Garyswordz

Uncomfortable “Shocker”, 12 September 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Director James Watkins has made an unsettling debut in this “shocker” which skips around a few genres, and borrows from illustrious antecedents, in this stock tale of bad things happening to good people.Young couple Michael Fassbender playing Steve, and Kelly Reilly playing Jenny ,unwisely choose a weekend away in a remote park and pay for their mistake.

Some of this is stock formula; the pretty junior school teacher, the Sat Nav which urges them to “turn around”,swimming in a cold English lake with their bags on the shoreline etc. However the film has aspirations for a bit more, with the antagonists being young feral children whose characters are allowed some development.

The posse of miscreants is led by a malevolent Jack O’Connell playing Brett who reprises the empty viciousness of “A Clockwork Orange” into a modern setting, borrowing heavily from “Lord Of The Flies” in his sadistic manipulation of his peers.The “strangers in a strange place” theme is not as convincingly dealt with as “Deliverance” and “Straw Dogs” achieve, but nevertheless, although both films are borrowed from, Watkins does create am idiosyncratic modern quirky English paranoia which taps into one of the concerns of the day – juvenile delinquency .

The very low budget is not at the expense of an intelligent script, and some convincing acting performances.But ironically, it’s “realism” is to some extent its undoing.I left the cinema depressed and drained.The violence is not “stylised” it is real, there is not much room for suspension of disbelief. Although the plot twists groan a bit, no doubt around budgetary constraints, it’s social realism touches Ken Loache’s “Kess”.This sets it apart from other stable mates, not least the recent American “Timber Falls” which starts from a similar premise.

The feral youth ARE placed in the context of brutish, amoral parenthood. The bloodbath is initiated by the “collateral” killing of Brett’s pet Rottweiller which elicits more emotion from him than the torture of his victims.The moral ambiguity of right and wrong are explored gently when Steve finds himself inadvertently “breaking into” a house, and more savagely when Jenny kills a young teenager in her flight for help.Pointedly, the behaviour of the adults in the community is a sick cauldron for the behaviour which is unleashed.

I cannot say i enjoyed this film. Yet there is something undeniably powerful about it.Watkins deals with the personalities particularly well and I wonder if he has more to offer us than straight horror fare, I suspect the answer is yes.

A Solid Return to Form, 10 September 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Director Guy Ritchie is quite good at making London gangster films and this certainly bears favourable comparison with his two previous efforts, “Lock, Stock etc”, and “Snatch”. Featuring multiple characters, a plot that thinks it is more complicated than it is,entertaining banter, and some “biff, bang, wallop” violence, it offers more than enough for its core audience.

The ending is more wrap up than conclusion, and the proliferation of characters gives precious little time for them to “breathe” individually. Perversely at 114 minutes the running time stays just within its welcome, suggesting that the story itself could have been sharpened up.Bent accountant, Stella, played by the sassy Thandie Newton is wonderful and deserves more space.Whilst Ticket Tout Mr Big, Nonso Anozie, fresh from his strong performance in “Cass” is strangely anaemic and unconvincing.

There is a strong homosexual thread running through the narrative offering much opportunity for humour. Ritchie’s treatment of the theme is pretty ambivalent with female characters largely absent.The sexy accountant is, naturally, laid by “one of the boys” whilst the only other female character of note is bedroom bait for a corrupt Councillor. It appears that Ritchie “doesn’t do relationships” in his films.

Although a return to form, Ritchie is curiously tentative in some parts of the film.The opening cash heist is preposterously inept, whilst the subsequent cash heist descends into comic book violence. It is almost as if Ritchie doesn’t know quite where to pitch it. Equally there is a brief gay sado – masochistic torture scene which is set up, but never “delivers”. Tarrantino would have milked it for much more explicit violence ( the cellar scene in Pulp Fiction), and humour.

The 25 year old “Long Good Friday” still stands as the modern London Gangster film to beat, and whilst failing in that tilt, still delivers a pretty good attempt at the title.Multi national London, bursting with foreign cash and schemers is still a rich seam of opportunity to work and the possible sequel would not be unwelcome.The absence of a bloodbath finish gives plenty of characters room for more in the next installment.

A Real Treat For Horror Afficiandos, 9 September 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

This film certainly appears to have polarised opinion, and on one level I understand why.It isn’t original, it is formulaic, and it does require suspension of disbelief. So for those who like to see genres “pushed”, this will be tired and hackneyed. BUT, for those who ENJOY the horror / gore genre for what it is, this story delivers with a vengeance.

The first feature by Director, 31 year old Bryan Bertino,it carefully and skilfully deploys all the “tricks” required to make for a genuinely scary experience, and at 85 minutes the running time is only fractionally too long. However this is not a criticism, as an hour and a bit is about all you are going to get from a modest house besieged by masked assailants.

Liv Tyler plays the terrorised Kristen McKay with conviction and style. Sadly the only missing staple from such a film, the bare breasts shot, is missing! Her boyfriend James Hoyt, played by Scott Speedman, is well cast as the male incapable of preventing “bad things” happening to both of them.

Essentially this is a story that plays on our fears of “things that go bump in the night”, literally, and works very effectively as such.The opening advice that the story “was inspired by true events” was a little unnecessary, especially as there was no coda at the end to offer further explanation.Neverteless a fine debut offering from a director who will certainly deliver more, and better, as his career unfolds.My 8/10 rating reflects its position within the genre – not out of “all comers”.

Pretentious Pap, 8 September 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Don’t believe the hype.Advocates of this movie swoon at the hand held camera work, bitty narrative, and edgy imagery.They are wrong. This is a classic case of the Emperors New Clothes, all style and no substance.

It is telling that Director Matt Reeve’s previous claim to fame was Under Siege 2 (straight to video) and writer Drw Goddards credentials revolve around being a producer on TV Bore fest “Lost”. It shows.

The hand held camera work is fine for the opening “party” Act, although I would have left the party during its 20 minute duration.The characters are sketched as quirky and diverse, like a scene setting episode of “Lost”, but lack any warmth or emotional interest. I was willing them ALL to die half way through the film.However when the action kicks in the camera work is firstly nausea inducing, secondly it is used to artificially create a drama and tension which is not in the narrative.

Matt Reeve, by dipping us into this tale and then suddenly dipping us out is essentially telling a short story. And he is not good enough to carry a short story on film off.It fails at virtually every level.I was checking my watch every 10 minutes or so, a good indicator of how poorly the film engages with its audience.

A film I will NEVER watch again. A Director whose films I shall actively avoid in future.

The Worst “Comedy” I Have Ever Seen, 30 August 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

A comedy that isn’t funny is in trouble. A comedy that searches for the lowest common denominator, is devoid of life and invention and replaces ideas with formulas is in very big trouble. As a result I award my lowest ever IMDb score.

Director and writer Adam McKay is hopelessly out of his depth with a feature length, his history with Saturday Night live (which he shares with co writer Will Ferrell) is the clue. As a 90 second sketch the premise of this film has legs,at 98 minutes it is 96 1/2 minutes too long.

Ferrell and Mckay are both the same age that they are writing about, but do so with no comic ingenuity or insight.The premise of the film is of two mature singletons who get together with 40 year old sons still living at home. The joke is that they behave like 15 year olds. this is funny for about 30 seconds.It then moves into weird, bordering onto infantilism.

I have no problem with base, gross, profane, crude humour aimed at amusing 13 -15 year olds.But in casting the protagonists as grown men playing children it patronises children whilst causing adults to question the sexual motivation of what is going on here. and when in doubt say “fuck”, thats bound to get a laugh isn’t it? Pitched against the recently released,equally coarse, but immeasurably funnier and superior “Zohan” this picture is exposed for the barren Turkey it is. Adam Sandler demonstrates a grasp of the grotesque and absurd which is totally missing here. The sparkling dialogue which American Screen Writers have shown they can write, with such institutions as “Friends” and “Cheers”, is nowhere to be seen.

“Mother”, Mary Steenbergen, and “Dad”,Richard Jenkins, who both gave creditable performances in recent hits “The Brave One” and “The Kingdom” respectively do their best (hence the 1), but will not be quoting this one in their memoirs.

Unfunny, unremittingly awful, avoid at all costs.

Lots of off-beat fun, 18 August 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Do not be put off by some of the carping criticism that this film has received. It is very funny, made me laugh out loud, and dares to touch on some areas of humour which are traditionally taboo, especially in American cinema. I am not a particular Adam Sandler fan, and have only seen “Happy Gilmore” of his previous work. But I was highly entertained by some genuinely amusing set pieces, and his exploration of humour in very dangerous territory.

The plot line is simple enough. Zohan, the uber counter terrorist Mossad agent, decides to hang up his Uzi for a pair of hairdressers scissors in New York. But the past is never far behind…………………………………… The opening scenes which establish his credentials as a super agent are funny, fast paced and engaging with plenty of wry self deprecating put downs including his parents begging him to “play safe” in his present job. After faking his death at the hands of his arch rival, the Phantom played by John Turrito, he then resurfaces in New York.

At this point two things are worth mentioning. Firstly Turrito plays the Phantom for laughs, which ironically drains some of the humour. A straight “bad guy” would have been funnier. Secondly the “second act” is primarily made up of crude, sexual innuendo which is wholly inappropriate for an audience that can get into a UK 12A certification. It is very funny, and there are plenty of laughs to be had from a youngish hairdresser with no hairdressing skills acquiring superstar status by “banging old ladies with big tits”. But it is miles away from the humour of the trailer and the first fifteen minutes.

The part of Zohan appears to have been inspired by Sasha Cohen’s “Borat”, but Sandler insists that his idea for this film pre-dates Borat. It certainly shares the same mad cap humour. The two calls to the “Hezbolah helpline” are wonderful vignettes. However the heavy hand of Hollywood is never far away and Zohan’s romance with the astonishingly beautiful Palestinian hairdresser boss Dalia. played by Emmanuelle Chirqui, is played for feel good value, rather than the devilment it could have been. Equally the artificial introduction of a greedy property developer and White Ayrian Supremacists are artificial ,and a device to move the “villainy” around. The cameo appearances by Mariah Carey and John McCenroe are extraordinary for them being totally unnecessary.

A denouement with a message that we should all just get on together is a bit too sugary for my tastes, and plays to American sensibilities. Nonetheless this is a brave attempt at satire, and for the most part comes off. Possibly twenty minutes too long, a “harder” story stripped of the saccharine ending would have been stronger. Still well worth a look though.

Over Ambitious, Under Resourced Biopic, 4 August 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

As a contemporary of Pennant, and veteran of the 1970’s and 1980’s terrace culture,I was keen for this film to succeed. Sadly, with some good intentions, it fails, and joins the other flawed attempts to recreate the halcyon days of the hooligan. The authenticity of the background to the film is often well observed. But Director Jon Baird fails to have the expertise, or I suspect the budget, to faithfully realise the period..

Pennant’s biography is well written, and a good read. It also covers over 40 years. A 108 minute screen running time, was always likely to be crippled by compromise, vignette and crude symbolism, and so it turns out. His story does have dramatic potential and sociological significance but neither Baird nor Pennant have the discipline or know- how to deliver it.

For lovers of football violence, there is not a lot of it. Three 20 a side rucks with Wolves, Leeds and Newcastle are the set pieces. For an 18 Certificate the grizzly reality of these confrontations is pretty sanitised giving succour to the dreamy, romantic retrospection that it was just like minded boys fighting, and finding a sense of family in hooligan gangs.

The key scene when one of Pennants lieutenants gets jumped by three Arsenal thugs and is slashed to ribbons needing 1000 stitches is strangely understated .Its setting is grimly authentic, three against one, the assailants armed, no chance of defence or escape for the victim. Yet we see only the healed welts on the victims face some time later, not the grim reality of a cowardly, bloody attack.

As a child the casual racism and bullying which “Carol” suffers, alongside a complete lack of personal identity, is well observed. Bravely, time is also found for racism he suffers at the hands of a black Rasta in jail. When his mother dies unexpectedly, his remorse at not having told her how much he loved her is genuinely poignant. Sadly though, these promising scenes are sketched in the same shorthand as the violent ones , which is very frustrating.

The “rucks” themselves are fleshed out with some ageing faces from the past, Bill Gardener,Mark Chester from Stoke, and Gilly from Wolves amongst them. It does not help the realism of the scenes to have time worn middle aged men in amongst what was a pretty exclusively young crowd at the time. This sop to some old boys to enable them to relive their youth is pretty risible. Equally Pennant himself appears uncredited as a bouncer alongside Frank Bruno, also uncredited.West Ham’s North Bank and Chicken Run are not mentioned once, the South Bank gets two unreferenced name checks.

One of the best moments in the book is when Pennant steps in to save a random black kid from getting a beating from some racist skinheads – only to discover that he has saved Frank Bruno! Pennants close subsequent links with the boxing fraternity are only dealt with in short hand in the film and his chance meeting with a similarly incarcerated Ambrose Mendy left out all together, as is, inexplicably, his “saving” of Bruno.

Virtual unknown Nonso Anozeo, successfully carries off the role of the adult Pennant.Tamer Hassan plays a convincing cameo as boxer Ray.. Otherwise the ensemble provides background only to the main events. However the fundamental rush of football hooliganism, the massed clashes of sometimes several thousand protagonists is missing. As others have found ,it is very difficult to recreate with so many of the old grounds gone. What grounds and stands do remain are out of bounds to “hoolie” film makers from clubs eager to protect their sanitised reputation.

The hackneyed use of Thatcherite film clips as she pronounces on a subject she knows nothing about is cheap and adds nothing. Amusingly, shots of the infamous Millwall riot at Luton are shown twice, but Millwall, the ICF’s great rivals are not mentioned once.

As a stand alone bio pic this is poor. Pennant is no Mandela. If you were there, there is enough to keep your interest but not enough to win your praise. In aiming to be more than a “hoolie film”, this bio pic tries to achieve much, but ultimately falls victim to its own over ambition and vanity.

A Superhero Tour De Force, 30 July 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Over history, literature has constantly reassessed and reshaped heroes and villains. Batman is a relatively contemporary creation, born of the much derided Cartoon Book genre, yet in this film, Director Christopher Nolan creates a gravitas and purpose only hinted at in those early drawings, building on the success of “Batman Begins”. Aided by a top cast, this film reaches past the obvious niche audiences and finds a resonance far beyond.

Heath Ledger gives a role defining performance as the Joker. He exudes, paranoia, psychosis and cruelty with humour almost an afterthought. Given Ledger’s alleged battles with depression it is unnerving to witness so convincing a display of an unhinged mind, but utterly compelling. The British 12A Certification is tested to the limit by the sadistic use of knives, totally in context, but hardly easily dismissed as “Comic book violence”.

Christian Bale is a convincing Batman, playing the action sequences with an aggressive, vicious detachment, yet perfectly at home as the anonymous Bruce Wayne. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman revel in their character roles as Alfred the Butler, and Head of R&D Lucius Fox , respectively. Both deliver understated, but perfectly observed performances.

Never short of outrageous action sequences, explosions and ensemble set pieces, what lifts this picture is its preparedness to seriously consider the role of the hero, villain, good and evil, chaos, and the impotence, but decency, of the ordinary citizen. When two hordes of hostages fail to meet the Jokers fiendish plan he rails that “You cant rely on anyone these days “and” if you want a job doing you have to do it yourself”. Equally he hints that there is evil out there purely for evil’s sake – a chilling touchstone for the curse of modern mass terrorism.

The Cinematography is consistently beautiful and the production values a fine mix of the real and CGI. With actors Gary Oldman and my old school friend Colin MacFarlane also making valuable contributions, it is curious how such a strong British contingent have redrawn an all-American hero. Perhaps it is because Nolan displays such consummate skill in examining themes, and attitudes which transcend time and place, and as such is an outrageous bedfellow with the Coen Bothers “No Country For Old Men”.

Delightful Light Entertainment, 14 July 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

In recent years the success of TV shows like X Factor, Pop/American Idol and Britain / America’s Got Talent have reminded everyone of the simple pleasures of singing, dancing and having a good time. Curiously, the Musical genre, which epitomises this, has been slow to reflect this interest on our cinema screens. However with the success of Hairspray, High School Musical and now Mama Mia, I suspect there will be many more to follow.

Mama Mia starts from a strong base. A fine musical catalogue, a successful stage production, the co-operation of songwriters Benny and Bjorn and a well known cast are a good start.But then it pretty much overwhelms the audience with it’s sheer “joie de vivre”. Don’t listen to the curmudgeonly doubters, if you want to find fault with this production of course you can. But thats not really the point. This film is for enjoying the music, laughing at the slapstick comedy, having a good time and perhaps even kicking off those heels and having a dance.

Meryl Streep successfully dominates this film with all the enthusiasm of an Aunt visiting for Christmas and determined to have a good time. Ably assisted by Julie Walters, and a particularly good Christine Baranski the three of them laugh, dance and cry themselves through a plot which is frankly only there to allow everyone to enjoy themselves.

Amanda Seyfried as Streep’s daughter is the right mix of innocence and verve and the three prospective “fathers”,Brosnan, Firth and Skarsgard ham up their scenes monstrously.The only real query on the film is Brosnan’s singing. It is terrible. I hope that it was left in as a joke because it does cause you to literally laugh out loud. Which is in marked contrast to Streep who sings admirably, giving Madonna a run for her money in the latter’s starring role in Evita.

The sun of course always shines, the buildings look rustic and welcoming, and the sea is blue.The “set pieces”, Voulez Vous, Dancing Queen and a raucous Does Your Mother Know always entertain, Chiquitita is an unexpected delight! The Fifties and Sixties produced a run of popular musicals making the likes of Diana Dors stars in the process. The Musical is back for the 21st century!