Garyswordz

Retro Disaster Kitsch, 11 April 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

With Director Roland Emerich you know what you are going to get. Explosions, tidal waves, crashing buildings and catastrophe are his lingua franca. He delivers. Yet as many have pointed out, this is a deeply frustrating film. The storyline is fine, and ambitious, and there is a budget to match. The actors are solid, and the ample two and a half hour running time is more than enough to get the story told, so why the carping? In short, the story is not told well enough.

The trailers allude to Mayan prophesy of the destruction of the world in 2012, yet in the film it only just gets a mention. There is no sense of ancient foretold doom. When the world starts to “turn hot” the global meetings are little more than an excuse to provide location shots to sell the film in different countries, and a sub plot involving the state execution of whistle-blowers poised to reveal all to an unsuspecting public appears, then disappears, to little purpose.

John Cussack is a convincing hero, Danny Glover is hopelessly miscast as the American President in a horribly written role and Thandie Newton is wasted as an incidental love interest for co- hero, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Woody Harleston has a bizarre cameo as a hippy dj who knows what is going on and has the secret map that reveals all, and appears to be the sort of person to keep the kids well away from.

The action scenes themselves are tremendous, but there appears to be little holding it all together. Clunkily episodic, each scene seems riddled with cliché and seems to demand it’s own disaster sequence. The characters get insufficient time to win us over and the human interest ephemera like the hero’s daughter ‘s bed wetting are grindingly forced. Worst of all the biggest Disaster Movie Cliché of all – that the dog always survives, is alive and well.

The climax of the film is grotesquely drawn out as man-made arks are launched to save civilisation. Incredibly this causes Emerich to then go into “Poseidon Adventure” mode, in an exercise of wholly unnecessary self indulgence. Inside all of this there is a decent film waiting to get out. The discipline, a word which Emerich does not know the meaning of, of delivering a 90 to 105 minute picture would have produced a much more satisfying, and impactful result.

The end result is closest to 1950’s style world disaster / Alien movies, but without the charm.

A Rare Pacino Dud, 23 March 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A curious offering. The premise that the film’s star, a hot-shot forensic psychiatrist, Jack Gramm,is given 88 minutes to live by an unknown assassin on the end of a phone, is a good one. Pacino is a fine actor. The plot twists and turns, is fast paced, and has a dramatic conclusion as the dead ends disappear, and the “reveal” in the final act unfolds. Add in some salacious sado-masochistic sex scenes and you should have the ingredients of a “gritty” psychological thriller. But for some reason the total is considerably less than the sum of the parts.

Part of this is due to the fact that although Pacino is convincing as an experienced psychiatrist, his dyed hair isn’t, nor is his ability to womanise with females around a third of his age. Furthermore, Pacino’s strength is as an outstanding cerebral actor. Yet he slips into “action-cop” mode on a number of occasions in ways which seem out of character, and inappropriate.

Even the 88 minute premise is played around with as attempts are made upon his life within that time frame. I cannot imagine that the plot will be too popular with feminists either. The gruesome sado-masochistic sexual torture of one victim makes for uncomfortable, and explicit viewing, and the female characters around Pacino serve as little more than eye candy . At 108 minutes overall, the 88 minutes run in real time, the story only just stays within its welcome too. A sure sign that the characterisation has engaged with the audience.

The finale is dramatic, if preposterous, and the action scenes exciting enough. But ultimately this is fairly standard formulaic fare with Pacino having to work far too hard to make up for both the shortcomings of the screenplay, and the underwritten roles of those around him

A Satisfying, Beautifully Crafted Psychological Thriller, 23 March 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A fine psychological thriller which sees both Director Martin Scorsese and lead actors Ben Kingsley and Leo Di Caprio on fine form. The fact that this film was released almost a year after it was finished gave rise to rumours that something was amiss with the artistic merits of this project. Those rumours were misplaced.

The plot is somewhat formulaic. Although the screenplay and direction hint broadly at what is coming next, the delivery and impact of the twists and turns is always compelling. Federal Marshall Daniels, Di Caprio,and sidekick Chuch Aule, played by Mark Ruffalo, arrive on Shutter Island , a secure psychiatric facility, to investigate the escape of a patient as storm clouds gather in the sky. Yet as his investigations advance, so questions about why he is there, what is happening at the facility and what his role is mount. Scorsese reprises his use of the weather, nature and scenery, which he skilfully exploited in his remake of Cape Fear to great effect.

Kingsley is superb as Psychiatrist Dr Cawley. His measured and assured tones perfect for the role. Even when Daniels blows up his car he simply remarks that he was “quite fond of that car”, one of the few moments of humour in what is quite a dark film. Set in 1954, and with flashbacks to both wartime, and personal , trauma, there is an air of “other worldliness” about proceedings ,which has an insidious cumulative effect of all pervading paranoia. Robbie Robertson’s foreboding score excels in supporting that discordant atmosphere.

The two hour and twenty minute running time never, drags and climaxes with a convincing and powerful final act with directing and acting talent at full throttle. All is revealed, contributing to a satisfying finale whilst still leaving a few elements of doubt. Recommended.

The Best Iraq Film To date, 18 March 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A tremendous Iraq thriller with a brave and contemporary storyline. It is a story, and not a history. Yet it does skilfully blend a number of important political and historical themes into a fiction. Director Paul Greengrass delivers the tale superbly, Matt Damon shines as the soldier who learns too much. Brendan “In Bruges” Gleeson is marvellous in a supporting role as a CIA officer. When Baghdad is “secured”, the hunt for WMD’s start, and as that search proves consistently fruitless, questions start to be asked, and it is Damon who is the literal and figurative means for asking them.

The plot revels in upsetting conventional stereotypes. The Americans are the good guys AND the bad guys. The Iraqis are simply trying to survive. And the press are neither good nor bad, just innocent dupes. Baghdad is convincingly portrayed as an anarchic hell-hole, the soldiers as decent men simply trying to do the job. However the Politicians fare less well.

It remains a mystery as to why America, a country which has been the economic and technological powerhouse of the world for a century, is so hopeless at Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs. The backdrop of an Administration which went to war with little appreciation of the country it was dealing with, and no appreciation of what to do once the war was over, is witheringly parodied . A puppet Iraqi leader who “less than ten Iraqis had ever heard of” is installed, and the American administrative presence is headed by a cynical functionary with no sympathy for the country at all “and a handful of Washington interns”. The brutality of the American Military, replacing the brutality of Saddam makes for unsettling viewing.

Unsurprisingly, with Greengrass at the helm the action sequences are dynamic, realistic, and authentic. The hand held camera work is used effectively, unlike in the “Hurt Locker” where it is used because nothing else interesting is going on. Damon, as Chief Warrant Officer Miller, has to perform a role in mechanical plot terms which requires suspension of disbelief to great length, and for War Film purists, this will rankle. It is true that his freedom of action, movement and access bears no relation to the day to day reality of that role in real life. But hey, it’s a story, and a good one.

I doubt that this film will play well to an American audience which is neither particularly bothered about Iraq, or is bothered about finding out much about it anyway. It’s natural constituency is the more sophisticated British and European markets. But it is to the enormous credit of both Universal that they made this, and Matt Damon that he fronted it. It took a long while before America was prepared for verite stories about Vietnam, and subsequently it is those that are remembered. No doubt that same cycle will have to be lived for Iraq too.

A nasty, shallow, base film., 27 February 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

I saw this, on release, 36 years ago. Time has not been particularly kind to it, with Director Michael Winner’s career having been ultimately defined by this work. It was about the first, and certainly the most prominent, modern Revenge story transplanting a formula which was well worn in Western Films into an Urban setting.

It neatly tapped into justified contemporary fears that some major cities, particularly in America, were degenerating into lawless cesspits. Furthermore , sexual mores were loosening with the widespread success of Pornographic Movie blockbuster “Deep Throat” relaxing public attitudes to what sexual content was acceptable on screen. The ten minute rape scene is still amongst the most harrowing in mainstream cinema, and is there to shamelessly attract the voyeuristic as is the frequent violence.

Where the movie succeeded was in tapping into the prevailing zeitgeist that some cities were spiralling out of control “and something needed to be done”, whilst delivering a level of physical and sexual violence as entertainment which was at the bounds of what was permitted purely to attract an audience. No doubt this irony was lost on the makers. It also explored the mob “eye for an eye” ethos, as confidence in the authorities waned ( the Vietnam War was limping to a humiliating ending for the United States).

It fails because the acting is poor and the story clunky in the extreme. Winner is not a good Director. He is an upper class aesthete who thinks that he is pandering to the “mobs” taste by presenting the film in the way he does. But crucially he does not like people and lacks the common touch. In the equally violent “Dirty Harry” series Director Don Siegel and lead actor Clint Eastwood wade through a similar body count, but succeed. Why? Because the characters feel real. Winner simply uses characters as a means to deliver a product.

That frequent and graphic revenge violence and a graphic rape are big pulls for many is confirmed by the commercial success of “Death Wish” and the subsequent three sequels. But beyond that there is nothing. Charles Bronson, as Paul Kersey, shoots people, and that is about it. Hope Lang, as Joanna Kersey is shown in her nightwear, and then being beaten to death. Their daughter, played by Kathleen Tolan is the rape victim, and that is your lot for women in this picture, a misogyny which is a trademark both of Winner as a persona and a film Director.

That the three assailants themselves get away, whilst sundry other bad guys “get it”, is an attempt at some form of deliberate moral ambiguity to temper the natural audience enthusiasm for Paul Kersey’s actions. But it is no device to question his actions, more a vehicle for saying that all bad guys “deserve it” anyway.

A nasty, shallow, base film.

Bloody Brilliant, 20 February 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

A stellar ensemble delivers a cinematic delight as Director Tim Burton delivers his trademark unique twists to this traditional tale. The dark cinematography, and cartoon like CGI, creates a wonderfully chaotic, and grim 19th Century London. The music and lyrics are the work of veteran songs smith Stephen Sondheim, in a production where a significant part of the plot is sung through, which may put some people off. However I found it a joy to have a high quality musical score underwriting a good story, well told.

Johnny Depp plays the eponymous role and is fast becoming the leading actor of his generation. His London accent is quite good, if alarmingly close to that of Jack Sparrow, from Pirates of the Caribbean. His charming, but deranged Barber is a wonderful creation, which he has much fun with. His Mistress is played by a sleazily over the top Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen has a marvellous cameo as a cod-Italian travelling snake oil salesman. Judge Turpin, the “baddie” is inevitably played by Alan Rickman who excels in a small role, ably assisted by the portly Timothy Spall, his sidekick.

Essentially a Musical Horror film, Burton revels in the blood drenched plot with plenty of humorous visual gags to assuage the slaughter which unfold before us. The macabre and gory detail might be too much in less experienced hands but the artificial dreamlike quality of the Cinematography steers the audience away from the verite which if portrayed in a realistic setting would have been very uncomfortable.

A fine effort from one of the most original and imaginative Directors working today.

Dire, Dismal, Drivel, 18 February 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a veteran of the heyday of the English Football Hooliganism era , I found the original “Green Street” lamentable. Watered down, ill-advised, inaccurate, it was a shameless attempt to introduce the subject specifically to an American audience. Nothing though quite prepared me for this sequel, as cynical an exercise in film making it would be difficult to imagine apart from, “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakwell”.

Only one original cast member remains, and the story is set in a prison, which provides the confined space for West Ham and Millwall hooligans, doing prison terms, to confront each other. It unfolds as a 94 minute cage fight with multiple attacks, revenge attacks, one-on-ones, firm on firm etc. If it had been packaged as a sort of 18 rated WWF Bout, then it would have some reason for existing, but it is not, and does not.

The English prison is clearly an American one, with no sense of an English Institution at all, so it loses any authenticity as a “Prison Film” with both British and American audiences. Decent Prison Warder is played by Arthur Mason, a fine actor, who had a long stay in the British TV Series about the London Fire Service, “London’s Burning”. He spends almost the entire film with his mouth agape, presumably at the dross which is swirling around him.

Actrss Marina Sirtis plays a corrupt Head Warder in a curiously written role, the cod script almost demands some raunchy “prisoner on screw” sex action, but it never comes. A mass football match and fight at the end is so formulaic and contrived, it is pretty much unwatchable. So, not a prison or football hooligan film, the market for this is restricted to those who simply enjoy watching people getting beaten up, but is devoid of any other merit.

A Musical Joy, 7 February 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

A hugely enjoyable screen musical telling the story of the rise of all female, all black singing trio, “The Dreamgirls”. An affectionate pastiche of the story of the “Supremes”, a stellar cast portrays several characters contemporary to that era. For Berry Gordy see James Foxx, for Diana Ross see Beyonce Knowles, for James Brown see Eddy Murphy and for an Etta James / Florence Ballard/ Aretha Franklin composite see Jennifer Hudson. Director William Condon was shrewdly picked acknowledging his previous success as the writer for screen musical success “Chicago”.

An overwhelmingly black cast tells the story, set in Detroit, in two acts. Pre 1970 as the Dreamgirls struggle to make it, and post 1970, when the pitfalls of stardom bite. Adapted from the musical which was “sung through”, this version is predominantly spoken with the original songs as stand-alone pieces. The songs themselves are superb, penned by Henry Krieger, predominantly with Tom Eyen. They effectively recall the sounds , songs, and themes of the time whilst updating the arrangements to resonate with a more contemporary idea of R&B. And all this is played out against a backdrop of Race Riots and racism.

Danny Glover is wonderful as the manager who gets the group noticed only to be out hustled by smooth talking James Foxx as Curtis Taylor Jnr. But it is Jenifer Hudson as Effie White who steals the show. Her raw talent has to defer to the svelte good looks of Beyonce’s Deena Jones, and her portrayal of the angst of first losing lead vocal, then her place in the band and her livelihood is compelling.

Although the social context of this story is well made, it is the music and performances which dominate. Anyone with a love of the Motown / Philly sounds will love this.

An Effective Re-Make, 7 February 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

As an aficionado of the British TV Series I approached this with some trepidation. But as a feature film it works well, and is head and shoulders above standard Hollywood fare. At 117 minutes it is just over a third of the running time of the TV series, inevitably a dense twisting tale is dramatically simplified. The Americanisation of the story is crass, with lazy stereotypes inserted, but the fundamentals work well enough.

Director Martin Campbell worked on the original series, with subsequent credits for the likes of Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Mask of Zorro, Legend of Zorro and Vertical Limit. That experience provides some memorable set-pieces which define this film, as opposed to the series which was defined by the plot twists.

Mel Gibson stars as Police Officer, Thomas Craven who unravels the mystery of why his daughter was murdered as she visited his home. His performance is full of ambiguity. The role demands that the father uncovers the story by determination and skill, not by brute force, but Mel cannot resist disarming a man half his age with his bare hands, and kicking his way out of a toilet block to shake off a “tail.” And all this from a man who looks clearly past the retirement age for a Police Officer.

The heavily abridged narrative plot changes the ambiance of the original from taut and brooding ,to action packed and pacey, some key aspects of the original are devalued as a consequence. The leader of the mysterious “peoples” group, some of whose members have been killed in action, is reduced to a baffling minor role, and the establishment cover up is functional rather than compelling. Ray Winstone is superb as a shady Secret Service Mr Fixit.

Nonetheless the story still strikes a chord a quarter of a century on, Governments who cannot be trusted, and venal amoral multi-national corporations still abound. “Edge of Darkness” succeeds because despite all the drawbacks, you cannot keep a good story , well told, down.

Dire War Disaster Movie, 31 January 2010

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

Certainly the most miscast, and probably the most misconceived, War film I have ever seen. Director Bryan Singer made a modern classic with “The Usual Suspects” ,but his milieu is television. This comes across as a big budget / low brain effort which pulverises an essentially good story into pulp. At the heart of everything is the casting and accents. A predominantly British cast play the Germans in strong British accents, Cruise plays Stauffenberg with an American accent that veers into British from time to time. Consequently the whole film feels like a giant fancy dress party.

The sets, and costumes are convincing. The dialogue is not. I wanted to suspend disbelief, but when the English speaking accents are compounded by situations, speech and phrasing which are wholly un-Germanic that is nigh on impossible. In “The Usual Suspects”, Singer started at the end and then worked back to it, a device used in “Carlitos Way” by Brian De Palma, and therein lies another challenge. We know what happens, the assassination plot fails, so how do you deal with that to retain dramatic tension? The answer is that Singer doesn’t. De Palma created a Shakespearean tragedy, but Singer is no De Palma, and the script and story does not allow Cruise to replicate Pacino as the man condemned to an inevitable fate. So the film constantly struggles to find it’s artistic raison d’etre.

Historically, the film is flawed. Inevitably Cruise plays Stauffenberg as the “good guy”, the truth was far more complex, and interesting than that, but the screenplay has no time to flesh that out. There is an ongoing intrinsic conflict between what and who is right and wrong in the story. Perversely the denouement shows loyal soldiers making the right practical decisions in crushing the coup which is an odd moral to emerge as a defining theme.

The rise of Hitler. His mass popular support. His ability to turn proud Nationalism into ghastly genocide, and the lack of resistance to him are all big, film worthy topics. The mechanics of a coup in a powerful country, with a strong regime at War is also intriguing stuff. The conflicting demands that soldiers and citizens have to their country, their leader, and right and wrong are timeless matters. All this is squandered by a treatment that would barely get off a cartoon storyboard.

Frustratingly the story of the plot is a worthy theme, and the events bear critical and dramatic examination, but this offering misses the target so spectacularly that if offers nothing to the debate. For those with no interest in history, looking for straight forwards entertainment this is passable, but no more.