Garyswordz

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

Grossly Disappointing, 14 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Trite, banal, unfunny , sentimental and predictable, this film also has some bad points. Kevin James plays Mall Cop, Paul Blart in the lovable loser fat guy role so beloved of the late John Candy. Director Steve Carr has failed to distinguish himself in previous comedies such as “Daddy Day Care” and “Dr Doolittle 2”. This will have done nothing to enhance his reputation as a comedic director.

Comedy requires love for character. But Carr ladles so much syrupy schmaltz into this script that the viewer is reaching for the sick bag way before any fond laughter is reached. Blart’s role as a fat failure borders on the offensive, his failure with girls is cringe worthy, and his heroic efforts to thwart a gang of Mall Robbers unconvincing. Naturally, his daughter plays the cute kid rooting for her single parent Dad to come good – and get the girl.

A formulaic sub plot underpins proceedings. The good guy can overcome the odds to succeed. Being fat and hopeless doesn’t stop you getting the girl- so long as you have a good heart. The bad guys always get their comeuppance, even the old school bully. Aimed squarely at a family audience the violence is comic book, and no-one actually gets hurt. Yet the pantomime charm of “Home Alone” is missing, mainly down to an awful script, and a lamentable supporting cast.

The idea of the unsung hero coming good against the bad guys is fine, and the dramatic possibilities of action in an empty shopping mall have been exploited before to good effect, not least in Zombies films. But Carr simply does not have the expertise, or the script, to exploit the raw materials. James isn’t bad as Blart – but everything else is, in a film which is a very long 90 minutes. A big fat dud

Predator Survives, 14 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The original “Predator” with ,Arnold Shwarzenegger, is now 23 years old, its sequel 10 years old. So reinventing the premise of the story had the advantage that a whole load of new sci-fi monster movie fans will be unaware of its existence, and could be sold to afresh, and the disadvantage that its original audience had long since left it behind. This third effort succeeds because the basis of the story is still good, and has been modernised ,with even better special effects. Although formulaic in plot, it does still deliver, and stays just the right side of kitsch.

Adrian Brody convincingly takes Arnie’s place as a mercenary who finds himself mysteriously parachuted into an unknown jungle with assorted desperadoes . He quickly discovers that the jungle is not friendly in a pleasingly thoughtful , and understated performance. Disconcertingly the open quarter of an hour seems like an out take from “Lost”, but as soon as the monsters appear we return to familiar action ground.

An early mini-dinosaur attack nods to Jurassic park, a derelict spaceship is reminiscent of Aliens, and the showdown with THE Predators is an homage to the original. Innovation is in short supply here, but the genre themes are well explored and well executed. The studiously diverse multi-racial cast is a bit too knowing for my liking with snapshots of lazy racial stereotyping marginally irritating. The first half works better than the second, with the break point being when they discover a human survivor holed up in a wrecked spacecraft. At that point the “Chase” finishes, and the story suffers, even though the action ramps up.

The cinematography is excellent throughout, and the musical score is traditional, but superb. The idea of an alien planet upon which a technologically superior race predates on humans for fun has more mileage in it which will no doubt be explored in the fourth of the series which must surely come after this

Strong Early Kubrick Anti-War Film, 4 July 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this, some 53 years before it was made, without knowing anything about it. It transpires that this was a huge advantage in making an objective assessment of a film which has historically divided opinion. The context is important. Made in 1957, it was part of the double feature era when people went to the cinema to see two films, both under 90 minutes. The demand was that a full story be told in that time meaning that far more storytelling ground was often covered then than in modern day films. Certainly here, a longer running time or reduced content would have been a benefit.

It was also made forty years after the end of the First World War in which the film is set. The mass slaughter was being objectively assessed against a backdrop of a “just” second world war, and a futile Korean War which had ended where it started, but at a cost of a million miles. Although essentially an anti-war film , it does not succeed in having universal sentiments which transcend the time.

The first awkwardness is that although the story is set in French lines, a stoutly English and American cast speak and act English. There is always a debate to be had about sub titles, but here the problem is greater than that. Virtually no attempt is made to make the characters, and their setting, feel French. This is so acute that on occasion it is easy to forget whether we are in French, British or America lines.

George Macready is good and well cast as General Mireau, but a donkey leading lions. Yet the opening act offers a crude short hand of a venal, incompetent self-seeking command prepared to sacrifice their men for personal advancement. Kirk Douglas then appears as a more junior commander, Colenel Dax who is cajoled into undertaking an impossible assault on German lines. Dax’s lines have no French reference at all, they are the words of an American Hero juxtaposed against a seemingly corrupt, ineffective French Military hierarchy, a narrative which would probably have played well at the time.

The battle scene itself is well handled and convincing as the French launch an attack which is beaten back by the German positions. Yet the pivotal moment when x orders his gunners to fire on their own positions as troops refuse to leave their trenches under withering fire is crassly handled, and a little naive. The tradition of men refusing to follow orders facing death by their own side dates back at least to Roman times and was well practised in the first and second world wars by the Russians and Germans. Absolute obedience to orders IS a military imperative, yet instead we are invited to sympathise with those men who cowered in their trenches letting down those of their comrades who DID follow orders. The artillery officer refuses the order.

Mireau orders that a body of men are summarily shot in the interests of discipline, and Dax, a qualified lawyer, provides his services in defence of the three accused. This act is undoubtedly the strongest as the folly of war is forensically dissected, transcending the moment. But then it falters again as Mireau is threatened with exposure by y for ordering French Artillery to shell their own lines to the Press. The reality is that there was no mass French Press then, the press that did exist was strictly establishment, and there was no chance that the story would have found its way into the paper. Late 1950’s mores of American Press practises is superimposed wrongly in time and place.

The summary execution of the token “Cowards” is grandly set, and poignantly portrayed and perhaps the story should have ended there. But instead there is a denouement ( the only thing French about this film!) where Dax’s soldiers take some rest and recreation to be entertained by a captured young German woman, later to be Mrs Kubrick in real life. Initially there is a suggestion that she will be gang –raped, but then she sings and unifies then all in a cloying, sentimental ending at odds with the ambitions of the film , but wholly consistent with a commercially acceptable close.

The story is well told, and well acted, and is satisfying with numerous hints of the greatness to come. Its shortcomings, as only Kubrick’s second feature are wholly excusable. But the madness of war is more completely explored in “Dr Strangelove”, it’s visceral side more effectively explored in “Full Metal Jacket” so this is no masterpiece, but a strong part of the Kubrick canon nonetheless.