Garyswordz

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

Strong – but not spectacular, 16 September 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A solid western from veteran Director Henry King starring Gregory Peck as Jim Douglass and a very young Joan Collins. King has over 200 Director and Acting credits and the experience he gathered is evident throughout this picture. The opening Act was oft copied by the later Spaghetti Westerns. A man with no name arrives at a remote town for a hanging, and slowly the story unfolds. The presence of Lee Van Cleef in a supporting role reinforces that aura of what was to come when Van Cleef secured lead roles.

Peck is very good in the lead role and was surely in part the inspiration for later similar performances from Clint Eastwood. The mystery of his motivation is well handled, as is the lead up to the gang break out. Initially this looks like a standard tale of revenge as Douglass joins the Possee to catch the escapees. But after some early killing Douglass is given cause to question whether he is gaining revenge on the right people, and whether revenge is what he wants at all, and it twists into a story of redemption. Collins has little to do other than look beautiful, which she succeeds in doing rather well.

A curiosity is the way that women are portrayed in the film. The “hangman” unashamedly asks for evening “entertainment” on arrival, and Emma, played by Kathleen Gallant, is kidnapped for sexual services. The starkness with which this is referred to on a number of occasions is quite unsettling as are her screams form within a shed when she is finally assaulted.

The scenery, in Mexico, is wonderful, but the closing Act’s “redemption” morality tale is a bit clunky for modern tastes. A strong, atmospheric film whose formula is just a little too obvious to take it into the realms of greatness.

Light, Frothy, Summer, Fun, 13 August 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

This is no classic, nor will it feature on the lists of the involved party’s best work, yet as a straightforward popcorn pic, it’s quite a lot of fun. Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz dominate, and do a good job at carrying the picture. The action sequences are good, but the story is awkward, and the dialogue frequently terrible. That nine writers were involved in a series of rewrites is no surprise.

Although billed as a comedy ,laughs are in short supply. But this is more than compensated for by a series of excellent set piece action scenes, the best of which is set in Seville, Spain. Indeed it is the locations and action which save the story from a slow death, combined with the energy and brio of the leads.

The plot is simple enough, spy Cruise involves an unsuspecting Diaz in a swirl of danger, mystery intrigue, and excitement, and they fall romantically for one another. The running gags are cringe worthy, and the humour forced, but is not intended to be taken seriously and an early shoot out on a plane, of which Diaz is apparently unaware, does raise a smile. Director James Mangold has done some good work previously in the Chair with “3:10 to Yuma” and “Walk the Line” and as a writer with “Copland”. Here he scrapes respectability by the skin of his teeth.

Outstanding 21st Century Sci – Fi Thriller, 29 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

A brilliant film, and Director Christopher Nolan’s best to date. Once in a while a good original idea, an intelligent script, and a fine cast come together. “Inception” is one of those occasions. Any story that takes two and a half hours to tell on screen had better be good – and this is. The basic premise is fairly straight forwards. A mind invasion expert, Cobb, played by De Capprio, is hired to persuade the heir to a global conglomerate to break up the Corporation by a business rival .In return that rival promises that his influence will ensure that charges against Cobb in the US will be dropped.

The opening act is disorientating as reality and dream are introduced to the viewer non-sequentially. Although the narrative does not initially make sense, the action is compelling enough. Then slowly the plot unfolds in a device that Nolan first explore in “Memento”. Gradually the story makes sense via a young student, Ariadne, played by Ellen Page, who is hired to assist in the project .Yet just as we are getting to grips with a “mind theft” plot a parallel plot emerges. That of Cobb’s deceased wife, and the part he had to play in her death.

Essentially, Nolan is playing with a device popularised in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. The play within the play, and he has a lot of fun with it. The opportunity it presents for non-linear action and narrative is exploited to the full, especially as he chooses to introduce the concept of three levels of dreaming. As a consequence, the viewer is forced to pay attention, simultaneously trying to make sense of the on screen action whilst reflecting how action in our own dreams works.

There is little to find fault with. Pete Postlethwaite and Michael Caine relish minor roles and Marion Cotillard exudes mystery and beauty as Cobbs’ wife. The myriad “dream within dream” sequences provide multiple mini-action climaxes which do disrupt a conventional film narrative, yet the ending is a good old fashioned device of keeping the audience guessing.The handling of illusion and reality will delight “Matrix” fans, whilst a shoot-out at a snowy mountain hideaway is pure Bond circa “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. So whilst Nolan explores the cerebral dimensions of the plot in a way that would have delighted Stanley Kubrik, he also relishes an action sequence as much as Jerry Bruckheimer.

Easily amongst the best films of the 21st Century and destined to be a classic.

Depressing, Dire, Fare, 25 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the Directorial debut for Matt Zettell, and Christopher Nelson’s first screenplay- and it shows. There is a rich and honourable tradition of ” captured women at the mercy of depraved men”, but this does nothing to add to it. The premise is fine, and familiar. A loner pervert abducts young women for lewd purposes. But crucially, beyond that, Zettell loses his way.

It isn’t a sexploitation movie. There is no overt sexual violence and hardly any nudity, so voyeurs will be disappointed. This isn’t a standard “slash & splash” movie, the body count is too low. Nor is it a psychological thriller, the Direction and writing isn’t good enough. The shame is that the two lead actors, abductor Herman, (James Dumont(, and abductee , Rudy, (Michelle Tomlinson), do a decent job with what they have, which isn’t very much.

There are some decent scenes, the pre opening credits chase across a deserted storm drain is solid, the supermarket scenes where Herman buys self consciously for his captive well observed if under exploited, and the dispatch of some pesky Jehovas witnesses quite amusing. But overall it is a long 85 minutes.

The film’s flaw is that Zettell does not know what to do with the story. The characterisation is weak, so we don’t really bond with any of the characters. Herman’s creepy and perverted desires are not played on enough, and the violence requires a level of suspension of disbelief in the final act which is laughable. This film really is not very good.

Original and Thought Provoking, 18 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A genuinely creepy take on the “terrorised at home” genre which is both inventive, and scary. The conceit of remaking your own film after only ten years exercised by Director Michael Haneke is a debate all on its own. But its transposition from a mid European backwater to affluent USA works.

The premise is simple, a wealthy couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) and their eight year old child arrive at their holiday home and are then attacked terrorised and murdered by two teenage assailants. What makes this film different is that we are asked to watch this knowing that we are a crucial part of the film dynamic as the audience. At some points we are addressed directly, and at another the story is rewound. So as this tale of gratuitous violence unfolds, the audience cannot “enjoy” it, they are asked to question how they could, or why they would, enjoy it.

The “rules” of cinema are gleefully trashed. The dog doesn’t survive, it “gets it” first, the cute kid doesn’t survive, he is blown away with a gun, the mother is told to strip, but we don’t get to see her naked, the Dad is not a hero he is an impotent spectator. And all of the time as this horrific violence is unleashed, it is always off screen. The message is that if you thought that you as an audience were going to get off on some sex and violence, you are mistaken, it is for the participants only. And the assailants themselves are never less than perfectly, and absurdly, polite.

Funny Games prides itself on the surreal. The bad guys are dressed in white, and wear white gloves. The setting is peaceful. The psychotic teenagers initially ask for eggs, which are deliberately broken in extended scenes. The metaphor of the fragility of suburban life, decency and everything around us gruesomely exposed.

It isn’t perfect, and it probably is too long. But it is also original and a thought provoking antidote to the standard home invasion slasher fare most recently reincarnated with the remake of “Last House on the Left” and “The Strangers”, and is a more successful examination of popular culture’s fascination with violence than say Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers”, it’s natural bedfellow is probably “A Clockwork Orange”. Perversely, those who enjoy slasher, horror gore are likely to be disappointed by this film whereas those who don’t like it are likely to enjoy it.

Lacks Bite, 18 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An entertaining enough cheesy monster flick which suffers a bit from an identity crisis. As a straight forwards action, adventure, cod- horror, it isn’t bad, but when it tries to move into a fully blown monster pic it fails miserably. The setting and scenery however are magnificent, Director Greg McLean, previously of “Wolf Creek” knows how to make the most of the magnificent Australian landscape.

It opens with strong overtones of “Black Water”, a previous “Crocs after tourists” tale, but with a much bigger budget. Radha Mitchell, played by Kate Ryan, provides the glamour interest and the tourist boat which sets out to explore a salt water gorge is laden with satisfyingly diverse characters. The initial croc attack is well handled, and the jeopardy of them finding themselves on a tidal island soon to be flooded by the incoming tide works well. The drama and tension exceed that of “Black Water” – but then it all goes wrong in the final act.

A showdown occurs in the “Crocs lair” where the bodies of its victims have been dragged. It becomes preposterous. The set is expensive and well staged, but the premise is ridiculous and the genuine tension that previously existed on the tidal island dissolves into disbelieving laughter. At the heart of this is a truism, and that is that “rogue croc” stories probably only have around 60minutes worth of entertaining screen time in them, and by trying to stretch them out to a feature length 90 minutes, the material is inevitably stretched too thinly.

McLean foolishly denies us the customary horror genre “underwear shot” of the lovely Kate and the tenor of the film generally is more suited to a children’s matinée than adult horror with some salty language actually jarring. Sam Worthington plays , Neil Kelly, the male hero, very well in a part which is curiously underwritten by McLean. But there is a limit to how well you can act opposite a mainly submerged rogue crocodile.

So overall it’s a bit of a dud, but with some redeeming features