Change Your Image
the_usual_suspect
Reviews
Tarnation (2003)
A inexperienced actor's tour-de-farce
When suicidal manic depressive drug users make films they turn out like this. Tarnation exists in two halves: the first a psychedelic acid trip in which images of director/producer/editor Jonathan Caouette and his brain damaged mother Renee spin across the screen, the camera shooting in an and out of blurry Photoshop molested photographs and film stills; the second half an attempted study into what perversions occurred in his mother's life to make her the woman she had become in the late nineties. It takes Caouette a full seventy minutes to begin interviewing his subjects, and even after doing so, nothing is uncovered. Whilst Capturing The Friedmans gave the audience all sides of the sordid affair it documents, Tarnation gives none. The idea that a know nothing has picked up a camera and started shooting is challenged only by the exciting and trippy montages that shows Caouette taking full advantage of the iMovie software he used to edit this tour-de-farce.
Tarnation begins and ends in the new millennium, but the bulk of the film is spent hurtling through thirty years of Jonathan Caouette's twisted and abused life. Our subject is quick to tell us how terribly he was abused and then proceeds to present us with remorselessly long one takes of his eleven year old self dressed up as a woman. You can imagine Caouette sitting at his computer, drifting in a world of nostalgia as he relives his life. Unfortunately, he's decided to show us this world, trying in vein to shock us with shots of him vomiting and bleeding to compensate for the lack of any genuinely shocking footage from his family life.
Certainly, he isn't making a fuss over nothing - his life has been a difficult and troubled one undoubtedly. But Caouette ceases to comprehend what is good movie making. He can throw together a visually electrifying and unnerving montage but can't handle psychological investigation, which is really what this film aims to undertake. Interviews are left unfinished, interviewees questioned hardly at all, and most of the time is spent with the family members whilst they manage to do things that tell us nothing about who they are. The only development that occurs in this film is that of Caouette himself, and this is bias to an unparallelled extent. Caouette sees himself (troubled but functioning normally) very differently from how an observant, skilled documentary film maker would and thus, the audience gains very little from the experience of watching Tarnation, and believe me, it is an experience.
Nonetheless, Tarnation is a step forward of a Blair Witch calibre, showing budding film makers that they too can make it. It is disappointing that one of them didn't make it ahead of Caouette, who's only talent is pointing and showing and editing music video montages. Most of the story is told in title cards meaning there is minimal documenting in this documentary. The only thing that is lacking more so than a conceivable plot is the investigation and analysis most other film's in the genre present. Undeniably engrossing, but substantially superficial.
Rating:2/5
By Joshua Morrall
Coach Carter (2005)
Points awarded for drama NOT for depth
From the same school of plot development that Dangerous Minds attended, Coach Carter tells the story of the Richmond basketball team who learn that 'student' comes first in 'student athlete'. Cliché philosophy and lines such as "I met you as boys and now you're men" are given pride of place is this film, but for entertainment value and moral fortitude, you can't go far wrong with this effort from the director of Save the Last Dance.
The problem with the film as a media text is that it does not stand up to deconstruction. Behind the camera is a director who has no distinctive style. The action packed basketball scenes spice up this drama but never excel beyond music video quality, which is not an insult. The editing is snappy and mixed with the basketball beat of hip hop, the energy of the matches being truly communicated, but no effort is made to do something new with the camera angles. The way to enjoy this film is not to look beneath the surface, instead just allowing yourself to be carried away by the innocent excitement of simplicity.
Coach Carter was always going to need a strong lead to gain the substance that is has done. The no nonsense and iron willed demeanour that Samuel L. Jackson brings to the role makes him ideal for putting across the image of a man who can hold court in front of these hard life ghetto teens. What Jackson also brings is an amusing aggressive streak that make the audience glad they are not in the gym with this psycho who, despite pounding his players with endless 'submissions', still locks the gym when their grades don't come through.
Carter is a difficult character to understand. He seems ready to refuse entry to hard nut bad boy Timo Cruz (Rick Gonzalez), but caves in when Junior Battle (Nana Gbewonyo) turns up at his shop with his mother and begs forgiveness. As the film progresses however, we learn that Carter is doing everything he can to get his players into college and gain a life worth living, presumably to become what Carter himself has.
The players Carter strives to impact upon succumb easily to Carter's will. Occasional outbursts punctuate what is mostly a submissive relationship between coach and team and director Thomas Carter seems focused on delivering a realistic ensemble rather than the typical teen comedy entourage of weird and outrageous characters. It is a little unnerving being thrown into a gym with an unbreakable coach and a group of muscular teenagers who need to work to get average grades and can't roll off witty one-liners like the teenagers in other films in the genre. This decision to communicate realism is brave, but gives the film an enhanced depth that makes the lesson learned at the end more heart warming and honest. The ending is one of the film's three pointers, going against not only the conventions of the genre, but of Hollywood.
What lacks is subplot development. Timo Cruz's drug running is given screen time between matches but ends abruptly. Cruz shoots from being a hard case to being a shivering wreck on Carter's doorstep, in need of a strong father figure which I suppose we are to assume Cruz does not have. A little background here would not have been amiss. Cruz's doorstep tears also bring to attention the relationship between Carter and his son Damien (Robert Ri'chard), which appears very son-and-sir in nature. There is a hint of tension beneath the surface that we glimpse at when Damien arrives late at practise, and there may also have been an undertone of jealousy when Carter hugs Cruz, but this is not elaborated upon and there is a slight emptiness in their bond.
However, Coach Carter remains entertaining throughout. Realism and drama team-up to hit home hard the lessons that the team learn. Their struggle to overcome the stigma of their stereotypes is captured patiently, yet there is never a dull moment. Samuel L. Jackson brings a mountainous presence to his role that allows the audience to feel the film's extremes of pride and disappointment to a great extent. Involving emotionally and arresting dramatically, but superficial textually (although points awarded for fearlessness in parts of the subject matter).
Rating: 3/5 By Joshua Morrall
Be Cool (2005)
Be Cool and avoid this film
Get Shorty had all the cool, humour and quality that made Ocean's Eleven a success. Be Cool comes up short on all counts. F. Gary Gray continues his streak of poor films with this over long, under funny sequel.
The number of stars on offer is impressive and there is a rich underbelly of character connotation (The Rock's eyebrow, Travolta dancing) to this otherwise superficial film, enhanced by the cameos from music industry notables such as Fred Durst. Music names and faces are also given pride of place in the story line, Aerosmith front man Steven Tyler spends more time on screen than is bearable aesthetically, and André 3000 gives a mildly entertaining performance as Dabu, a trigger-happy member of the WMDs. The range of characters results in a number of subplots that interweave to create a long and tangled story arc. The length of the cast list also prevents Be Cool from containing much character development, and thus we are presented with an array of characters whom we struggle to sympathise with.
John Travolta enters the role of Chili Palmer with ease, rehashing the same attitude from the first film. His co-stars are lacking considerably in the style and cool that the players in Get Shorty exuded continually, Uma Thurman being a miserable replacement for the sexy Rene Russo.
Replacement is a key word in terms of characters in Be Cool. The story is an exact replica of the first film, with new actors in what are basically the same roles (Gray even delivers the same scenes to us: Chili in bed with a woman as someone waits downstairs, getting his attention by turning on the stereo instead of the television as in the first). The Rock plays the cuddly bodyguard that James Gandolfini made his own, and does a great job playing against type - delivering most of the film's humorous moments ("Scorchin'!" and the Bring It On monologue). Vince Vaughn plays the vastly irritating 'badass' with cash who's just looking for his name on the credits, ala Delroy Lindo as Bo Welch.
This is a simple good verses bad tale, in which the 'heroes' never come across as being the underdogs, despite the entourage following behind Sin LaSalle (Cedric The Entertainer). Chili Palmer's constant presentation of being cool results in the audience's unflinching confidence that he'll come out of this alive, and Edie's (Uma Thurman) complete lack of resistance to him means we know he'll get the girl, which we weren't too sure of in the first. The result of this is a supreme lack of any tension whatsoever, which elongates this already lengthy film, causing the self conscience John and Uma dance sequence to drag on relentlessly.
The comedy in this comedy is reliant solely on racial stereotypes. Everyone knows that all black people carry guns and wear their trousers around their knees and everyone knows that Russians hate black people just a touch more than everyone else. And of course the music industry (the same industry in which Pete Waterman is a player) is run by old gangsters like Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) who put out hits on people if they break contract. Be Cool needs to get real. F Gary Gray is out of his depth once again, getting lost in his numerous plot lines and depicting his story with the sad, empty philosophy that if he shoots a character from many different angles, it will make his film entertaining to watch. His efforts should have been directed more towards script rewrites and meaningful story boarding. The Rock brings some entertainment to the proceedings, the Aerosmith concert footage is under edited but electrifying nonetheless, and the final redeeming feature is the way this sequel makes Get Shorty look like a modern masterpiece. Be Cool and avoid this film.
Rating: 2/5 By Joshua Morrall
Luther (1974)
Insufferably paced, finely crafted character study
Luther Film Review by Joshua Morrall
The problem with directing history is that history, when reflected honesty, is often slow and cumbersome, in many ways like the Exchequer system of financial management used in the 1480s. Luther, another small budget 70s offering from the American Film Theatre, is a factually correct film, and unfortunately suffers for it.
The title role of Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk who was an integral part of the reformation, is painstakingly recreated by Stacy Keach. In a film so devoted to the character development of Luther, Keach copes masterfully, handling the intense and intruding close ups with the greatest of ease - although that is not to say that his performance looks effortless. Quite the opposite. Part of the package with screen adapted plays is that you get all-out devotion from the actors involved. With such long scenes and very little action, the actors are put through the ringer and have little choice but to embody the role. Whilst this serves to deliver stunning performances (look out for Judi Dench as Katherine) the scenes drag out in a manner that modern movies would never allow.
Small budget entails limited set quality, but in this film it serves to compliment the gritty 1500s atmosphere. Script, obviously, is without fault, coming from an intelligent play by John Osborne, who first wrote Luther ten years before this adaptation was made.
What remains insufferable is the pace. The film is directed with an air of dignity and the performances are deserving of eternal praise, but as a child of the movies, I was sucked helplessly into a comatose state of boredom. My fascination with the reformation begins and ends with Henry VIII, who was commended by the Pope for slating Luther's ideas in a book. That sort of conflict is one I would enjoy seeing captured on film. Here, however, I am faced with a triumph of fact over fiction, which, although refreshing and honest, is nonetheless almost impossible to watch in one sitting.
Rating: 2.5
Vera Drake (2004)
Class and quality from the master of depression.
Vera Drake Review by Joshua Morrall
Rating:4/5
Set in 1950s Islington, Vera Drake is the woeful tale of a simple working class woman. Between cleaning houses for the rich, looking after her mother and ill neighbours, Vera (Imelda Staunton) finds time to help young mothers abort their unwanted babies.
Mike Leigh directs in his usual, relaxed manner, enveloping the central debate in a mix of bitter sweet moments, finely crafted characters and carefully arranged scenes. The film's most prominent strength lies in the realism of the characters and the depth of the performances. Richard Graham as Vera's husband George is delight to watch, igniting many of the film's comic moments, the hidden treasure in most of Leigh's films. Alex Kelly as Ethel, the daughter, is an incredible piece of casting, mirroring Vera not only in appearance but in her semi-senile, blank faced lethargy.
The pace of Vera Drake never surpasses a stroll, but Leigh manages to keep the story involving and entertaining. As with his previous films, most famously Secrets and Lies, the theme is mercilessly depressing, although you never go to see a Leigh film expecting any form of jubilation. Nevertheless, Leigh masterfully directs in a style that Hollywood would never, ever allow, which works very well in this setting which has been carefully constructed to truly recreate the time.
Realism has no effect here on the quality of the script, probably due to Leigh's decision to withhold the abortion theme from all the actors who play members of Vera's family. The only time the film suffers from its commitment to realism is in the closing scenes in which Vera cries incessantly - she struggles to speak continuously which becomes laborious to watch.
Leigh clearly loves his characters, but he shows no remorse in dealing with their simplistic natures. Vera is aware she is committing a crime, yet continues to do so, underlining her moronic nature, something that is hinted at through her gentle humming during household tasks and obsession with making cups of tea. Her grasp of emotion seems infantile: she visits her sick mother and treats it no different from her housework; a very distressed mother who Vera 'helps' is left emotionally shattered after her meeting with Vera, and the expression on Staunton's face clearly shows that Vera does not fully understand the gravity of the mothers grief or the gravity of the situation.
This very expert character study should not be missed. Vera Drake is a rare type of film, one that audiences are usually unlikely to see amidst the mass marketing of heavyweight blockbusters (as we can see from the film nearly being shut down from lack of funding). Mike Leigh is one of today's most reliable and talented directors, and his immense understanding of his craft is apparent in his execution of it. Vera Drake is a brilliantly made film that will depress and involve you.
Without a Paddle (2004)
Without A Point
Without A Paddle review by Joshua Morrall
Rating: 2/5
This is not a good film. I thought it might surprise me, the trailer wetted my appetite for Seth Green and Dax Shepherd who looked to be on top comedy form, and despite the fact that I loathe every inch of Matthew Lillard's smug face, I decided that I would go and see Without A Paddle.
It's a simple premise, three school buddies reunite to go and hunt down a treasure they fantasised about finding when their old buddy (Antony Starr) was still alive. Whilst there, they encounter many humorous obstacles, fat redneck weed growers included, and calamity and very rare comedy ensues.
The films weakness lies in its lack of comedy. There are certainly moments, but they are fleeting and quickly replaced by a return to the serious nature of much of the friends' dialogue. The characters' chemistry is mediocre in quality and their most positive feature is that they are are given quite singular personality's, which helps the comedy work well whenever it raises its elusive head from out of the undergrowth. With the exception of Lillard's character Jerry, who seems to be torn in two directions and makes him less amusing to watch than the others.
The plot is simple and executed to its full extent. And you are certainly getting your money's worth as this film seems to stretch on for quite some time, the New Zealand location giving the film an epic quality which is wasted.
Without A Paddle could have been very little more than it was. The actors all do their jobs and there is a fairly well used but well meaning moral handed to us at the end (with a lead weight). The film wants to push itself more into the drama (and in some ways romance) than it can really handle, and the strong homoerotic element is depressingly dealt with in a childish fashion. Their needs to be a much greater injection of comedy (one-liners, set pieces and slapstick) than there is, with less of the drawn out, flat chase sequences. Without A Paddle is how this cast should have stayed.
The Aviator (2004)
Blissfully, wonderfully, beautifully perfect
The Aviator Review by Joshua Morrall
Rating: 5/5
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, no matter how hard I scratch with my unkempt nails to find something, there remains not a single element of The Aviator that is not blissfully, wonderfully, beautifully perfect.
Martin Scorsese has helmed forty projects, and his lack of an Oscar has been chuckled about in the film world for some years now. It is a credit to him, the five foot film school graduate, that he has remained fully focused on producing motion pictures that captivate the audience, and offer a purity of cinematic excellence rarely seen on screens today.
Scorsese's most recent production, The Aviator, is the life story of the legendary Howard Hughes, huge budget movie director, playboy, pioneer and what many would call a psychopath. Hughes broke boundaries when he directed and produced the war epic Hell's Angels. His addiction to aviation was funded by his mammoth inheritance and profit margin, although he almost lost it all as he became obsessed with producing the most mammoth and modern aeroplanes the world had ever seen.
In the role of Hughes is Leonardo DiCaprio. Any of you who consider him a talentless heart throb should be ashamed of their pitiful ignorance and analyse his almost faultless performances in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Catch Me If You Can, The Basketball Diaries, This Boy's Life (to name but a few). Here, DiCaprio takes his method to an entirely new level, believable and arresting as both the playboy and the manic. DiCaprio's nervous ticks are a joy to behold, from his nervous cough at the sight of germs to his utter uncontrollable terror as a disabled man approaches him after using the bathroom. Best Actor? Very much deserved.
Cate Blanchett, apparently Scorsese's first choice for the role of Katherine Hepburn, is transformed completely into the reincarnation of the four time Oscar winner. The New England accent is faultless, as are the mannerisms and the classy Hepburn swagger. Truly a fantastic performance. Best Actress? Certainly.
Even the usually irritating but constantly alluring Kate Beckinsale turns in a great performance, definitely worthy of Academy notification. She is alleged to have put on twenty pounds for the role and she comes out looking fresh faced and mouth watering. Her chemistry with DiCaprio is very playful, contrasting the mother son undercurrent that pervades between DiCaprio and Blanchett.
Performances from John C. Reilly and the reborn Alec Baldwin are of a very high standard also. It seems unfair to name just two actors when all gave award winning performances, yet somehow, despite the quality of the supporting cast, the leads still manage to have an extra spark that makes the tense moments in the film even more exhilarating to watch.
Scorsese's direction is clearly painstaking. As the years past, the quality of the film changes also, the colour tones reflecting how films would have looked at the time. The beautifully painted shots are matched by the costumes, set design and even special effects, something quite rare for Scorsese. His old school approach to action is phenomenal to behold, Hughes' crash into the houses in Beverly Hills is an incredible five minutes, the breath taking pace of the machine gun editing (which rips through the screen and tears you up inside) is bettered only by the vibrant sharpness of the real flames, something rarely seen in big budget movies now, who settle instead for the dull, flat fires produced using CGI.
From beginning to end, with stunning sequences throughout (especially the Senate hearing), The Aviator is a beautiful picture with flawless performances, wonderful cinematography and extravagant mise-en-scene. There is no doubt about it: The Aviator soars high above all of the competition.
Jump London (2003)
Superficially legendary
Rating: 2/5
Back in September of 2003, Jump London premiered at prime time on Channel 4. It was the most expensive documentary commissioned by the company for the whole year and gained major press coverage. The idea of following three Frenchmen around London as they performed the art of Free Running inside and on top of some of the city's most prestigious landmarks had seemed ridiculous to most producers, and indeed, it could have been seen in the same light by Channel 4 viewers. It wasn't, and Free Running was given a launch pad with which to capture the imagination of an entire country.
Sebastien Foucan, Jerome Ben Aoues, Johann Vigroux are three Frenchmen who have been practising the "discipline" of free running for most of their lives. The art form originates from Foucan's desire to express himself in the strict confines of the small French town, Lisses, where he grew up, in which there was very little for a young man to do. Jump London reviews the evolution of Free Running up to when it was featured in adverts for Toyota and Nike. Now, the extreme sport of La Parkour is coming to London, as the three runners take on the Albert Hall, the Tate Modern, Shakespeare's Globe Theatre and the streets of Soho to name but a few of the central landmarks that are about to be hit by free running.
The idea of exposing an urban sport like Free Running in the more magisterial buildings of London is a good one, but this documentary takes itself far too seriously. Sebastien Foucan is the original Free Runner as it was he who created and named the sport. Unfortunately, he cares to look at it as more of a "discipline" within which one can express all of their desires. I remained unconvinced throughout, and my interest was held only because of the incredible abilities that the runners have. The jumps are worth waiting for, and you come to accept that they are surrounded by a lot of fluff. Foucan tries to explain why it is a science and why it is something highly original that he has created, but in the end, he cannot blind you from the fact that he has never worked a day in his life. The scene where the runners visit a skate park sums up the underlying emptiness of what they do: Free Running is no different from skateboarding in terms of freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the entire idea behind this documentary is merely a pretence to show off the runners' skills. The fact that they do not need a pretence, does not seem to matter though. The runners are French, this is inescapable, and yet the producers try to involve the English audience by showing the stunts performed around London landmarks, suggesting that the capital will never be the same again. They came. They ran. They jumped. And no one noticed. This documentary lacks honesty. It presents the sport as a lot more dramatic than it actually is, and uses London to gain viewers that probably would have watched the programme anyway because the content is, at times, amazing. Instead, a flaccid excuse for why it's all happening at London acts as the glue for a weak bundle of interviews, back story and jumping. The jumping should have been the centre with all aspects revolving around that. Instead, London was the centre. This is a monumental flaw in the documentary which can be forgotten about if you indulge in the spectacle of it all, but ultimately, it leaves you feeling empty because the substance is all superficial.
Overall, Jump London relies on the sport of Free Running to provide the entertainment of the documentary. The mistake is that they try to make a legend out of something that has only just begun which undermines the skills involved. The content is stretched thin over the hour, and there are far too few jumps, but the spectacle, no matter how false, is undeniably impressive.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
A flawed work of art
Based on the eighteen year old stage musical, The Phantom of the Opera is a visually superb although considerably flawed tale of beauty, beast and love. The Phantom (Gerard Butler, I'm afraid) haunts a Paris Opera House that has recently come under new ownership. He falls deeply in love with Christine (a spunky Emmy Rossum), unfortunately just at the same time as young buck Raoul (Patrick Wilson) falls for her too.
Joel Schumacher's visualisation of the epic theatre production is magical to behold. Sweeping camera shots combine with the booming brilliance of the new IMPROVED (despite what some critics have said) soundtrack to create a delightful display of grandiose film making.
What Schumacher does well with cinematography, he almost undermines with casting. Butler, star of Tomb Raider 2, plays the Phantom without sympathy, losing a major part of the emotion that was captured in the stage version. His untrained voice is torn between being gravely and operatic, the second of which he cannot handle. Butler gets lost in the strength of the score and simply can't keep up. Schumacher has misjudged the ageing of the Phantom also, as Butler is noticeably younger than the faultless Miranda Richardson who plays the Phantom's closest contact, who we see help him escape from the circus when they are both children.
It is predictable that I should now enter the subject of other possibilities for the role of Phantom. Antonio Banderas, although not liked by all, can, at least, sing a song, and his performance in Evita was very impressive. Banderas would have brought not only some much needed maturity to the role, he would also have brought a sympathetic quality to the Phantom that Butler can only dream about.
Emmy Rossum is engaging as the young performer, although she is remorsefully objectified throughout the length of the film. Miranda Richardson and Minnie Driver are both not given enough to do, and despite critical praise, Jennifer Ellison is irritating and boring to watch as Meg Giry.
The script utilises the lyrics well, and production design, costumes and sound are of the highest possible quality. The beauty of the snowy rooftop scene in which the Phantom eavesdrops on the two young lovers is very moving, and leads on to an emotionally engaging climax.
Schumacher seems to want to make the Phantom an out and out villain, which, whilst a complete misjudgement, is completely opposed by the first ninety minutes of the film, which are spent learning all about the poor Phantom's tough upbringing (or lack thereof). Another mistake is the ambiguity of the relationship between Christine and the masked maniac. The lyrics suggest that she sees him as a father figure, yet, during their first meeting Christine's eyes roll into the back of her head in orgasmic delight as the Phantom touches her. From this point onwards its a battle trying to determine whether she loves him as a father or a lover.
Plot holes and cardboard cut-out Phantoms aside, this film has the beauty and visual flare of Moulin Rouge, supported by a thunderous score which lifted my spirits to the roof of the Opera House/cinema. Overlong, at times irritating, but nonetheless impossible to turn away from. The trailer for Phantom really symbolises the whole nature of the film: its quality is solely reliant on the power of the music (of the night). A flawed work of art.
Rating: 3/5
Ying xiong (2002)
A most beautifully questionable film
After two years of hearing about the myth of the most expensive Chinese film ever made, Hero has finally floated on to British cinema screens. As it flies, it trails a coloured cloth that carries the film's numerous morals and messages which descend upon you like a soft layer of fabric. This is a film that can lift your spirits and have you laughing out in sheer joy as you gaze in wonder at the perfection of the mise-en-scene and cinematography. That is, if you let the film take you on a journey, without pondering the films questionable plot points.
Hero is two sides of a tale as presented by Nameless (Jet Li), a mere Prefect who defeated three deadly assassins, and the King of Qin (Daoming Chen), the man the assassins wished to kill. Nameless weaves his heroic though modest story of how he killed the assassins, but the King remains unconvinced, spinning his own version of how he believed events unfolded.
Director Yimou Zhang takes us through Nameless' story first, spreading the battle sequences thick, allowing them to take their own time. In the King's version, certain battles are then revised, which is remarkably brave considering that some battles are utter fabrications. In one such fictitious fight, in a faultlessly designed set, Nameless and Sky (Donnie Yen) close their eyes and fight out the battle within their minds. Screen time is being spent lavishly on showing how two characters contemplated a fight, whilst fighting each other in a battle that never occurred. It is confusing certainly, but perhaps Zhang wished for his audience to get lost in the plot's design so that they would not question the warrantability of half of the battle sequences, which make up most of the film.
Yet, it is difficult to ponder these details when they are made so utterly insignificant when viewing such a spectacle. The sheer beauty of the battles, the gentle floating of the assassins as they fly around their arenas (which range from a forest full of orange leafed trees, crisp leaves falling down to the ground like rain, to the crystal clear and calm of a mountain lake), the costumes of characters at varying stages in the story line (red for passion, green for youth, white for truth, blue for love), the amazing army scenes which feature thousands of arrows being fired into the sky to create a black cloud that descends right on top of the camera, all these elements combine to produce a faultlessly perfect image on the screen, each frame a worthy photograph that gently reminds you why cinema is the greatest art form of the twentieth century.
And characterisation is not lost in this beauty as one may have feared. Despite the irritating two dimensional performance of Zhang Ziyi as Moon, the other actors carry off fine performances, especially Tony Leung Chiu Wai as Broken Sword and Daoming Chen as the King. Their performances are especially credible as they are often drowning in the memories of the King and Nameless - they need to change slight mannerisms in order to reflect whose mind they are now in.
The script too is of an impressively high standard. The moments of clarity that the warriors feel are experienced by the audience also, and there are some very informed outlooks of the emptiness of warfare, communicating that to achieve peace, sometimes war is the only option. These messages of course seem fitting in our current times, underlining how ancient some of the methods of our governing body truly are.
Hero is undoubtedly a most beautiful and awe inspiring film. What it lacks in plot substance, it makes up for with structure and script. It elaborates on the ground work created by 'Crouching Tiger' and is an experience that I would encourage you to seek out, as long as you are willing to submit to the film and let it guide you through its world on its own terms.
Rating: 4/5
Arven (2003)
Numbing but stunning
The Inheritance is the dramatic tale of Christoffer (Ulrich Thomsen), a successful restauranteur whose father dies, leaving him the family's steelworks in his will. Christoffer and his young wife Maria (Lisa Werlinder) are torn away from the city as Christoffer begins the difficult task of pulling the steelworks out of a financial slump. It is a burden that will ultimately lead to years of pent up frustration exploding in a dizzy and spellbinding fury that will decide what path Christoffer chooses to take.
The Inheritance is filmed in the rough, gritty, digital style seen before in Open Water, the grainy print complimenting the industrial symbolism that has melted comfortably into the story line. Christoffer is seen through windows in moments of reflection, the glass acting almost as a barrier between Christoffer's repression of feeling and his desire to explode, which he eventually does - shattering a glass coffee table and screaming. The glass mirrors Christoffer's personality, two characters, at different times during the film, label him "as cold as ice". His deadened character is set well against the muted colours that make up the metallic mise-en-scene.
The film is straining for realism throughout. The characters exchange dialogue that suffers for its honesty, especially in the scene in which Christoffer confronts his wife over her cheating on him: the words are boringly familiar, cliché beyond being bearable, and the film suffers for it. This does not remove any credit from the actors, Ulrich Thomsen and Ghita Nørby (as Christoffer's iron willed mother) in particular, who give realistic and where appropriate, emotionally driven performances. The quality of the acting is allowed to ferment by the director's decision to shoot using two cameras during the scenes, both of which were filming through a long focal lens, meaning that the cameras did not need to be up close to the actors. This freedom allows improvisation to reign unrestricted, and the film both succeeds and suffers for the numbingly boring realism that this creates.
Numbing, dull and bland The Inheritance certainly is, but it meanders towards an explosive climax that leaves you stunned and unable to look away. The pace then returns to its normal slow drag, and the film fades away, leaving you feeling tired and empty, but certainly impacted upon. It is a film that could not have been improved, yet its story, setting, pace and realism all contribute to make this a very difficult film to watch.
Rating: 3/5
Gerry (2002)
A great film without any reason or meaning behind it.
When Gerry was released it enjoyed a brief stay at the box office, available only in selected cinemas despite Matt Damon's involvement in the project. It received mixed reviews, most critics panning the film for its complete lack of a reason for existing. Perhaps it is because I have come to expect this sort of work from director Gus Van Sant, yes, the man who brought us a shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's classic, Psycho, but I enjoyed this tale of two best friends named Gerry who get lost in the desert.
The film opens with no credit sequence, instead of which we follow a car along a deserted road for a never ending fifteen minutes. If I am honest, I held the remote control in my hand throughout the watching of this film, pressing the fast forward button at least a dozen times. This was one of those occasions. This slow, wordless opening with a background of soft and bleak music sets up the mood for the entire film. At first, I felt it odd that two best friends would travel along in a car together without conversation, but the silence kept between Affleck and Damon is a comfortable one, one that does not need words.
This is an on screen friendship that I can believe, the script complimenting the relaxed way in which both actors play their roles. There is a lot of colloquial dialogue and phrases that appear born out of a long friendship, such as the use of the name Gerry being thrown into their exchanges, "Aw man, I did a Gerry."
Van Sant's direction is unselfish, allowing the film to play out its full course, which gives the film a realism that allows tension to build without the use of music, lighting, or even editing. This is demonstrated in the funny and captivating scene where Affleck finds himself stuck on a large rock. Damon decides that his friend's only option is to jump and thus proceeds to create a "dirt pillow". This film is worth watching just to witness the stunt double's leap from fifteen feat in the air down to the ground.
There is an underlying tension between the two friends that although may not be intentional, is certainly befitting as the film meanders to a surprising and baffling climax that holds a sense of empty relief that will jar you. Van Sant has created a delicate piece of experimental art with Gerry. Beautiful landscape shots emphasise how isolated the Gerrys are, and the minimalist mise-en-scene is true to the nature of the film's content. For something that has no real meaning or reason, this is a film that will stay with you, leaving a bittersweet taste in your mouth, and of course begs the inevitable question, "What would I do if I was lost in the desert?"
Rating: 4/5
The Polar Express (2004)
A beautiful picture that doesn't speak a thousand words.
It has taken ten years for Chris Van Allsburg's charming picture book to make it to the big screen, but it has been worth the wait. Mostly.
Robert Zemeckis has made a leap forward in animation with The Polar Express, the story of a sceptical young boy who gets on a train destined for the North Pole. Motion capture truly does capture the performances of its characters, and the human nuances that have eluded animators for so long are present here in spectacular detail. For this Zemeckis deserves an Oscar.
Now let's talk plot. The Polar Express is a tiny story that can be read in ten minutes. It is numbingly obvious that Zemeckis has tried desperately to fatten up the tale with a barrage of subplots, which eventually all arc back to what is unfortunately a very weak central plot. It is certainly not a bad plot, I'm as much of a sucker for Christmas spirit stories as any five year old, but there simply is not enough of it to constitute a hundred minutes.
The film chugs along at a slow pace, capturing a midnight mood by accident. The excitement is then delivered in gratuitous and all too common roller coaster sequences which would no doubt look so much better in 3D IMAX, the format that this film was made to be viewed in.
In terms of characters, the little boy from the book has been turned into a sceptic in order to encourage some form of tension in the film. It is a good move, as without this, there is absolutely no drama whatsoever. Tom Hanks voices the kid, as he does almost all the male characters. To have Hanks voice the child is a mistake, as although he is good at it, the idea of the boy envisioning the conductor and Santa in the template of his father is lost, not only by this, but also through the underdevelopment of the relationship between father and son.
Hero Girl (Nona Gaye) is the film's best elaboration from the original story, and her moral journey is a well developed one. The message delivered to the Lonely Boy (Peter Scolari) by the Conductor (Hanks again) on his ticket is an ambiguous one that needs further explanation if it is to be heeded by the film's younger viewers.
The Polar Express is a film that will be remembered for its original and visually superb presentation. Plot, character development and pace will of course be (and in some ways, already are) overlooked when this film is labelled a classic of our time. It is wonderful that such innocent and moral driven films are still being made, but Zemecks' latest would have been so much more perfect if it had been made as a short film. There isn't enough to work with, and subplots are forced into place to fatten up the story. A beautiful painting that doesn't speak a thousand words.
Rating: 3/5
Surviving Christmas (2004)
Subvert that genre!
Surviving Christmas
A ridiculous and perverse premise has somehow made its way onto cinema screens this Christmas. Just like Christmas With The Kranks and The Polar Express, Surviving Christmas winds towards a festive moral that aims to fill the audience with yuletide cheer. The execution of said moral in this particular seasonal release is highly questionnaire but unmistakably funny.
Surviving Christmas has been slammed by the critics remorselessly. Nobody seems to have liked this twisted retelling of the story of Scrooge, and I believe I have found the answer: nobody likes Ben Affleck.
Affleck plays a rich ad executive who pays a dysfunctional family to take him in and make Christmas just how it was when he was a child. This seriously strange idea could, in the right hands, been a gross out smash hit in the Farrely brothers style. Instead, Mike Mitchell decides to take the whole thing a little too seriously and what results is a comedy that is uncomfortable with itself. As a result the actors are left unsure whether to play their characters straight or exaggerated. This can be all be blamed on the script, or lack thereof. Filming took place without a finished draft, and thus, parts of the film were improvised and unfunny material remains in the final cut.
Nevertheless, there are many positive attributes to this genre subverting film. James Gandolfini is very entertaining as the constantly resentful Tom Valco whose only vice, in true Christmas spirit, is money.
Ben Affleck style in comedic roles is disliked by many, but his specific brand of humour is allowed to thrive in this unnatural plot and situation driven comedy. The character of the son (Josh Zuckerman) is underdeveloped, as is the family's relationship with its neighbours, but again the unfinished script can be held accountable.
Surviving Christmas is by no means a great film, but it is certainly not as bad as it has been labelled. Unfortunately, most won't get a chance to decide for themselves until this film is released on DVD as it was grossly under marketed in the UK. An offbeat comedy and a genuine step forward for the Scrooge remakes that when given the chance to shine in its own right, works quite well.