Garyswordz

Pretentious Drivel, 29 January 2007

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Inarritu’s recent history with “Amores Perros” and “21 Grammes” had me expectantly awaiting his latest effort. I deliberately avoided doing too much “research” on the film, instead wanting to be challenged and impressed by one of the more interesting contemporary directors of the day.

The film stinks. Don’t be seduced by the Art House brigade. The story (three interwoven) is poorly told. The characters lack depth. There is an almost total lack of pace.Although shot beautifully,and what action there is, is well captured, this in no way compensates from a project which conspires to be “clever”, but simply implodes into the vacuum of a desperately ill executed tale.

Ironically, the story is one of poor communication between characters – the fact that it communicates so poorly it’s message to it’s audience is no doubt lost on the film’s supporters. Pitt and Blanchett are wasted on this nonsense and the two and a half hour running time makes a mockery of any sort of cinematic discipline by the Director.

Avoid.There is much more thought provoking, and skilfully created fare than this out there!

Worst Jodie Foster film I’ve Seen, 27 January 2007
Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I watched this film as a Foster “completist” and was hugely disappointed, not by Foster per se, but by this clunking effort. The premise of the film – a bank heist that goes wrong with more to it than meets the eye – was promising. The execution was woeful.

Denzel Washington is the lead character playing a flawed cop who is pressed into dealing with a heist, and the hostage consequence. Initially, I thought that Washington was simply playing an incompetent cop well. Then it dawned on me that there were some more fundamental incompetence issues.

The musical score appears to have come from another film, it is so unsympathetically matched. Foster’s appearance is at best a character part, at worst a cameo, and her role is a simplistic plotting device.

The plot stretches suspension of disbelief to such absurd levels that as a viewer you feel stupid at the end for giving the Director the benefit of the doubt. A banal script gives the high quality roster of actors precious little room for manoeuvre and the direction is painfully slow.

Frustratingly, the storyline has good dramatic potential. But this is squandered in spectacular style as the film limps through its two and a bit hours running time. This is the first Spike Lee film I have ever seen. I shall be consciously avoiding his previous efforts.

I note that other posters have been much more positive and enthusiastic about this movie. It is rare that I am able to take such a diametrically opposed view with such confidence.

Bold, Compelling Historical Drama, 26 January 2007
Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Historical dramas in Africa are thin on the ground. Although awash with rich material,the sceptre of Rasicm has largely kept mainstream film makers away from Political drama on this volatile continent. Yet McDonalds’s tale is a triumph, with a towering performance from Forrest Whitaker as Idi Amin.

Ironically the narrative is driven not by Amin , but by James McCavoy as a young Scottish Doctor in search of adventure – who certainly finds it! He uncannily reprises Ewan McGreggors “Joie de vivre as a Scotsman” and his role allows Amin’s to “breathe”.The cinematography has a wonderful lush African feel to it whilst bravely eschewing the obvious “safari” shots.

Very few films simply show Africans as Africans – and this is one of this film’s great strengths. Well edited, and sprightly in pace, one episode zips into another making mincemeat of the two hour running time.

The beautiful Gillian Anderson has an understated love interest role at the start of the film as the undervalued wife of a Doctor manning a remote village medical centre. But the real action starts when Amin persuades the young Doctor to join him in Kampala.

Ironically the only stereotyping is of the British (English as far as McDonald is concerned) Consular officials as bumbling Colonial mealy -mouthed fools. It smacks of a joke for the Directors Scottish mates, and slightly undermines the restraint with which the other characters are drawn.

Apart from the savage climax as the Entebbe Hostage Crisis unfolds, the violence engulfing the country is only alluded to and hinted at. Amin is portrayed largely as a human, colourful, and humorous individual – not least when he is discussing extra marital liaisons with the young Doctor.

Although this is a fiction within an historical context it succeeds in both entertaining a s a story and illuminating pretty fairly one of Africa’s more notorious dictators

Respectful, tense, safe homage, 13 January 2007

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I approached this film with some trepidation. The US is notoriously flawed, simplistic and introspective in it’s international perspective. So I was prepared for a flag waving, navel gazing,sentimental tale safely geared for the home market. I was wrong to do so.

Greengrass tells the story straight in real time, and produces a powerful, restrained tale.Several of the performances are by the real people on the ground, giving it an authenticity which is the hallmark of the production.

The temptation to demonise the hi jackers is avoided, as is the temptation to flesh out the plane victims characters, and backgrounds, for dramatic effect. Balance wins here, dramatic effect however is reduced.

The overall feel is one of a well produced documentary .As such it is a fitting tribute to the people who were unwilling, but heroic, participants in one of the most extraordinary days in modern history. The lack of sensationalism and judgement loses some dramatic power opportunities, but wins in terms of credibility. As an historic document of that day – it is a triumph.

Fulsome Festive Fayre, 26 December 2006

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

There is a lot that is derivative about this movie. The plot is Toy Story / Small Soldiers / Jumanji/ Nutcracker Suite thrown together and shaken down. Ben Stiller does what he always does, there is snow at Christmas and a cherubic kid, with Carla Guggini for the Dads. But it works.

At 1 3/4 hours long it as at the edge of its welcome. But the plot is sufficiently well developed to carry you through (actually a coherent plot is quite welcome these days).

What makes this film though is a series of disciplined cameos which carry you through those moments of Stiller overload. Ricky Gervais is a wonderfully British Museum Director, Steve Coogan a wacky Roman General, Robin Williams a warm hearted Teddy Roosevelt and Owen Wilson plays a brief effective role as a Frontiersman. Couple this with a combative performance from Dick Van Dyke as a retiring guard with a grudge and you have just enough to keep you going for the duration.

Belly laughs are a bit thin on the ground, but try to keep a warm smile off your face and you will fail as a delightful, tight, limited plot unfolds.Fimly a children’s film but with enough to keep adults engaged and amused.

Quirky, Powerful and off Genre, 26 December 2006

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I caught this movie unaware of who the Director and Cast were, let alone what the storyline was. I was rewarded with an above average movie which flirted with the Gangster genre, aided and abetted by ingredients from Western Revenge stories, and the unexplained, from sci-fi plots.

Like many, I have enjoyed David Cronenberg’s The Fly, The Dead Zone, and Dead Ringers, with an honourable mention to Crash. Viggo Mortensen excels as the lead Tom Stall, the ordinary man with extraordinary killing skills.Ed Harris is a savage counterpoint as Carl Foggerty, Stall’s nemesis.

The opening failed Coffee shop robbery starts off almost as an homage to Tarrantino’s similar scene in “Pulp Fiction”, but ends much more violently and unexpectedly. Cronenberg walks a difficult line throughout.He claims a distaste for violence and the glorification of it, but the raw brutality shown here is as graphic, and raw, as anything you will see anywhere.

The sub text throughout is of the lurking power of violence which is almost expressed as an extra terrestrial power, a nod to his sci fi antecedants.Sex is similarly deployed in an ambivalent manner. One scene has Stall and his wife acting out a schoolkid cheerleader fantasy culminating in explicit, full on sex, the other key sex scene has Stall brutally forcing himself on her before she acquiesces, consents, and crucially, enjoys.

Ultimately the film aspires, but fails to match, the flawed hero grandeur of say “Carlito’s Way” ,which itself has Shakespearean Tragic pretensions.A cameo performance by William Hurt, gaining him bizarrely a “best supporting actor” nomination, is a distraction.

The lack of local interest in the mounting feast of violence requires serious suspension of disbelief. But the integrity of performance from the entire ensemble is a joy.The 94 minute running time is tight and disciplined, and the otherworldly dimension of Stall, his wife, the luscious Maria Bello, and son in particular, provides nuances to a traditional core plot which lift this well out of the ordinary.

Weak,poorly acted inaction film, 13 November 2006

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

There are times when you start watching a film, and only continue in the hope that it is going to get better, simply on the basis that it could not continue as badly as it started.This is such a film.

Dennis Quaid sleep walks through his performance.Hugh Lawrie is hopelessly miscast, his squeaky contributions teetering on the comic – when in fact they are laughable. I have no problem with remakes.Stories retold for a different generation can be powerful and resonate with their time – “Titanic” and “Cape Fear” are good examples.

Yet this is not a poor remake.It is just a poor film. The premise for the film – that the survivors of a desert plane crash can create a new flying machine from the wreckage, requires suspension of disbelief.This can be achieved if the acting and the direction is strong enough, The film fails on both counts.

The special effects aren’t, the set pieces are predictable, the “action” is lumpen. Don’t waste an hour and 49 minutes of your life on this.

Sharp, clever, and very funny, 4 November 2006

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Firstly, the preconceptions. I am not an Ali G fan and have previously found Cohens characters puerile, lame and unfunny. However, I could not help but be intrigued, and amused, by the pre- launch publicity, so I thought that i would give it a chance. Am I glad I did! The running time of 84mins is spot on, as soon as it runs out of steam it finishes. But before it does, it generates enough steam to power the Flying Scotsman ! Of course the toilet jokes are funny, they always have been and always will be. But the obvious humour is balanced by sharp observation – coloured mini i pods are for girls, and subtle laughs like when he throws down his suitcase in despair, – then we remember what is inside! The joke is not on Khazakstan – its on the United States which is mercilessly lampooned. It is difficult to decide which shots are “reality” takes and which are set up. The humour rests not only with Cohen, but with the Americans who don’t realise that their genuine reactions are the butt of his wit.

Surprisingly sophisticated and subtle, whilst simultaneously being base and crude.This film made me laugh out loud more often than I can recently remember. I shall be fascinated to read the American reviews of this film – I don’t think that they are going to like it!

Triumphant British Gangster Film, 14 September 2006

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I first saw this film on release some 26 years ago,and have revisited it on several occasions.But a TV showing last night prompted me to test its’ quality once again – I was not disappointed.

Class oozes out of every frame. Helen Mirren cuts a dazzling sexy,swathe throughout as Bob Hoskins’ gangsters moll. Hoskins himself gives a tour de force performance as Harold Shand, the London villain who suddenly, and inexplicably, finds his fiefdom spiralling out of control.

The action races along at a pace of knots, but it is the superlative Barrie Keeffe screenplay that continues to delight with Harolds’ monologues at the heart of things. Upon the death of one of his henchmen he reflects “Poor Colin, who could do this to him? He would never hurt a fly – well mot unless it was necessary….” Despite Shands’ thoroughly ruthless character Keeffee imbues a Shakespearean strand of Tragedy both to the story, and Shand.This is magnificently demonstrated with Shands murder of one of his right hand men “I smell treachery” and his child like collapse into the arms of Mirrens’ Victoria as events spiral out of control.

The classy dialogue makes the profanities and violence, when they come, even more powerful, and make no mistake this is a powerful tale of corrupt power, deceit, loyalty and disloyalty. No British Gangster film has come close to this in the last quarter of a century which is as much a testament to its. stature as it is a condemnation of its’ poor imitators.