Garyswordz

An Amusing Third Instalment, 8 January 2011

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I thoroughly enjoyed the first two Fokker films and took in this third offering purely on that basis, despite some critical reviews. I was not disappointed. Yes it does now assume the characteristics of the old ” Carry On” or “Confessions of….” series, stock well established characters, in jokes, running gags and predictable humour. But it entertains, and that is no crime.

Dustin Hoffman and Barbera Streisand are sparingly used this time, whilst Owen Wilson pretty much steals each scene he is in. The plot is pretty thin and is really a thinly disguised attempt to squeeze the best out of the jokes from the previous two films. But it is light, frothy, and does not outstay its welcome. Jessica Alba is sassy and sexy as Andi Garcia and adds a slight, but welcome, new dynamic to the Fokker Family dynamic.

Inevitably Ben Stiller, as Gaylord Fokker, is getting past the new Dad, lowly nurse stage, and the plot tries to move things along a little, whilst at the end there is a shameless platform established for the next instalment. Will there be another? Should there be another? On the one hand the existing gag opportunities seem to have been well – plumbed now. But on the other the characters are great and everyone still seems to be enjoying themselves. With the help of an inspired script writer to create fresh adventures and challenges – why not?

Better Than The Reviews Suggest, 20 December 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

This film went pretty much straight to DVD/TV with the associated stigma that accompanies that. But although there were obvious shortcomings, it still has a fair bit going for it. The three star actors, Gerard Butler, Maria Bello and Pierce Brosnan are a strong trio, and the story is fine. What goes wrong? Probably that Director Mike Barker’s credentials as predominantly a TV Director glare through with a lack of big screen vision or continuity.

The plot twists limit what can be said about the story, but the core revolves around a “perfect couple”( Butler/ Bello) whose daughter is kidnapped by a mysterious psychopath (Brosnan) who looks to deconstruct their lives. The element which is always fragile is the extent to which the couple choose not to escape or contact the Police simply because the kidnapper, who is with them, has their daughter.

If you can get over that, the story is tense, gallops along, and has a series of good set-pieces. Bello is hot, and Brosnan suitably menacing, albeit with a wavering accent. In the hands of a more accomplished Director, this would have been pretty good, but the episodic construction clunks, and the final twist, whilst compelling again requires a giant leap of motivational faith.

A Horrible Misfire, 18 December 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

The St Trinians stories are good ones. I feared the worst with the first remake, and was pleasantly surprised. I watched this second “reimagining” – and was very disappointed. So, what went wrong? Three things, Russell Brand was missing, Sarah Harding is not good enough to carry a female lead, and too much of the action was out of school.

I suspect that the budget was bigger for this one, but it was wasted off premises. The charm is “the school” in the broadest sense, and this was lost in a bizarre plot focusing on lost pirate treasure. No St Trinians story is complete without “Flash”, yet he is missing. David Tennant is lost in the strangely written role of Lord Pomfrey, Rupert Everett and Colin Firth reprise their roles in the first film, but to much less effect.

Previously Stephen Fry was brought in to boost the final act- and it worked, together with Girls Aloud as the School Band. This time around there is no such imagination or stardust. To mess up what is fundamentally such a strong concept takes some doing – but that is exactly what Directors Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson do. Most damning for a comedy – it isn’t funny

A Conceptual Triumph, 20 October 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An incredibly difficult film to rate objectively and review. The story is that of Paul Conroy, played by Ryan Reynolds, whom we find entombed, in darkness, somewhere in Iraq, held hostage. This is a one-hander shot on a single set. The ultimate low budget conception. So you can forget cinematography, location and supporting actors. What you are left with is one man’s performance, a compelling story, excellent camera work (it has to be!) and THE question- will he escape? This is a Spanish made and financed film with distribution in Europe, Japan and the USA. I do not think this will be to American tastes. There is no big budget, no special effects, no chases and no shoot-outs. Furthermore, Reynolds’ claim that he is “just a truck driver” helping to reconstruct Iraq is shamelessly exposed to his captors riposte that the Americans shouldn’t have wrecked the country in the first place. The ambush and fire fight which resulted in his capture is mentioned but not shown – guaranteed to send Hollywood executives into apoplexy.

“Buried” takes its inspiration from cave-in and submarine disaster films of the past- and then ratchets up the tension to the maximum. You are alone, you don’t know where you are, you can barely see, you can barely move, you can barely breathe, and you are running out of air. The skill of the screenplay by Chris Sparling is that it identifies our dark primeval fears, and then plays them out through Reynolds. It is that Everyman connection which works.

Once the audience understands the situation, it then begs a subliminal challenge. How much drama can you get from a man in a box? The answer is plenty. As Reynolds starts to get to grips with his surroundings, so do we. A mobile phone whose charge is waning as Reynolds prospects wane, is his only contact with the outside world , to his would be rescuers, and his captors. But all we hear are their voices. And what he does hear is not good. His captors want an impossible ransom, his employers have sacked him due to an alleged affair negating insurance monies to his family, and contacting his family his family is fraught with problems. All we hear is voices, of hope, love, rejection, alienation, isolation and threat. We hear what Reynolds hears, we see what he sees, crucially we imagine what he imagines drawing us in.

Although well plotted, with skillful story development, the dialogue itself is workmanlike, rather than inspired. The scenario provided for inspiring monologues, instead we get staccato bursts of communication with the outside world. How intentional this is, is unclear. The advantage is that this depersonalises Reynolds and externalises his dilemma, the disadvantage is that we don’t really care about his fate as a person. Yet ironically neither do his employers, the kidnappers or maybe even the rescuers. He really is on his own.

What defines “Buried” is the courage of the film makers to have an idea, and see it through. It must have been so tempting to introduce some exterior shots and to show some flashbacks to ease the claustrophobia. They didn’t. Artistically that is brave and pays dividends. All were wisely eschewed in favour of the stark, austere but pure compelling vision which makes this film such a success – on its own terms.

Above Average Heist Movie, 19 October 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

An above average “Heist” movie confidently directed by Ben Afleck who also takes the lead. Set in Boston, Affleck plays a career bank robber, Doug Macray, from the run down district of Charlestown, which is home to the criminal fraternity in general, and bank robbing aficionados in particular. The generous running time of 125 mins contains only three raids because, wisely, the story based on the Chuck Hogan novel “Prince of Thieves”, concentrates on character rather than action and takes time to enjoy the location sets in Boston itself.

Charlestown is a tight knit community to which Affleck’s gang return after a brilliant, visceral opening Bank raid. To English ears, the dialogue is sometimes mumbled and difficult to follow, but when a hostage is freed who it emerges also lives in Charlestown, the plot bites as MacRay starts to date the hostage and is easy to follow. Time worn themes of criminal codes of honour, redemption, justice and revenge are explored with a blue collar authenticity which just begs Bruce Springsteen to step out of the shadows at any time.

Rebecca Hall as Claire skilfully unfolds the role of bank official turned unwitting girlfriend ,delivering a compelling, but understated performance even though her own back story is somewhat under written. Pete Postlethwaite is wonderful in a cameo as the local godfather in a ballsy performance, in every sense of the phrase.

No such story would be complete without the Cop determined to bring the hoodlums to justice and John Hamm is convincing as FBI agent Hawley whose task in racking down the offenders is not that difficult. Why both he and McCray have to sport unshaven beard growth is never quite explained.

A gripe is the Hollywood obsession with over the top shoot-outs. Although the opening bank raid, and subsequent security van raid are brilliant, the finale at the Boston Red Sox ‘ Fenway Park becomes ridiculous and unconvincing, and is wholly unnecessary to a well plotted story. Fortunately an action free, but engrossing and satisfying denouement save the story from the ridicule it risks at Fenway Park.

Strong, and atmospheric, with several nods to “Heat” this movie succeeds and delivers in spades suggesting that in the future Affleck will make a film that scores excellent, and not just the “very good” plaudits which this story has rightly been credited with

Entertaining Social History, 17 October 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

A light, but solid account of the women’s strike at Ford’s Dagenham to secure equal pay for women. Director Nigel Cole’s last big success was “Calendar Girls” and his eye for place and dialogue is much in evidence once again.. A very good cast performs a good script well, in a confident running time of one hour and three quarters.

Sally Hawkins shines as strike leader by default, Rita, ably supported by Bob Hoskins as shop steward, a part he plays with relish and aplomb. Yet unlike “Calendar Girls” ,this story has an epic sweep about it which the screenplay struggles with. Although set on the outskirts of London, in 1968, very little period music is used, depriving proceedings of nostalgia and mood music, even the fashions are slightly out of sync with the year. Equally, the all female workshop’s predilection for stripping to their underwear in the un air –conditioned heat eschews the obvious option of plenty of shots of pretty girls in nice bras, for matronly women in passion killing foundation wear. These easy “hits” are missed, for better or for worse. Yet there are the “London Trademark” shots of Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament and Double Decker red buses – but without a Beatles and Kinks soundtrack.

A protracted strike does not make for entertaining viewing so wisely Cole focuses on the domestic melodrama’s of the striking women. It is when it reaches beyond that the story suffers. Ford, and their Chairman, are shown in vignette in a fairly unfavourable light, such that a notice appears at the film’s end to say what a model company they now are. The all male Union bosses fare little better and are largely shown as self centred misogynists. In the same way that the story tells how many of the male workers were not behind the strike, equally male viewers may feel that the male view point is shown in shorthand.

A very contrived relationship between Rita, and the wife of a local Ford Manager, played by the impossibly gorgeous Rosamund Pike grates a little, whilst Miranda Richardson makes the best of a ridiculously underwritten role as Barbera Castle. The comic bumbling duo of her under secretaries should have been left on the cutting room floor. John Sessions turn as Harold Wilson is hopelessly misconceived.

Yet for all the flaws when the film over stretches itself, it is at home, “at home”. Dagenham domestic life, and tragedy, is fondly evoked with Geraldine James as Connie, particularly good, and the feel of the era is authentically re –created. This isn’t a comedy, nor is it a social history, but as light drama it entertains and satisfies.

Affectionate but Edgy, Period Drama, 2 October 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Viewed in 2010 this is a difficult call. It’s status as being a slice of cinematic social history is undoubted, as is the fine performance of Albert Finney. However as a stand-alone piece, the impact and power that it had at the time has dissipated with age.

The mechanics are very simple. A bleak drab setting, Finney as angry young man, Arthur, conventional love interest in Shirley-Ann Field as Doreen, and illicit love interest in married Rachel Roberts as Brenda who falls pregnant by Arthur.

The social commentary is finely observed by Director Karel Reisz and writer Alan Sillitoe. Reisz’s subsequent stage work with Pinter plays and his realisation of “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” both showcase his ability to deal successfully with character which is much in evidence here. Several supporting roles are vital to the story’s success with the bruising matriarchs of the time joyously in evidence.

At the time a story which told of marital infidelity, abortion and changing attitudes to sex, anticipating the teenage rebellion that was to surface as the decade wore on, broke the shackles of cinema which was still wedded to the conventional morality of the “War Spirit”. Now it seems staple dramatic fare. At 90 minutes it does it’s job well. Yet it lacks the raw spirit of “Kess”, the pain of “Brassed Off” or the dramatic sweep of the earlier “How Green Was My Valley” in its depiction of British Working Class life.

So ultimately an important slice of cinematic history, but by no means a timeless classic