Coriolanus

Shakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.

Up until last year, Shakespeare's Coriolanus has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?

Ok, there was a BBC series from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.

Coriolanus is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.

Skyfall

Despite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.

Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from The Bourne Legacy. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.

There's a lot in Skyfall that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.

And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.

Ted

The humour relies completely on vulgarity and shock value to succeed. But this movie is so vile, and so shocking, its almost brilliant. It's also got a warm heart, I guess.

I get Seth Rogan and Seth Macfarlane confused. I'm sure some would consider that a crime, but I this that's just my taste in comedy. I've seen a little Family Guy, and laughed at it for a bit, but I don't think I've ever found anything with Macfarlane in it compelling enough to seek out. Robot Chicken, American Dad, Drawn Together, his Star Wars parodies (Robot Chicken and Family Guy); all quite funny, but I haven't really watched any of them. I'm so out of touch that when I heard Ted was Macfarlane's first big picture, I thought "But what about Paul, just last year"? To add to my confusion, Seth Green does the voice of Joker in Mass Effect 2, and I found myself racking my brain to remember if this was the Seth from Family Guy or the Seth from Austin Powers or the Seth from Pineapple Express...

My current theory is that the three are in fact one dude, with pseudonyms for each voice he puts on.

All this is to say: I wasn't sure exactly what to expect going into Ted. I guess you could say I wasn't disappointed?

The movie opens with an old-timey narrator telling the story of once upon a time on a magical Christmas day where our story begins. The narrator doesn't stay long, but sets the tone for the rest of the film by occasionally diverting from his bedtime story voice to crack racist jokes, talk about Apache helicopters, and other such things.

On this magical night, a young boy named John Bennett wishes his Teddy bear was really real. When he wakes up the next morning, the bear comes to life! What happens next is perhaps completely plausible in todays celebrity culture: 'Ted' becomes an overnight sensation, appears on talkshows, signs autographs, and all the other things.

Cut to 20 years later: the life of a has-been celebrity.

John and Ted are living together in a messy looking middle class house, smoking pot and watching spongebob. There are lots of pop culture references, many surrounding the campy 1980 film Flash Gordon. The best scene in the film involves the original star, Sam Jones, showing up to one of Ted's parties. The scene is bombastic, vulgar, racist, flippant, trippy, wisecracking, self-reflexive, and at times hilarious; it pretty much encapsulates the whole film.

There's something of an action/thriller plot involving a creepy father stalking Ted on behalf of his creepy son. There's also a bit of romance/drama between John and his girlfriend, who wants him to stop playing with his teddy bear and take responsibility for his life. This stuff is actually played almost entirely straight, and works really well. The chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis is strong, and makes for a believable relationship that grounds the film.

Given the absurdity of the premise, and the vulgarity of the humour, it's surprising to see such a solid romantic subplot. Because of it, though, Ted is elevated to something more than a mediocre shock humour film. I watched it twice, and enjoyed it still. Despite its foul mouth, this is ultimately a feel-good film with a warm heart.

(Update: I am now aware that Robot Chicken is made by Seth Green, not Seth Macfarlane. I think this just emphasises how confused I am.)

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Apart from a few really clever surprises, Twilight is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.

Yes, it's nice to know that The Twilight Saga has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me.

I'll start with the good.

The opening credits in Breaking Dawn Part 2 are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting... great stuff.

Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says "That was easy." My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip - It's intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn't suffer for them.

What I don't think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen's give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. "It's perfect" says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing.

Paris, Texas

The pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.

Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.

You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.

Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.

The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.

Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.

The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.

It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.

Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).

Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.



Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?
Leave a comment, start a discussion :)

Anonymous

The story of the truth about the greatest poet who ever lived... is dragged down by bad writing. The irony?

Well, it's about time I reviewed a film I flat out didn't like. Most of what I watch I choose because I expect it to be good - or because my class work demands it. Once in a while, though, it's fun to go into a film with no idea what to expect beyond the poster and the premise.

So... was Shakespeare were a fraud?

That's the question this film boldly dares to ask. And its a really nice idea. One that's surprisingly passed over in the world of film, considering the popularity of the speculation (although most scholars agree that Shakespeare was indeed Shakespeare). Shakespeare's work has been adapted hundreds of times over, dating way back into the silent era of film. Can you imagine watching Romeo and Juliet without sound? I can't, but they did it. But the historic figure of Shakespeare himself, has that ever been tackled? I can only think of Shakespeare In Love, which I haven't seen, but apparently is a very effective story about Shakespeare... well, falling in love.

Anonymous, though, asks the question: was he a fraud? It then answers "Yes", and proceeds to tell an unrelated story of medieval intrigue. I'll start with what I liked the least: the character of Shakespeare. I guess I should have expected this going in, but Will Shakespeare in this film did not write any of the work that is credited to him. In fact, he's kind of a jerk.

Anybody who's familiar with Shakespeare's work will probably like Shakespeare - at very least respect his brilliance. He's the golden standard by which all English writing is judged after all. This film characterises Shakespeare as an illiterate actor; bursting with charisma and energy and ego and apathy. He's not even supposed to be in on this con, he just shows up and attaches his names to things. Every time I looked at the character I thought he seemed more like Jack Sparrow, minus the ability to act, or the charming humour, than anybody who could even pretend to have written the works of Shakespeare. The other problem is that he's hardly present in the picture. The film is less about him and how he pulls off this con, and more about these bizarre connections within the royal family, and how the plays are somehow connected to control of the throne.

But that's just a story choice I disagree with, I probably wouldn't have minded the place of the Shakespeare character if it weren't for two other more damning gripes: firstly, the film is confusing.

The movie jumps back and forth in time; I guess I can deal with that. The first scene is a modern day theatre in New York, where none other than Derek Jacobi is narrating a performance of the film we're about to watch. There is then a clever transition from the stage performance 'Anonymous' into the Elizabethan era, and the film proper. Ok, so far so good, I'm intrigued.

We see a character we don't know running from the law, into the iconic Rose theatre in London. He hides some papers in a box, and is arrested as the soldiers torch the building. Cut to five years earlier, with a helpful little title card. From there we are introduced to some of the main characters, including Elizabeth the First... who has a flashback to 40 years earlier. These flashbacks are given by many characters throughout the film.

Ok, so the movie is weaving about four different time periods in parallel  Other films have done this quite successfully, but somehow this film fails miserably. I think it's because so many of the characters look very similar, and the film doesn't work hard enough to connect young people to their older selves. Those handy title cards disappear after the first instance, and there is little differentiation between the Elizabethan past and 'present'. Sometimes the only way I could tell what year a given scene occurred in was by the age of the queen, but she doesn't appear in every scene.

So I was confused, but as the film dragged on I began to piece things together, reconsider what I thought was happening, and work out what I think went on.

Did I say dragged?

My second point: this movie is boring. The mystery of who wrote Shakespeare's plays is cleared up very quickly, and after that there's not much else to get invested in. There is the matter of who the crown of England goes to, and a lot of screen time is devoted to that, but the film is so confusing that by the time you figure out who's who and what they want, you'll have no time wonder, and no time left to care.

I guess the most frustrating thing about this movie is that there are so many good ideas in here. It's trying to be a grand tribute to Shakespeare's writing, imbuing it with the power to move people, shift nations. Sometimes, it seems to do that, especially when it deals with the character of...

Edward de Vere

... Sorry, I had to look up his name, because after watching the movie I had no friggin clue.

Edward de Vere is the nobleman who, on some historical theories, wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. And he was my favourite part of this movie. His characterization is great - from a talented (although disturbingly ambitious) young boy to an adult who flouts his responsibilities, and hears voices that urge him to write. We see parts of his life that directly reflect ideas in Shakespeare - like when, as a young man, he stabs a spying servant through a curtain. We see him use his wit and verse to seduce women; we see that wit crushed under the pressures of responsibility, and we see the wonder in his eyes as he watches his writings come to life, albeit with Will taking the credit.

It's a little disconcerting that nobody in the medieval world talks like Shakespeare - with his 'wherefore's and 'shalt's. I guess if they actually had the actors speak Middle English it would be too confusing for a modern audience. It does also mean that when Edward speaks he produces marvellous effect, but I couldn't help but notice that the writing in this film just isn't on par with real-life Shakespeare.There is a neat little third-act twist which takes after another classic play, which I found quite brilliant, although it didn't seem to affect any of the characters in any way, except that it ushered in the films conclusion.

There are lots of little references to Shakespeare and other theatre, as well as to historical figures and events.

The biggest flaw in this film is not the writing; I think it's the direction and editing. The film feels unfocussed, and confusing. I didn't think of Shakespeare as a fraud, I though of Will as Captain Jack, and Edward as Shakespeare. For all the dilly-dallying about the crown of England, I didn't care, I just wanted to see more of Edward, and understand what the film was on about.

Once Upon A Time In Anatolia

Revelations come slowly, and lack the dramatic punch that you might expect of them, but this film flaunts the stunning beauty of the Turkish countryside, as well as some fine acting and filmmaking.

A police chief, a prosecutor, a doctor, a driver and a suspect are driving through the countryside in the middle of the night. They stop, look around, ask the suspect to identify landmarks, argue about routes and the lay of the land. It becomes clear that they are looking for a dead body. The suspect has killed him, and buried him somewhere, but he can't remember because he had been drinking, and his brother was asleep.

What you see above is among the first shots of the film; before we are introduced to any characters, we see their convoy pull over, and people get out and talk. We hear their conversation from afar, but the camera doesn't budge; the entire scene plays out in one still shot, and we are left to ponder what we've heard, its relevance unclear until later on.

You should be able to tell from this image: this movie looks beautiful. Much of its time is spent driving through the country at night; director Nuri Bilge Ceylan photographs it with such vivid colouring and careful framing, it evokes a fairtytale-like quality that matches its title.

It is an interesting blend though; the film is mostly very realistic, actions play out in real time, and trivial issues concern characters as much as grander ones. Occasionally  the film breaks its strict reality to play out a surreal sequence. Two men have a conversation without moving their lips; one man sees a ghost; a woman appears like an angel to all the men... These sequences flow seamlessly from the main thrust of the film, and give a richer sense of the characters while also adding to the air of mystery that pervades most of the movie. I have no doubt that a second viewing would be very rewarding, given the context of each character in these dreamy sequences.

This is a film that rewards patience. It plays out slowly, with generous screen time devoted to moments void of dialogue; the scenery, the sounds and the atmosphere allowed to sink in. If you like action movies, or fast-paced thrillers, perhaps this one isn't for you. If you like a good drama, or crime yarn though, you may get a lot out of it. For a long time nothing happens but driving, and talking. But as the plot advances, the stage is set for some great revelations that take place in the third act.

And here is my major gripe with this film - although perhaps it was just not to my taste: these third-act revelations are groundbreaking, and cast everything that has come before in a new light. But they aren't treated as such. They are treated just like any other dialogue or setup in the film. I felt as though the movie should begin to hit its stride when the party finally reaches the town; that everything should begin to fall into place, and the great mystery that's been constructed should be revealed, and the exposure of the truth should lead to some gut-punching dramatic beats that stick with you long after watching.

Well, everything did fall into place. The truth was exposed, and each character was given enough time for a substantial exploration. The film sticks with you after watching... I guess I just didn't get that punch in the gut. The big reveals happen slowly, and it's up to the viewer to figure out exactly what they mean. Once Upon A Time In Anatolia is a film I'd definitely want to see a second time. I'll reiterate: this film rewards patience. And it's a very rewarding film.

Capitalism: A Love Story

Moore is undeniably charismatic and engaging, even if his methods are manipulative and extreme.

Explaining the problems of capitalism in a nutshell, it's Michael Moore, known for many controversial works such as Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. This film did not make as much of a splash as those though, probably in part because money isn't as interesting as tragedy, and partly because most people will agree with what this film espouses (at least, to some degree).

The film was made in the wake of the financial crisis in 2008, which resulted in the bailout of Americas biggest banks by the government. While I think it is by no means his 'Magnum Opus' (see the quote on the cover), it's interesting that this film seems to come full circle - he starts the film in his home city of Flint, Michigan, which was the subject of his first ever film, Roger & Me. Moore observes that the desperation and social decay that occurred there when the GM factory closed down years ago, is being repeated all over America with the growing power of the banks.

Mystery Train

Great characterization, clever narrative structure, and very entertaining. This film takes its time, but the world and the characters will grow on you.

Jim Jarmusch is an American independent filmmaker, whose name most closely resembles 'muscular', according to my spellchecker here (if you look at the guy though... he isn't.) What he is is talented, and Mystery Train demonstrates why.

The film follows three groups of characters, and their experience of one night in the city of Memphis. First, a young Japanese couple from Yokohama. The girly, Mitsuko, is bubbly and excitable and totally obsessed with Elivis; the guy, Jun, is quiet, aloof, cool, and prefers Carl Perkins. After exploring the town for a day, the two settle into a hotel for a night,  The second story follow Luisa, an Italian woman stranded for a night in Memphis; she flees some creepy strangers, and ends up in the same hotel. In the lobby she meets Dee Dee, who has just broken up with her boyfriend and needs a place to stay. The two agree to share a room together. The final story follows Johnny, Dee Dees former boyfriend, and Charlie, her brother. Through a complex chain of events, the two also end up crashing at the same hotel.

Days Of Heaven

A phenomenal film, partly for its charming cast and tragic story, but mostly for the absolutely stunning visuals. It's an experience, worth embarking on twice, and it's also one damn pretty picture.

Terrence Malick is possibly the most interesting filmmaker working today. His first picture was Badlands in 1973, which garnered him critical acclaim in America and internationally. It took him five more years - until 1978 - to finish his second film, Days Of Heaven. After that, he moved to France, and stopped making films for twenty years. In 1998 he came out with The Thin Red Line, again to wide acclaim. Since then he has made The New World (2005), The Tree Of Life (2011), and To The Wonder (as yet unreleased).

What's fascinating about him is that despite garnering such critical and commericial success - and being known even by artsy European directors as a great director - there's reletively little known about him. He doesn't seem to do public interviews, or offer comment on puzzling aspects of his films. He just makes them, and sets them loose upon the world.

Nuremberg

A generally well-produced TV-Miniseries, with a particularly shocking second act. It doesn't deeply challenge issues, but informs, historically and emotionally.

The Nuremberg trials were a series of prosecutions run jointly by Allied nations in the wake of World War 2, to sentence the captured Nazi leaders for war crimes carried out under their command. Nuremberg was produced in 2000, starring Alec Baldwin as cheif prosecutor Robert Jackson, and Brian Cox as Hermann Göring - the former second in command of Nazi Germany, who establishes himself as a very Hitler-esque figure, with his radical ideas backed by incredible charisma.

The film portrays Jackson as idealistic, and Göring as conniving. Jackson is determined that the Nazis be given a fair trial; that justice be served. Göring is determined to exploit the court system to escape his fate. The two serve as tent poles for the two sides of the case, but there are a plethora of other characters and subplots revolving around them.

Touching The Void

Based on a true story, Touching The Void delivers an extraordinary tale of human survival, with breathtaking re-enactment that packs emotional punch.

In 1985, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates attempted to climb the west face of the Siula Grande - a 6.3km ascent that had never yet been completed. The pair climbed alpine style; this meant no camps halfway up, and no more equipment than the two of them could carry. Joe admits, in hindsight, they were a bit stupid.

Touching the void is a 2003 documentary based on the book by Joe Simpson, detailing their climb, and almost fatal descent. The film uses talking heads (that is, interviews with the climbers themselves), along with performed re-enactments filmed on location at the slope, to convey their struggle to survive, and the brutal decisions each had to make.

The Bourne Legacy

Awkwardly woven into the plot of the previous trilogy, The Bourne Legacy does as it's supposed to: it cashes in on past successes, and delivers a good enough film to sell tickets.

Sometimes sequels can be great things. They can develop a character, expand a world, explore new ideas, deliver new thrills, and make a healthy profit for the movie industry - all built upon the foundation of an earlier film. The Bourne franchise has had its fair share of this; The Bourne Identity was a well paced, well executed spy thriller that broke a dry spell of good spy thrillers (just have a look at the Bond movies coming out then). The Bourne Supremacy took the idea further - introduced new well-integrated characters, better explored Jason Bourne's motivations, and dialled up the action to boot. The Bourne Ultimatum improved on everything in Supremacy, and tied things up nicely with a happy - and importantly, non-violent ending.

The Bourne Legacy takes that fantastic foundation, chucks it in the dumpster, and goes on to tell its own mediocre story that taints the beauty of the first three films.

Batman & Jesus

This is an assignment I submitted for University. The task was to write a review of 800 words, for a film currently in theatrical release.

Because I had already done over and above this for Batman, and wasn't really interested in trying to condense all those thoughts, I decided to use 800 words to layout (in brief) the parallel between Batman and Jesus.

Once again, spoilers follow...

The Dark Knight Rises

       An Analysis of Metaphor

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely… A legend, Mr. Wayne

-Ra’s Al Gul, Batman Begins

The Dark Knight Rises is the final instalment in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. The films track the journey of Bruce Wayne, an orphaned billionaire who takes on the alter ego Batman in order to fight crime, and save the city of Gotham from destruction. In this tale, Nolan creates a parallel in Batman to that of Jesus Christ. The most obvious points of reference for this metaphor are in the death and resurrection of Jesus in the Christian tradition, as compared with Batmans’ in the final film – each as a sacrifice on behalf of the people.  Jesus is also invoked on a deeper level by the construction of Bruce Wayne’s character, and the way the trilogy deals with themes like, justice, compassion, hope and discipleship.

Platoon

Platoon is a classic war film that deals with the attitudes and actions of US soldiers in Vietnam. An intense experience, and essential viewing for war film fans.

First a quick note: having seen two war films in one day, I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of them. I do respect their craftsmanship and some of the messages they convey, but for a war film to be serious it almost inevitably loses a lot of joy. There are fun moments, in both Waltz With Bashir and Platoon, but they are dwarfed by the serious nature of their subject matter. I haven't seen a whole lot of them, for this reason, but there's no doubt in my mind that while Platoon is a great film, I'd sooner revisit the more sensationalist Where Eagles Dare because it's so much more fun.


Oliver Stone's Platoon follows a group of soldiers on the front-lines of the Vietnam War. The film, deservedly I think, won a slew of awards in 1986. It is a brutal vision of war (a response, Stone says, to the more jingoistic representations of Vietnam that came before), in which good and evil are far from cut and dry.

Waltz With Bashir

The film artfully presents one of the more recent atrocities of war with a compelling facade of a mystery being unearthed. An effective evocation of the madness that is war.

Waltz With Bashir is a documentary presented in an animated medium. This animation is not for kids.It deals with the events surrounding the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanon War. The dialogue is partially lifted from real interviews conducted by director Ari Folman, as well as voiceovers of himself, explaining his experience to the audience. The dialogue is assembled in such a way that the events of the massacre unfold like the clues to a mystery. The mystery is contained in the filmmakers mind; all he remembers of that fateful day is a vision of three soldiers rising out of the water, watching as eerie orange flares illuminate the sky.

Laputa: Castle In The Sky

My favourite of the Miyazaki's that I've seen, and certainly up there with the best of Disney - a great, fun animated adventure!

Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have made some fantastic films across their career. I only say that to pass on what I know through the grapevine of cyberspace - I've only seen a handful of them; Totoro, Howls Moving Castle, Ponyo, and some of  Spirited Away and Kiki's Delivery Service. This is undoubtably the best piece I have seen from this studio.

Laputa: Castle In The Sky is a fairytale, at it's core. It's about a young boy named Patsu who sees a girl - Sheeta - floating from the sky; he catches her. She's being chased by the military, a secret agent and a gang of pirates, who all want the crystal necklace she's carrying. The crystal holds the potential to unlock the location and secrets of the legendary floating city known as Laputa. By some extraordinary coincidence, Patsu's father once saw Laputa, only to be laughed off for purporting its existence. Patsu dreams of proving his father right, so is absolutely keen beans to fight off pirates and big baddies to protect the girl and find the city.

Mr Smith Goes To Washington

Even back then, Hollywood knew exactly what people wanted to watch...

In 1939 the Hollywood studio system was in full swing, and Frank Capra was cranking out drama films for Columbia pictures - a big name in the industry, from which we get a number of classics including It Happened One Night, It's A Wonderful Life, and this film: Mr Smith Goes To Washington.

This is a fun movie. It's about a guy who gets elected a US senator, by the machinations of a group of conspirators who need a stooge to vote their way for their profit. The man they pick is Mr. Jefferson Smith - leader of the boy scouts, and completely oblivious to politics. Over the course of the film we follow Mr. Smith as he struggles with his public image, his duties as a senator, and his purpose for being there. He's also totally overwhelmed with patriotic pride at being in Washington DC, amongst all the monuments and memorials to The American Way.

The Dark Knight Rises - The Ending

If you haven't already, read my first post about this film (spoils a few plot details). This post will simply continue that train of thought, but with explicit discussion of the final act of the film.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW - WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST!

Ok, let's start with some small things.

Alfred leaves Batman. Apparently this is some kind of heresy in Batman lore; Alfred should be loyal to the very end. For this trilogy though... I don't know, I kinda liked it. It was the most emotional scene for me - I felt literally heartbroken as it unfolded; as the consequences of Alfreds well-intentioned lie began to dawn on him. "Let the truth have its day" he says. It resonates well, on a larger scale, with Gordons deception about Harvey Dent exposed to the city. The peace they had tried to establish was founded on untruth, and ultimately usurps them.

So thematically it was consistent, and Micheal Caines acting can seemingly never be faulted... But I guess I just wanted more of Alfred. He says he's leaving, and in the next scene he's gone - just a shot of him getting into a car would be nice. But worse, he never appears again until after the day is saved. I feel like maybe he should have been waiting outside the prison when Batman rises, or contributed to the final fight in some way or other. Again, I want more, though it might have hindered the pace of the film even further.

The Dark Knight Rises

Fantastically executed, emotionally affecting, thematically weighty and rich in spectacle - Rises isn't as tight as The Dark Knight, but it caps off this amazing trilogy in grand style. This series will be talked about for years.

Christopher Nolan has done a bold thing. First by creating this iteration of Batman - in all his brooding darkness and gritty realism - then by following it up with the best superhero film ever made, and now by concluding the story as a trilogy... Anything he served up would appease the studios desire for a big opening weekend, but this series has become more than just a popcorn flick; The Dark Knight proved that super heroes can have legitimately good, artful, well-acted, powerful films, tackling real issues despite their fantastic premise.

I read a poem describing the job of poets: to create "Imaginary gardens with real toads in them"(Marianne Moore), and I think this can be applied equally well to film, and especially well to such films as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; a fantasy world the draws us in and delights us with its spectacle and inventiveness, while still grappling with the 'toads' of reality - those things that plague us still in real life.

The hype surrounding this film has been incredible - with phrases like 'masterpiece' and 'perfect film' being thrown around to describe its predecessor, can Nolan follow up his success with an equal - or even greater - film?

Birth Of A Nation

Ambitiously made, with volatile subject matter. D.W. Griffiths phenomenal epic about the formation of the United States still strikes a nerve even today. Sitting through this film is an ordeal - but as affecting as great cinema should be.

Just look at that poster. Our hero everybody!

Wind the clocks back almost a whole century, to 1915. Film was the new thing, a cheap sideshow type attraction, with studios pumping out hundreds of movies a year, selling tickets for 5c at nickelodeons. The films were only about 20 minutes long, and no one would really call them high art yet, but there was one director that had a vision.

D.W. Griffith is considered the great pioneer of filmmaking. His techniques were not new or ground-breaking - but their implementation at his hands was marvellous. Audiences were blown away by his ability to juxtapose two scenes in editing - creating the sense of two things happening simultaneously in different places. They had never experienced a camera that moved at the same speed as the horse it was following; the thrill was spectacular. All these and more Griffith utilized in creating what is arguably his greatest film - certainly his best known: the 3-hour epic that is Birth Of A Nation.

Brave

Fun, family friendly, original, funny and beautiful; this films' only flaw is that it doesn't stack against the best of what Pixar can do.

Pixar have pretty well established themselves by this point as the 21st century's Disney. Everything they've produced appeals to adults as well as kids, and none of it could be considered 'crap', and the best of what they've given could undoubtably be called 'great'. Their last film was Cars 2, but the film before that (Toy Story 3) is arguably their greatest.

So with their latest offering Brave (directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman), I had high hopes; a Pixar film with an original story, set in Scotland, featuring bears and a strong red-headed princess... The problem with having high hopes, is that even small dints in them seem all the more disappointing.

Not that Brave is a bad film by any means. It's got a lot going for it. Pixar has mastered the art of side-stepping the uncanny valley, so even as their films get more and more photo-realistic, the human characters never look too real. There's always exaggerations and cartoonish quirks that make them amiable and never creepy. The setting for this film is fantastic; there was clearly a lot of effort put into recreating the natural beauty of the hills of Scotland, and they've done a stunning job, crafting a world of wonder and mystery that is enticing and exciting to inhabit.

The Player

The more you know about Hollywood, the more you'll appreciate the many, many references. The less you know, the more fascinated you'll be by this nasty machine from whence our entertainment comes.

Sex, violence and a happy ending - what more could you want from a movie?

How about a healthy dose of wit, satire and irony. This is a very smart Hollywood movie.

The film stars Tim Robbins as a studio executive living and working in Hollywood. Director Robert Altman uses the setting to his advantage - roping in about 60 cameo roles by well known actors, directors and other personalities. They appear briefly in the many shots of lush restaurants, cafes, offices and car parks that these insanely rich people occupy.

Ètre et Avoir

This sweet and subtle documentary is sure to entertain - and perhaps deeply touch - anybody who cares about children. Which should be all of you.

Don't be put off by its French name; Ètre et avoir simply means To Be and to Have. Not having known that before now, I like it. It's a sweet little sentiment that matches the film perfectly.

If you ever have the opportunity to watch this documentary, absolutely give it ago - especially if you have kids, want kids, or care about children and education in the slightest. Probably the best way to go into it is completely oblivious, as I did, but it may suit you to know what it's about first. I'm about to tell you.

Man Of Aran

Nearing 80 years old, this documentary still holds great artistic merit, with the beauty and spectacle of the scenery coming through despite the aged film, along with its distinctive editing style.

If I have a regular reading audience (and my friends assure me that I do), this is not the sort of film they would want to see. This is the sort of film you only see if you have a serious interest in the scholarly appreciation of cinema; ie. Film students.

Since I am a film student, and I will be spending a huge chunk of my class time watching films - both obscure and immediate - I'm going to try change up my blog a little. I'm going to post about every film I watch in class. I'm going to reflect a little on what the film is and why it's significant, but I'll try to do so from the perspective of someone who likes movies... but not that much. I'm talking to you Facebook friends: I'll tell you whether or not you should see this movie. Starting with Man Of Aran.

No doubt you will not have heard of Man Of Aran before. That's ok we're in the same boat (Haha, in-joke. There's a boat in the film). It's a little over an hour long, and depicts a group of people who live on a barren spot of land off the west coast of Ireland. It was made in 1934, and is a work of fiction but functions as a documentary. The film features the titular man and his family living off the Aran sea, using pre-modern equipment and techniques to conduct simple tasks such as fishing, potato growing, boat-mending, shark hunting...

Fargo

The Coen Brothers knack for quirk and charm amidst heavy drama and viscious violence is extremely evident in this classic familiar-but-fresh crime thriller.

This will be the first of several catch-up posts that I put up over the next few weeks - including what looks to be a mega-epic post about batman - as well as many many short posts on films I watch in class. Time to knuckle down, I've got a lot of writing to do.

Fargo is a dark comedy/crime thriller about Jerry Lundegaard (William Macy), a used car salesman who has his wife kidnapped, in order that his father-in-law will pay a hefty ransom for her return. He plans to skim a chunk off the top to pay off his debts. What could possibly go wrong?

Basically, everything. Between Jerry and the two goons he hires, every stage of the plan is mucked up by poor judgement, bad timing, the intervention of others, or some other happenstance that leads to a string of murders, and a full-on police investigation into this web of incompetance and deceit.

Serenity

Awesome story, awesome characters, awesome world. This TV series was definitely worth resurrecting - go and watch it!

It's been a long time since my last post, and even longer since I posted about Firefly, but I've finally finished it. So here's a review of the movie that completed the story after the series was cancelled (for reasons I cannot fathom, since this show is so good!)

Basically this film plays out like a much longer episode of the show, which is both good and bad; on the downside the budget is still small by blockbuster standards, so while the effects are slicker and grander, they still feel a bit cheap and tv-ish. That's the worst of it though - all the best stuff from the show is all here; the dialogue is snappy, the characters are well defined and universally interesting, including all the new ones we're introduced to, even when they have precious few minutes of screen time. The universe this franchise inhabits is fantastically real-but-not, with a vibrance and believability overpowering any stretches of credibility.

Dear Esther

Poetry in video games? Yes please!

It's been well over a month but I'm finally dragging myself back to the writing chair. And I've really missed it, it's actually a really comfortable chair. With its high back, leather padded arm rests and smooth swivel... admittedly, it's the exact same chair on which I do everything else with my life, but it's nice to be back here for the sole purpose of writing a blog post. I'm sorry internet, I've let you down. I'm sure you're all very disappointed in me.

By coincidence, this is also the chair which I sit in to play video games. Which is what I'm writing about again today.

How about that.

This week, because it was on special on Steam, I played Dear Esther.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is fairly complex for a teen fad series - with solid story, acting, action and characters - I look forward to seeing the next few!

All that build up and finally it's here. This is probably the darkest teen book-made-movie I've ever heard off - it puts all the most interesting elements of The Twilight Saga to shame - in just one film! I'll say right from the start that in light of other popular teenage franchises, the popularity of this series is a positive thing.

Prior to seeing this film, I had just an inkling of what it was about; A bunch of teenagers are forced to fight to the death in a reality tv show in the dystopian future. The hero was a girl. I wasn't that excited for a movie about this - it would probably end up as a dumbed-down, kiddie-friendly Battle Royale, right?

Well, honestly, I can't comment on the Battle Royale comparison, because I haven't seen that movie. Let's be clear though: Battle Royale is not a Japanese Hunger Games; the Hunger Games are are a Western Battle Royale. But dumb and kid-friendly the Hunger Games are not! Take the rating seriously on this one parents, there are some brutal things in this film that your child may not be ready to see. There are also some really smart things in this film.

Burnt By The Sun

In 1930s Russia, Kotov, a Colonel of the Russian Revolution is living it up with his beautiful wife and daughter, and their crazy family. But politics intrude, as the Great Purge slowly begins to intrude upon their happy life...

Set in the late 1930s, in the final few years before WWII, Burnt By The Sun follows a Colonel (Comdiv) of the Russian Revolution who falls victim to the 'Great Purge' - when Stalin had many of his former fellow revolutionaries executed without trial. A period characterised by paranoia, police surveillance, persecution and repression... Burnt By The Sun represents it as strangely peaceful.

No Man's Land

Two opposing soldiers, trapped between the lines, and a third man lying on a land mine. Hilarity ensues? Far more tense than funny, but utilising satire effectively to make a point about the futility of modern war.

When Yugoslavia broke down from 1990-1992, several factions formed in its place, each fighting for its own territory in the former state. The Balkan war ensued; from 1991-1995, bitter struggles raged between a formally united people. Ultimately the conflict was resolved, and a section of land now belongs to each of Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. But somewhere in that time - on the front lines between Bosnian and Serb soldiers - the events of No Man's Land may have occurred...

No Man's Land is a grim comedy about the absurdity of modern warfare, and a vicious satire of the international community, and their oft shallow or vain attempts to intervene (in the form of both the UN and the Media). Caught between the two front lines, Ciki (a Bosniak) takes refuge in an abandoned trench in the middle of no-mans-land. Stuck with him is a Serbian called Nino, a nervous wreck after his superior is shot by Ciki. Complicating matters is Cikis friend Cera who, presumed dead, has been lain atop a spring-loaded mine by Nino's superior. He awakes to discover that if he moves more than an inch, they are all dead.

Good Bye Lenin!

Good Bye Lenin! is a celebration of nostalgia, and gives a warm farewell to the socialist East Germany. It does this in good humour, with some clever takes on actual historical events, wrapped up in a very human story about a boy who deeply cares for his mother.

It's October 1989. Germany has been split in two - to the West democracy and capitalism reign, while the East remains under communism. But change is coming; in East Germany, the GDR is beginning to crumble, as its citizens yearn for the freedom of life on the other side. While young Alex Kerner is arrested in a student protest, he catches sight of his mother as she collapses to the ground. Christiane - the mother - has been 'married to the fatherland' since her husband escaped from it years ago. She lives and breathes socialism, and retreats into a coma for 8 months at the shock of seeing her son at the event.

Fact can be stranger than fiction though - in the course of those 8 months, the Berlin wall is destroyed, socialism falls, and East Germany becomes Westernised. When Christiane awakens miraculously, the doctors warn Alex that any kind of shock could set off another heart attack... including the revelation that her entire world has been revolutionised in her absence. So begins an extended charade, with Alex trying to hide the truth from his bedridden mother. From the clothes he wears, to the brand of pickles she eats, he meticulously reconstructs her world to be as it was less than a year ago - a mammoth task, given how fast things changed!

(The following may contain spoilers)

2001:A Space Odyssey

Ambitious is too small a word - Kubrick has crafted a film that attempts to capture all the essence of humanity in a few short hours. This staple of sci-fi films is also a captivating experience, that engages deep questions of life, and like life, leaves them largely unanswered, but better explored.

C.S. Lewis describes pride as 'the great sin' - the greatest flaw in humankind.

"There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others" (Mere Christianity)

I know Stanley Kubrick wasn't a Christian, and probably disagreed with Lewis on many things,  but I bring this up because when I watched his film this week, that quote stuck in my mind throughout the dialogue scenes. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film very much about the human condition; it was poorly received when it first screened to critics, but over time has become known as one of the greatest films ever made, partly for it's groundbreaking effects, and partly for its unconventional narrative that touches on some of the biggest questions of life...

Holiday Movie Madness

15 Movies in review...

Since I've spent so much time this week lazing around on a couch when I’m not at the beach, here’s a list of movies I've watched, and a paragraph-length review of each of them! 

This is an eclectic mix of films. Most are, if not great, worth a watch. Some deserve an entire post to themselves, so maybe if I find some time I’ll go back and do them justice. More likely I’ll be too busy to get around to it, so I’ll just heap them with a lot of praise while I can...