Streep) who moves to France in the late 1940s as her husband is an embassy worker and is bored so takes cookery lessons. She proceeds to be so successful that she co writes a cook book that she then struggles to publish. At the same time although actually in 2002 Julie (Amy Adams) moves into a house that she dislikes, does a job she dislikes and she decides her outlet is to cook all 420 (I think) recipes from Julia Child's cook book in a year and she writes a blog about this. The acting in this film as you would expect from Streep, Adams and Tucci (playing Julia Child's husband) is sensational, Streep playing the more comic role while Adams is more serious. The film is very charming and light hearted but makes you run the full gamut of emotions; it makes you laugh and makes you cry. There are 2 flaws with the film, the first it tells you neither time period at the start of the film which is confusing and takes time to work out although it is actually quite important to know and secondly the ending is a bit drab and there is no climax. Being based on a true story the film doesn't have the Hollywood ending but the ending does feel slightly anticlimactic. The film I think was considered too nice to win awards but for me will take some beating this Oscar season, 9/10.
The Soloist: another film that missed out on an Oscar pick. This film is another true story that of a journalist in LA who specialises in human interest stories meets a man who is homeless but an accomplished cellist and attempts to get him somewhere to live. I haven't been the biggest Joe Wright fan after a poor pride and prejudice and a mediocre Atonement he has come to less literary and more American material. The acting is good but the film is harrowing and ultimately there is not much actual progression in the situation of the cellist from beginning to end and one wonders whether the story which is neither uplifting or ultimately of success if necessarily film worthy especially when compared to its 90s predecessor "Shine" where the main character ultimately becomes a successful pianist again, 6/10.
Dorian Gray, another attempt by the British film industry to hit the mainstream. The problem with independent British cinema is that it tries to be too clever, their previous film to try and hit the mainstream, Franklyn, was too clever and not enjoyable enough to break despite having all the potential. Dorian Gray has a good cast, Colin Firth being especially good, and is well put together. It captures the Gothic feel well and makes its moral point. However, in a search for thrills and excitement goes somewhat over the top at times, the picture going uuurrrgggghhhhh was at times more humorous than scary. The film also had little to enjoy about it at times making less enjoyable to watch and ultimately making me give it a lower rating than it necessarily deserves, 6/10.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
August Films
August is once again upon us, one of the slowest months of the cinematic calendar as all studio executives are American and don't realise that August is still Summer holidays and prime film watching time. Anyway this is what I managed to see.
Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I was a big fan of the first 2 Ice Age films. I'm not going to explain the plot as the first 2 films were weak on plot and it only gets worse. The Ice Age films don't do what Pixar manages to do which is break the formula and have some originality but what makes them good is that each film has good ideas. Ice Age 2 had a mammoth that thought it was a possum and the vultures singing food glorious food, Ice Age 3 has a weasel (I think) with an eye patch voiced by Simon Pegg whose nemesis is a giant dinosaur. The film is funny and enjoyable but is no classic 6/10.
G.I.Joe. Ever since the Mummy I have been a fan of Stephen Sommers, he knows how to make a blockbuster. As with Transformers if you go to see a film inspired by a toy you are not expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but explosion filled fun. G I Joe certainly tries to be fun and it is enjoyable and mildly funny, however the script could have used a bit more work. The characterisation is bare, they have a black and a white main character when there is only room for one in the plot and the finale finishes nothing merely sets up what they hope will be a lucrative franchise. Having said that the film has its moments, this is visually Sommers best film, and the cameos from Sommers favorite actors is also entertaining, 6/10.
G-Force. We have this film to thank for Up (the latest Pixar) being delayed until half term. I had not asked for this film or any desire to see a group of special forces Guinea pigs instead of a new Pixar. I did attempt to put this out of my mind as there is nothing I can do about it before watching the film. American film producers obviously think that people want to see what a group of commando guinea pigs would do in a normal town rather than on a mission fighting terrorists or something which I rather disagree with as this film would be much more interesting if that's what they had done. The film itself is quite funny and entertaining but not as funny or entertaining as it thinks it is, 5/10.
The Hurt Locker. This film is the latest by Katherine Bigelow (director of Point Break) and got some very good reviews therefore I went in with fairly high expectations. This film is Bigelow on serious rather than fun setting and is about a bomb disposal squad in Iraq whose bomb technician gets killed and they get a new one with 30 days left of their tour. The film follows the events up until the end of this tour. The film contains two well known actors, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes, and they both die at the end of their only scene. The main actors are good but are nothing special and I wondered if Pearce and Fiennes had done more whether the film would have been more interesting. This is the issue with the film as basically nothing happens, some guys defuse some bombs, next day they do it again. There is no overarching story and the film is making no point. Clearly Bigelow's aim was to make a film about Iraq which is not trying to make a political point about the conflict. My issue with this is I like films that are trying to make a point, I don't necessarily agree with the points but I have a head for politics and this makes the film interesting. The Hurt Locker, however, is a well made film but is boring pointless and in which nothing happens and therefore gets the same score as G-Force which is a far inferior film but I didn't get bored in it, 5/10.
Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I was a big fan of the first 2 Ice Age films. I'm not going to explain the plot as the first 2 films were weak on plot and it only gets worse. The Ice Age films don't do what Pixar manages to do which is break the formula and have some originality but what makes them good is that each film has good ideas. Ice Age 2 had a mammoth that thought it was a possum and the vultures singing food glorious food, Ice Age 3 has a weasel (I think) with an eye patch voiced by Simon Pegg whose nemesis is a giant dinosaur. The film is funny and enjoyable but is no classic 6/10.
G.I.Joe. Ever since the Mummy I have been a fan of Stephen Sommers, he knows how to make a blockbuster. As with Transformers if you go to see a film inspired by a toy you are not expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but explosion filled fun. G I Joe certainly tries to be fun and it is enjoyable and mildly funny, however the script could have used a bit more work. The characterisation is bare, they have a black and a white main character when there is only room for one in the plot and the finale finishes nothing merely sets up what they hope will be a lucrative franchise. Having said that the film has its moments, this is visually Sommers best film, and the cameos from Sommers favorite actors is also entertaining, 6/10.
G-Force. We have this film to thank for Up (the latest Pixar) being delayed until half term. I had not asked for this film or any desire to see a group of special forces Guinea pigs instead of a new Pixar. I did attempt to put this out of my mind as there is nothing I can do about it before watching the film. American film producers obviously think that people want to see what a group of commando guinea pigs would do in a normal town rather than on a mission fighting terrorists or something which I rather disagree with as this film would be much more interesting if that's what they had done. The film itself is quite funny and entertaining but not as funny or entertaining as it thinks it is, 5/10.
The Hurt Locker. This film is the latest by Katherine Bigelow (director of Point Break) and got some very good reviews therefore I went in with fairly high expectations. This film is Bigelow on serious rather than fun setting and is about a bomb disposal squad in Iraq whose bomb technician gets killed and they get a new one with 30 days left of their tour. The film follows the events up until the end of this tour. The film contains two well known actors, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes, and they both die at the end of their only scene. The main actors are good but are nothing special and I wondered if Pearce and Fiennes had done more whether the film would have been more interesting. This is the issue with the film as basically nothing happens, some guys defuse some bombs, next day they do it again. There is no overarching story and the film is making no point. Clearly Bigelow's aim was to make a film about Iraq which is not trying to make a political point about the conflict. My issue with this is I like films that are trying to make a point, I don't necessarily agree with the points but I have a head for politics and this makes the film interesting. The Hurt Locker, however, is a well made film but is boring pointless and in which nothing happens and therefore gets the same score as G-Force which is a far inferior film but I didn't get bored in it, 5/10.
Monday 31 August 2009
July Films
July is here and with it the biggest films of the Summer. I like Summer blockbusters and this year is much less congested with them, the result being that I actually got to see most of them.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I was a big fan of the first film, I did not watch the cartoon when younger so was new to the whole thing and still very much enjoyed it so went into this film with high expectations (i.e. excitement, explosions, big robot fights and most importantly fun). My expectations were met. The plot is that the Decepticons (bad guys) have a boss called The Fallen who doesn't like humans and wants to destroy the Sun using a lost machine that requires a lost key and the only way he can find these 2 is by using the information that has been implanted into Shia Leboef's head. It's Transformers of course it doesn't make any sense. This films replicates the action and adventure of the first film while having a lot more humour and thus was very entertaining and, despite being almost 2 1/2 hours I enjoyed every minute of it, 9/10.
Year One. Harold Ramis wrote Ghostbusters and directed Groundhog Day, one of the best comedies ever made. How the mighty have fallen. Year One involves Jack Black overacting for all he is worth, Michael Cera doing the best with the material he has been given and a lot of toilet humour. In short not funny or worth seeing, 3/10.
Public Enemies. I am a Michael Mann fan and have been eagerly awaiting this film. While I don't think that Heat is a particularly standout film I was a big fan of Collateral. I also have high expectations when I hear names like Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the same film. The film deals with the life of the criminal John Dillinger. My first issue with the film is that I have no real knowledge of American 1930s criminals or indeed US domestic politics at the time. The film assumes that you have at least a cursory knowledge of icons such as J. Edgar Hoover. The fact that I didn't meant that it was difficult to put the film in any context. So when America's first war on crime is launched I am not sure why. The other issue with the film is that there is very little to remark upon in the way that there is in Ridley Scott's American Gangster for instance. Dillinger is represented as someone who is good at his job rather than someone who has some outstanding skill or ingenuity in the way Denzel Washington does. Mann also clearly idolises Dillinger despite the fact that he is a criminal. All this comes together to mean that the film is no more than ok, 6/10.
The Taking of Pelham 123. I am generally a fan of this type of thriller but this one take itself a bit too seriously. I did not know the original but this one is clearly trying to create a relationship between the hostage taker and the metro employee similar to the relationship created in Phone Booth or Inside Man. This doesn't quite work though, the film isn't quite enjoyable enough or clever enough, it has one twist which it hints at so many times you have worked it out an hour before it is revealed. The film showed a lot of potential and is not entirely without merit but a much better script was required here, 6/10.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I am a big fan of the Harry Potter films which have been getting better and better. This book was always going to be a hard one to do as it is much more open ended that the rest. It is also a much darker story that the previous ones. In the fourth and fifth films the filmmakers worked to make them a bit darker and more grown up. In this one they actually work to make the film more enjoyable the darkness comes by itself. The acting from the senior members, including a good performance from Jim Broadbent the newest cast member, down to the junior cast is very good. As with the others the film is long and moves at quite a pace to fit everything in. The mystifying moment in the film is when, despite all the scenes that they have had to cut from the book, there is a short and pointless action scene that would have made J.K. Rowling turn in her grave (wait a minute). The purpose of the scene presumably is to keep the audience from getting bored although the film is exciting enough, even without action until the end, that it doesn't need it. Nonetheless the film is funny and exciting and it is difficult to see how the source material could have been produced better, 8/10.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I was a big fan of the first film, I did not watch the cartoon when younger so was new to the whole thing and still very much enjoyed it so went into this film with high expectations (i.e. excitement, explosions, big robot fights and most importantly fun). My expectations were met. The plot is that the Decepticons (bad guys) have a boss called The Fallen who doesn't like humans and wants to destroy the Sun using a lost machine that requires a lost key and the only way he can find these 2 is by using the information that has been implanted into Shia Leboef's head. It's Transformers of course it doesn't make any sense. This films replicates the action and adventure of the first film while having a lot more humour and thus was very entertaining and, despite being almost 2 1/2 hours I enjoyed every minute of it, 9/10.
Year One. Harold Ramis wrote Ghostbusters and directed Groundhog Day, one of the best comedies ever made. How the mighty have fallen. Year One involves Jack Black overacting for all he is worth, Michael Cera doing the best with the material he has been given and a lot of toilet humour. In short not funny or worth seeing, 3/10.
Public Enemies. I am a Michael Mann fan and have been eagerly awaiting this film. While I don't think that Heat is a particularly standout film I was a big fan of Collateral. I also have high expectations when I hear names like Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the same film. The film deals with the life of the criminal John Dillinger. My first issue with the film is that I have no real knowledge of American 1930s criminals or indeed US domestic politics at the time. The film assumes that you have at least a cursory knowledge of icons such as J. Edgar Hoover. The fact that I didn't meant that it was difficult to put the film in any context. So when America's first war on crime is launched I am not sure why. The other issue with the film is that there is very little to remark upon in the way that there is in Ridley Scott's American Gangster for instance. Dillinger is represented as someone who is good at his job rather than someone who has some outstanding skill or ingenuity in the way Denzel Washington does. Mann also clearly idolises Dillinger despite the fact that he is a criminal. All this comes together to mean that the film is no more than ok, 6/10.
The Taking of Pelham 123. I am generally a fan of this type of thriller but this one take itself a bit too seriously. I did not know the original but this one is clearly trying to create a relationship between the hostage taker and the metro employee similar to the relationship created in Phone Booth or Inside Man. This doesn't quite work though, the film isn't quite enjoyable enough or clever enough, it has one twist which it hints at so many times you have worked it out an hour before it is revealed. The film showed a lot of potential and is not entirely without merit but a much better script was required here, 6/10.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I am a big fan of the Harry Potter films which have been getting better and better. This book was always going to be a hard one to do as it is much more open ended that the rest. It is also a much darker story that the previous ones. In the fourth and fifth films the filmmakers worked to make them a bit darker and more grown up. In this one they actually work to make the film more enjoyable the darkness comes by itself. The acting from the senior members, including a good performance from Jim Broadbent the newest cast member, down to the junior cast is very good. As with the others the film is long and moves at quite a pace to fit everything in. The mystifying moment in the film is when, despite all the scenes that they have had to cut from the book, there is a short and pointless action scene that would have made J.K. Rowling turn in her grave (wait a minute). The purpose of the scene presumably is to keep the audience from getting bored although the film is exciting enough, even without action until the end, that it doesn't need it. Nonetheless the film is funny and exciting and it is difficult to see how the source material could have been produced better, 8/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)