Garyswordz

Terrific Middle East Thriller, 27 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Despite an ambivalent response from the Critics this is the best Hollywood effort yet about the intrigues of the modern Middle East. Sir Ridley Scott produces a densely plotted, yet accessible, thriller which steers clear of the failings of other efforts in the genre so far. Di Caprio produces yet another fine performance as a high flying young CIA Station Chief, Ferris, in Amman, and Crowe gives a scintillating performance as Hoffman ,his bloated, arrogant, corpulent boss back at Langley.

Skilfully, Scott throws in the crowd pleasing elements, “there are some people who don’t want to be negotiated with”, and the, literally, knife edge release of Ferris, amidst a much more even handed exploration of the geo-politics of International Terrorism. Aisha, Ferris’s love interest, an Iranian born nurse ,becomes an innocent pawn in this battle of wits, and the Jordanian head of Intelligence outwits the CIA at their own game.

Al Qaeda’s cynical atrocities are matched by the cynical indifference of the CIA to achieve their own objectives, whatever the cost. Hoffman coolly gives life and death telephone instructions whilst attending to various mundane family duties. The cinematography is superb with lush, yet grimly authentic images abounding. As is Scott’s, trademark, the action sequences are superb, yet show commendable restraint. When people are shot, they stay shot.

The three obvious predecessors to this, The Kingdom, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs were all flawed by the requirement for there to be an American Hero to win over the home audience. “Body of Lies” attempts, and largely succeeds in conveying a much more morally ambiguous landscape. A triumph of film making which I suspect will attract greater accolades once the froth of the opening box office has subsided.

Pointless, 25 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The book may be an insightful deep exploration of the physical impact,and metaphorical opportunities, posed by blindness.The film is a wasted effort.Despite a compelling performance by Julianne Moore, she cannot save a messy screenplay, poor dialogue and inadequate exploration of a good idea.

The opening act starts brightly, a Japanese man is struck blind, but robbed by an apparent Good Samaritan.His native speech adds to our confusion mirroring his confusion from his blindness.Then others are struck down, and the story drifts out of control.At the heart of this is poor characterisation. Despite a two hour running time we don’t really get to know any of the characters, let alone like them.

The main action takes place in an isolation block, despite the increasingly desperate conditions little empathy is generated for the main players. A parallel plot then unfolds of the degeneration of their isolated society as allegory for the wider world.Moore plays the sighted wife of an incarcerated Doctor there to look after her husband, the only one with sight, offering great dramatic possibilities, which are largely squandered.After an hour I started to get bored. In order to ratchet up interest a “group rape” scene is introduced in which some women seek to “earn” food for the others from a band of ne’er do wells who have seized control.So tedious had the narrative become that I was as accepting as their menfolk.

The denouement is farcical.They “escape” their “secure” quarters simply because the guards have deserted, presumably blind too, but not before ensuring that everything is unlocked.Then they wander around a bit.By this time i was tapping my watch to see whether it was still going and thought to myself “this will end with them suddenly regaining their sight again” – and it did.

Bleak and boring, lacking dramatic contrast, Director Fernando Meirelles previous work has largely been TV work. It shows.He is hopelessly out of his depth in a feature length.

A Tremendous Tour De Force, 25 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Youth films are notoriously difficult to pull off.When created by the middle aged, they invariably miss the point. When created by peers, they invariably lack perspective. This amounts to a retrospective by a middle aged man, Director Shane Meadows, about his youth.As such it avoids the pitfalls, but benefits from hindsight and maturity.

What sets this apart from so many films is the dialogue and characterisation. Every scene is carefully observed, and every character is carefully drawn so that we care about them. On the one hand we see the journey of the prepubescent Shaun, wonderfully played by Thomas Turgoose from lost soul to a key character in a skinhead group. On the other we see the violent, raging Combo,(Stephen Graham), recently released from prison, with hate in his heart but a tragedy and fragility about him which is equally as compelling.

Meadows loves people, and there is not a wasted scene.Shaun is taken by his mother to buy some new shoes, he is determined that they should be Doc Martens Boots, she is determined that they should be “sensible shoes”, and secures the acquiescence of the store assistant to that end. A wonderful vignette, what child did not experience that childhood battle of wills over a pair of shoes?

In barely an hour and forty one minutes, Meadows delivers a searing polemic on the alienation of youth, the desolation of some communities in Thatcherite Britain, the festering breeding ground of racism,and the strength and joys of human inter action in groups.Although violent, foul mouthed and brutal, it is also funny, sharp and melancholic. At times the film almost slips into an elegiac nostalgic mood, before Meadows kicks it on with another sharp scene.

A towering success, and proof that a strong narrative, good characterisation and strong dialogue, do not need a big budget and several writers

Searing Republican Drama, 11 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

The Irish Troubles post 1970 has produced a number of fine films, Veronica Guerin, the Crying Game, The General ,and The Wind That Sweeps the Barley amongst them. Ireland seems to produce more than its fair share of talented dramatists and Steve McQueen, in this his debut feature, instantly establishes himself as a force to be reckoned with on the silver screen. Unashamedly a Republican film in sympathy and viewpoint, McQueen’s ability to tell a story produces a compelling, and visually stunning, piece of work. The work of Steven Bobbit, Director of Photography is integral to this success.

Critics may complain about the stereotypical portrayal of the Prison Guards and Margaret Thatcher. But this is not a history, and Michael Fassbender’s dramatisation of the last six weeks of the life of Bobby Sands does offer a valid perspective on arguably the darkest days of the Anglo-Irish conflict. Sands adult life was undoubtedly shaped by a childhood of discrimination and conflict. Prior to the hunger strike he had a formidable reputation as a hard-line terrorist / freedom fighter implicated in shootings and bombings. His sister was involved in a fire bombing that went wrong and subsequently married Michael McKevitt, the Provisional IRA Quartermaster who was implicated in the Omagh Bombing in which 29 townspeople died. What transformed an unremarkable ghetto youth into such brutality is not touched upon, which is a shame.

The story of his death has a lyrical feel to it and his ability to politicise this is a matter of fact. In dialogue with his Priest, the morality of a hunger strike, his suicide and his leadership of others is questioned.This 18 minute two hander is the films high water mark, dangling the possibility of compromise, with us nonetheless certain of the tragic finale. Fassbender captures wonderfully Sands messianic, charismatic qualities. The “Christ” like depiction of his demise is controversial, when others interpret his leadership as more akin to Charles Manson or David Koresh, as is the Pontius Pilate like hand washing by a brutalised Prison guard.

Sound, silence, and outbursts of brutality and violence intersperse events in a mesmerising kaleidoscope of colour, grey, emotion and nothingness. The dialogue itself is quite sparse, but when it does kick in it invariably “says something” the hallmark of theatrical rather than cinematic writing.

Whilst Republican in perspective, it does stop short of propaganda. The brutal execution of an off duty prison officer visiting his senile mother in an old peoples home is as callously portrayed as any of the Prison’s excesses. Although the physical abuse of the prisoners is difficult to watch, the inmates were not there for traffic violations, and the Prison Service itself was under enormous strain withstanding a vicious campaign of intimidation and murder.

A strangely beautiful, and certainly compelling picture of a dark period for Great Britain and Ireland. An object lesson in telling a story with pictures and images rather than words and action.

An Excellent Contemporary History, 7 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Director Oliver Stone is a very fine writer, producer and director with a formidable body of work behind him.Like many, I approached this film anticipating a cruel, forensic destruction of the subject, how wrong I was.Instead we get a light, sympathetic and largely objective snapshot of a President more ridiculed than most.

Wisely, Stone tells the story by vignette.On release, neither W’s Presidency, nor the Iraq war,were over.So we have the contemporary decision to invade Iraq playing against the story of his formative years.Brolin is superb as W, surpassed only by a truly sinister and hawkish Richard Dreyfuss as hawk Dick Cheney.The 126 minute running time both flies by, and scarcely scratches the surface of the full story, but succeeds nonetheless in its episodic form.

The sibling rivalry with his brother, and his ongoing efforts both to please his father and sustain the Bush dynasty are fairly represented. To outsiders, how W became President is a bit of a mystery . But here his Everyman qualities shine through in a pretty populist way.The film closes with an abject performance by him at a Press Conference, but do not be fooled.This is not about W the buffoon.It is about the chaos, craziness and tragedy of the Iraq war, achingly counterpointed by his visit to visit injured soldiers.His awkwardness, is our awkwardness.

Thandie Newton is a suitably sassy Condoleeza Rice (who will be delighted that she was played by someone 20 years her junior) and a fairly convincing body double.Ignore those dissatisfied by James Cromwells lack of physical similarity to Bush senior, this isn’t a fancy dress party. Cromwells reserved, dry, angular portrayal of a man from another era plays well.

The oval office cabinet meetings and W’s strolls in the outdoors with his team trying to keep up in his wake are the best scenes.The flaws are structural, the film”ends” when the story is incomplete, how W got re elected, or elected is ignored.Critics will say that Stone, as a peer of Bush has “gone native” in this portrayal of the man. I think Stone is saying something more subtle than that – “a country gets the man it deserves”. Before you mock the man look at yourselves first. In an era when film makers gorge on popcorn blockbusters and cops and robbers stories, Stone has made a film about “today”, and deserves credit for a fine effort.

Running on Empty, 1 November 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a huge fan of the genre, the series, and Daniel Craig,I approached this instalment hoping for the best – and was bitterly disappointed.Marc Forsters past directorial credentials did not identify him as an obvious Bond custodian,he does not rise to the challenge.

Nominally carrying on from “Casino Royale” the threadbare plot quickly runs out of steam. Its modest 106 minute running time still had me, and others, checking our wrist watches as the stripped down style failed to engage.The “threat” is a baddie who wants to monopolise water production in Bolivia, and then hike the prices! Have the script writers not heard of Severn Trent? The pre- credit car chase is pretty superfluous and fails to match even Liam Neeson in the “Taken” chase sequence at the Albanians camp.

The set pieces have a curious stand alone quality, the gritty sections lack continuity, conviction and purpose.As a consequence, viewers are left yearning for a bit of glamour, and gadgetry not as nostalgia, but to compensate.perversely the “Live And Let Die” style finale where the enemy HQ is blown up is totally unnecessary, and cold.

Craig is fine again as Bond,Olga Kurylenko is an adequate female lead.But there is no glamour and when M relieves him of his duties it smacks of a desperate attempt to try to spice up a flagging script. A misfire.

Strangely Unsatisfying, 29 October 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The raw ingredients are here, a very good story, Spielberg,a big budget and a decent cast. Somewhere along the line though the total fails to represent the sum of the parts.As a brainless blockbuster/ thriller it is competent enough. I think that the frustration is that it should have been more.

The trailer, whilst engaging, does not do justice to the plot.In summary an “innocent” man and woman, both strangers to each other, find themselves hijacked by an omniscient and omnipresent security system and are forced to do its will. Briefly it touches on some interesting points.A surveillance society is open to abuse.Remote control warfare is fallible, and how do a State’s people deal with an Executive that is out of control? These cerebral issues are however subsumed by a barrage of explosions, chases, and techno mumbo jumbo which end up getting in the way.

There are some decent set piece action sequences.Yet less money spent on them, and more devoted to the nuances of the plot would have paid dividends.The almost 2 hour running time spends far too much time cuing up the next lavish “set” and too little time creating dramatic tension. “You want tension? Here’s another explosion!” The leads are pretty anodyne.Shia Laboeuf, as Jerry Shaw,plays the part with the looks, and commitment, of a male model not wanting to get his hair dirty.Whilst Michelle Monaghan,as Rachel Hollman,starts off looking stunned that she is caught up in this caper, then continues looking the same throughout.In the supporting roles however there are some Stirling performances which save the picture from disaster.

In summary, there is no excuse for this film not being better than it turned out.

Intelligent,Whimsical Comedy, 19 October 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Firstly, I should make it clear that this review is 21 years after release. Consequently, it is possible to look at this in the context of a considerable body of work. Such a perspective serves this film well. The Coen brothers are good at narrative script,character and situation. All three are worked to the full here.

Sometimes you question quite how clever the Coen’s are, when you do, you realise the answer is “very”. What they do is put caricatures in absurd situations, then draw out everyday truth and humour from the story.The sets are frequently deliberately “staged”, the parents of a soon to be kidnapped child are sat on what appears to be a theatre stage, rather than a front room.The kidnappers trailer opens out into a vast condo set inside – and you don’t care.

The story itself is simple, a habitual convict marries a cop, she discovers she cannot conceive, so they kidnap one of a set of Quintuplets on the basis that the parents have more than they can handle.Some escaped cons who resolve that they have “taken all that prison has to offer” in turn kidnap the child for the reward money pursued by a Bounty hunter.

Visually the film veers from the surreal, the Bounty hunter is straight out of “Mad Max”, to the engaging,when Nicholas Cage, playing the recidivist convict kidnaps one of the Quins from their cot.Intriguingly this later scene is shot with a light humorous touch, echoing “Three Men and a Baby”.

The script resolutely refuses to follow any moral logic or sense of consequence, what it does instead is to relish and explore how the characters behave in bizarre, extraordinary situations.You either buy into it, or you don’t. I did.

An Intelligent. Quirky, Surreal Delight, 17 October 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

This film will not be to everyones taste, and I wholly understand the polarised responses.A star studded cast enjoy a knowing, wordy script, where dialogue counts, a Coen brothers trademark.However not very much happens, and the narrative is disjointed, so the pace of the story is very staccato.But once again the result is something very wide of the Hollywood mainstream and is all the more satisfying for it.

A 95 minute running time,, and several separate but interwoven plots, mean that screen time for individual actors is limited. Consequently each shines in their given roles, relishing the word play and eking the maximum out of each situation.No scene is dwelled upon, and the occasional bloody outburst of violence, or titillating appearance of a Sybian machine , is shown then moved on from before you have time to work out exactly what is going on.

The script is littered with double entendres, “running gags (pun intended)and lines aimed straight at the audience from the screen. No-one knows what is going on, or what has gone on, or what is going to happen, and is all the better for it.A mini-masterpiece