Reviews

I think Cantet's adept crafting of the film dupes the most ardent fanatic of independent cinema into thinking we're watching something transcendentally profound whereas I think he's actually missing great opportunities to say something truly meaningful. Growing up in London with a similar schooling experience the film brought back many of the feelings associated with those years, but this is primarily the frustrations at a teacher who frequently mishandles confrontations and cannot connect with his students, students with a bad attitude who spoil a potentially enjoyable learning experience, and the consequences of a confused student's unchecked aggression. Of course everything is observed perfectly, the problem is that as Matthew Serrano of Film Threat said "the film is as familiar as an aerial virtual reality ride would be to an airplane pilot". I saw all of this when I was in school, what I didn't see and expected from the film were the insights into why they occurred and a study of the people behind the behaviour. It's too bad with so much material to explore, Cantet focuses more on plot development than character study.

I would just like to echo the first 2 comments made about this beautiful Australian drama. This movie was shown on the ABC channel here in Australia about a month ago and I didn't see the beginning. I wasn't really paying attention but flicking channels while doing some paperwork at my desk. As I left the TV on ABC for a while I found myself noticing that this was not your average TV drama show or indeed Australian movie. I was quickly drawn into the story and performances and before long I had abandoned my desk and was sitting like a child in front of the TV screen utterly engrossed. It beautifully portrays the lives of a group of men desperately trying to reconcile their seemingly successful outer world with their very weak and disconnected inner selves. In this male bonding scenario, while they put on the act of machismo and bravado as dictated by social expectation, they reveal just what fragile and scared individuals they really are. At the same time however, the story is beautifully measured, not judging or making a villain of any of them but merely peeling away the layers to reveal what lies beneath the surface. A must see for all seeking an honest insight into the male psyche... I am a male by the way, so would know! ;-)

... and that seems to be the only reason. As I return to watching an episode from the original 'I'm Alan Partridge' series after having watched the second a number of times now, I am struck by the disparity. It seems the original series was somewhat experimental and very much with the objective of exploring many more facets of the fascinating character that is Alan Partridge, and it's study is a tremendous success.

This second series seems far more 'commercial', based less upon astute observations of the character and his life and more by exaggerated caricatures and a host of outrageous and unrealistic situations created purely for comedic purposes. It seems to me, series 1 has humour more as a by-product of the journey we go on into Alan's private world, while series 2 has humour as it's sole objective. Vomiting while hosting a fire-place sales conference after piercing his foot on a spike, or re-enacting the opening sequence to The Spy Who Loved Me, are two typical examples. This series seems to have been created in response to the 'call of the punters' wanting to see more 'Alan' to make them laugh, and was the bone that was thrown them, but in doing so, compromising many of the sacred keystones that had been previously laid. While it certainly succeeds in providing a number of genuinely funny situations and lines (after all the 'Coogan crew' are very clever comedy writers), it no longer attempts to remain loyal to the accuracy of the archetype but instead indulges in humour that was once much more subtle and measured. Furthermore, it lazily shortcuts it's way through by self-abusively reusing many of the highly successful original ideas from series 1 and manipulating them to fit the new context, using the petrol station as centre stage while originally being merely incidental, springs to mind. Alan's mimicking of accents too, is just incessant here while far more restrained and calculated in the first series. Another typical example would be the joke where, in series 1, he mistakenly refers to the pop artist, Sinead O'Connor, as "the bald chap", serving to expose his ignorance and disregard for all things Irish in front of his Irish guests, whereas in series 2 this joke rehashed in his comment of "a beautiful blonde man, with a lovely voice" being Annie Lennox is... well I'm yet to understand the point of that joke.

While this second series is certainly worth watching for many worthy laughs ("the worth of boast worlds", "cup o' beans", "I've got your kids Dan!", "I wonder who got the power pack", "Bono?!! No he's not here" and so on), those who love Steve Coogan's work for his incredible gift at capturing so poignantly yet hilariously the human condition will be disappointed. It seems a half-hearted effort more motivated by the need to meet public demand and an opportunity to indulge Steve Coogan's acting prowess than with anything further to say. The genius of the earlier Alan Partridge was that he was a man who we primarily find offensive and utterly repulsive, yet with a humanness and vulnerability that we could all identify with in some way and not help but feel incredible sympathy for. There are certainly moments in this series of its former glory and its ability to portray the agonizing realities of this man's life. Playing in a video game arcade alone on a Saturday night is effective and the scene of his trip to see his book being pulped, accompanied with The Windmills of My Mind, must be the series' finest moment; describing it looking like 'word porridge', plaintively crying out when he spots a copy, and then (as the closing scene of the series) in the distance breaking into a trot as he leaves, brings tears to the eyes.

Years earlier in one of the original 'Knowing Me, Knowing You' radio shows on Radio 4, Alan Partridge had on, as a guest, a comedian who was trying to make the point that he wanted to make "observational comedy" dealing with "generic human truths", he said "I want to be funny but, with dignity" to which Alan whispers "Do your Frank Spencer". Coogan was here drawing attention to the form of comedy that he obviously was intending to emulate in the creation of Alan Partridge, and incidentally, very cleverly in the same script using him to portray the typical audience that won't grasp that and just wants cheap laughs. Well now sadly, it's Steve Coogan himself who is committing the crime that he once mocked by resorting to the painfully unsubtle techniques of silly accents, caricatures, and repeated jokes to provide cheap laughs at the expense of the comedy 'with dignity' that once hallmarked the humour of Alan Partridge. Ironically, being swayed to cash-in on public demand by producing makeshift follow-ups is in itself is a generic human truth, but I can forgive the makers of works like 'Police Academy', as they had far less to compromise. The hallowed ground that was the world of Alan Partridge should have been treated with more respect, but maybe that's just yet another example of the Alan Partridge in us all.

In summary Episode 1: * ½ Episode 2: ** Episode 3: **** Episode 4: *** Episode 5: ** ½ Episode 6: ***

Of course there are superficial differences between "Igby Goes Down" and "A Catcher in the Rye" however I think Igby ultimately misses the mark in a way that wasn't intended. Igby's character fails as a 'protagonist' compared to Holden's because Igby really isn't a very sincere person himself so doesn't illicit much sympathy. He complains that he's "drowning in a**holes" but there is nothing about him that displays any much more altruism, he certainly displays no aspirations to be that "catcher in the rye" like our cynical hero Holden. Igby is just an ugly person who doesn't care about anyone but himself, Holden is a well-meaning person who cares all too much but his disillusionment temporarily puts him on a destructive path. As far as I can see Igby Goes Down makes the same mistake as American Beauty, it portrays ugly people in a sympathetic way under the guise that they're just so cynical, but that's not cynicism, cynics are angry because they care so much, ugly people don't.

It seems to me that the prevalent objections (flimsy at that) by most to this movie is how offensive and hypocritical it is. Ok so it's a bit thin on consistency and not strictly politically correct, but hey that's what having a sense of humour is all about. Consider the guy with spina bifida, do you think that the Farrelly brothers made up every joke in his script?, of course not, these are probably lines he uses every day to help him keep his disability in perspective and enjoy down-to-earth relationships with others (at least I hope he does, as that is what every mature, well adjusted and truly confident person must be able to do no matter what the scale of imperfection they have, and incidentally something that those with greater disabilities have generally learned to develop much quicker in life than the often seemingly perfect paragons of beauty in society who're always checking their face in the mirror to spot the first sign of a wrinkle or whether their butt looks big in their outfit) and if not, I can't imagine he would allow those jokes to be said of him in a movie that gets worldwide distribution and not in everyday life. And from those people I think we can learn an important lesson because whether we want to accept it or not, no matter how beautiful we are, at some stage our physical attributes will decay, and the longer we prolong acceptance of this fact the longer we delay the agony of the paralysing insecurity that only grows stronger as our bodies grow weaker and is an intrinsic result of placing greater importance on aesthetic qualities. And the movie demonstrated that beautifully through the juxtaposing of Walt's genuine contentment with Mauricio's ever growing obsession with his receding hairline.

What's more it is quite clear that despite the fact by default we are all more influenced by the physical than we should be, (Hal being your satirically quintessential case), he quite realistically - despite the farcical nature of the film - learned through a shocking realisation (a beautiful moment in the film), his lesson. It wasn't a moment of whimsy it really did move him deeply and triggered a period of serious self analysis which as a result changed him. An experience we would all do well to have.

So while it did have it's flaws appreciate that as a whole Shallow Hal conveyed an important moral that we could all use some reminding about, so please reviewers, think before you write all those self righteous reviews about how morally bankrupt it is.

Now excuse me I have to go check my hair in the mirror.

OK OK I can't bear it any longer, I cannot sit here and allow this movie to get 8+ stars without anyone saying anything less than the highest of praises as some flawless work of art (besides JulMel of Washington's comments which I appreciated). I feel it my civic duty to warn anyone contemplating hiring this movie out that it is sooooo bad that you should only get it if you are in the mood for an evening of side-splitting hysteria, or if you are a drama teacher and want to show your class a classic example of bad acting.

I saw this movie last year at the Sydney Film Festival and it was so bad I was actually thoroughly entertained. I would have walked out but I couldn't stop laughing, literally, I'm not being facetious. The acting by both Tingwell and that other croney that he falls in love with are embarrassing (I was blushing just watching it), oh and not to mention her husband, there's a part where he gets mad and I think he says the ‘F' word and I nearly wet myself in hysterics. And what was with the slow motion shots of when they were young lovers?…Sorry Mr Cox, this is not Three Colours Blue, and throwing in a few overly pretentious sweeping arty shots just adds to the comedy. And what about the bit when they are going for a picnic or something and she says `Oh I like talking about life!!'. Someone should have sacked the scriptwriter then and there, oh sorry you WERE the scriptwriter, ok well someone else working on the project should have had the heart to just kindly point out that such corny, puke inducing lines make the whole story paper thin and expose them as a pair of frauds rather than the fiercely deep and meaningful couple capable of pondering life and the universe you were trying to portray them as.

Look I hate to sound like an unqualified heathen (I know this review hardly comes across as particularly credible) and as I've never made a movie before or even written a script I really can't talk with so much authority on the subject, but honestly the whole audience were in shock at how bad the movie was that night, quite a few walked out. To be fair I did like the premise of the story, hell that's why I chose it out of 40 odd films at the festival that year, and I don't think the plot had any problems as such, but please, the character development, acting, script and directorial pretentiousness just made the whole thing an absolute joke. Unless of course that's what you were intending to do and it was meant to be a satirical farce, then I say thumbs up, 10 stars, woohoo, pure entertainment!!!

Well for me this is a groundbreaking movie, I don't think I have ever hated a film from the opening '20 Century Fox' intro.

Poor Baz gives us a fine example of how success can inflate the ego so that it becomes very hard to focus on creating a humble, sincere and thoughtful piece of work. He takes the elements of Romeo & Juliet that make it such an original masterpiece - ie. unique fresh fast paced camera work, extravagant 'in your face' sets and costume design and an intense depth of emotion - and blows it so far out of proportion so that he thinks it can't possibly fail.

Baz, you struck the balance perfectly in Romeo & Juliet, there was no need to try and blast our socks off by making the ride louder and wilder unless it had other elements that would have made it fitting. That would make for a very intense piece of work and this wasn't intense, it was a flimsy story with no depth that simply did not merit the movie's extreme style. It's like taking a boring song and trying to make it sound amazing by playing it at a ridiculously high volume. It doesn't work and will only impress listeners that get excited from sensory impact but have no idea about substance. Well it seems to have worked as it's a box office hit and the majority of reviewers on IMDb were so overwhelmed that they couldn't tell that the movie was just that metaphoric cacophonous noise. I am a little sad that so many people think that "those who don't like it, don't get it", you've obviously been left so dizzy from the ride that it's hard to see that there was nothing going on under all the glitz and glamour to GET.

The only thing I thought was original and did work at some places in the movie was the use of famous pop songs as the message that the characters were trying to convey, but I feel it was still wasted on a movie that fell apart on every other level.

Please Baz put away your BAZMARK INC. label and stop trying to take movie making to even giddier heights because you are getting a little out of your depth. I know you'll probably hate me for saying that but hey, I wasted $12 on it so I'm still a little peeved ..............2/10