#66: Shoot ‘Em Up (2007) October 29, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008 , add a comment
Shoot ‘Em Up is the film Wanted wants to be. It’s packed to bursting with utterly ludicrous — but, consequently, ludicrously cool — action sequences. It’s fast-paced, witty, and endlessly inventive. As the action genre goes, this is pure entertainment.
The plot, such as it is, is borderline nonsensical — some craziness to do with a baby factory (which is, believe it or not, the morally acceptable part), political coups, and goodness knows what else. If you want to follow it you might need to engage your brain at times, but so long as you can tell who’s bad and who’s good — and you can, easily — then all is well. This might sound like a criticism, but by pushing the implausibility of an action-thriller plot as far as it can, the story becomes another element in the whole film’s spoof-homage aesthetic. Everyone involved is clearly having fun with this, though none more so than Paul Giamatti. His wonderful villain is cunningly evil but constantly interrupted by domestic phonecalls from his beloved wife. Luckily this enjoyment is conveyed to the viewer, lending the one-liners and sundry other gags more humour than they might otherwise deserve.
Some quarters have criticised Shoot ‘Em Up for being cheesy and cliched. My favourites are those that label it “so daft at least I enjoyed it on that level”. I’m sure these people feel very clever for spotting all the poor stereotypes of an action flick, from the unbelievable plot to the literally impossible feats of action. Unfortunately for those oh-so-clever people, they’ve entirely missed the point — even those daft-lovers. The clue’s in the title, a simple statement of genre that blatantly acknowledges the film’s aim in a way that genuine crap-because-they’re-crap action flicks don’t. Shoot ‘Em Up is an homage and spoof of its genre, pushing everything to the limit. If it took itself seriously the above might be valid criticisms, but it’s meant to be this way.
And if you know that, it works, navigating a successful path between spoof and homage — it’s not Action Movie, a film which must be inevitable by this point — and packed with inventive stunts and shoot outs. For every impressively-inventive-but-physically-implausible stunt in Wanted, this produces half a dozen. And they weren’t all in the trailer either. Silly, fun, and easily better than that over-promoted comic adaptation, in these respects Shoot ‘Em Up deserves much wider recognition.
My Quantum of Solace Film Season October 27, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, James Bond, 2000s, British films, 2008 , add a commentIn case you’ve somehow failed to notice, Quantum of Solace, the 22nd official James Bond film, hits UK cinemas this Friday. I’m more than a tad excited (and considerably annoyed that I won’t be able to make it to the first screening in my area thanks to a seminar), and to celebrate I’m having myself a sort-of mini-ish film season-thing. Which I have dubbed My Quantum of Solace Film Season. You might’ve guessed that from the post’s title.
The selection process is quite simple: one film a day, each representing a different key member of QoS’s cast, plus one for director Marc Forster; and, to comply with this blog’s normal rules, all films I’ve never seen before. Well, that was the idea, but as with any good plan some changes have had to be made — there’s no film for Judi Dench, for example (well, other than a certain already-seen previous entry in the franchise), and I initially forgot Daniel Craig. Ha! Luckily I could switch him in for Jeffrey Wright by virtue of the fact they both appeared in The Invasion. Then there’s a double bill to try to get (almost) everyone in, and a film I’ve seen before too. “Oops.” (It was also entirely unintentional that all but the first and last films are from 2007.) Naturally, things come to a close with QoS itself on Friday, so thanks to only having thought of this plan yesterday my time to watch things is rather limited.
Anyway, you don’t really care about all that. Here’s the schedule:
Marc Forster’s Stay.
Mathieu Amalric (’Dominic Greene’) stars in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
A double bill for Bond’s two new women. Gemma Arterton (’Agent Fields’) stars in St. Trinian’s followed by Olga Kurylenko (’Camille’) in Hitman.
Daniel Craig (’James Bond’, donchaknow) stars — with support from Jeffrey Wright (’Felix Leiter’) — in The Invasion.
As has been (very) widely reported, QoS is the first Bond-sequel, starting within an hour of Casino Royale’s climax. As such, it seems only appropriate to watch the preceding film the night before. (I’ve seen CR several times but will be reviewing it anyway, in light of having seen QoS, if that makes any difference.)
Ba-da, dum… ba-da, dum… ba-da ba-da-da! Phonetic renderings of iconic theme tunes aside, Bond is back! Hurray!
The exact order is subject to change depending on how readily I can get hold of the films (I only own two of the six), but that’s the plan. Last time I tried to watch a film a day I failed miserably, so we’ll see how this goes. (Incidentally, reviews won’t appear on the said days, or even follow shortly behind — check out my coming soon page to see how backed up I am with reviews.)
#65: Batman: Gotham Knight (2008) October 22, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Action, Anime, Thriller, Sci-fi, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008, Short, superhero films , add a comment
Gotham Knight is an American-Japanese produced anime — the animation is Japanese and anime-styled, but the original soundtrack is English — that aims to bridge the gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In this case that equates to six short films, with some narrative connections, strung together to make a movie.
Overseen by executive produce Bruce Timm (Batman: The Animated Series, and most of the DCAU) and all with story credits to Jordan Goldberg (Nolan’s assistant on Batman Begins and now associate producer on The Dark Knight), the shorts, in order of appearance, are:
Compiling that list, one has to wonder about the blurb’s claim that these shorts are directed by “some of the world’s most visionary animators”. I suppose the key word is “animators” (rather than “directors”), as some have worked on things like Neon Genesis Evangelion, various iterations of Gundam, and even Akira. Regardless of their level of experience, they all seem to do a fine job here, even managing a couple of vaguely memorable moments among fairly stock dialogue scenes and effective, if occasionally unoriginal, fights.
The six-stories/one-film concept works well enough on the whole. While these are clearly standalone pieces in terms of style and each telling a complete story, they still work best when viewed together — most follow on from the preceding entry and some elements skip across films. These links are nicely varied. For example, while the end of Film 1 merely leads directly to Film 2, there’s a relatively minor action at the end of Film 3 that is picked up in Film 5, and a large chunk of Film 3 is spent on something seemingly insignificant that is picked up on in Film 6. There are some missed opportunities in this respect, such as the transition from the fourth to fifth entries. It would be neater if Batman’s injury in Film 5 was the one from Film 4; based on the settings and their consecutive sequence, I presume this is what was intended, so it’s a shame the wound’s in a completely different place.
Gotham Knight seems to be squarely aimed at fans — who else could work out that the long-haired mustachioed crime lord here is actually Eric Roberts’ character in The Dark Knight! This is just one of several other factors that seem strange considering Gotham Knight is meant to bridge Nolan’s two live-action Bat-epics: Alfred is the traditional posh Englishman; few/no other characters sound like their Nolan-era counterparts; one segment even features the Burton-style Batmobile! It’s also a shame that the Scarecrow short isn’t last as it would lead even more directly into The Dark Knight. On the other hand, it succeeds in crafting a decent-enough ‘real world’ explanation for Killer Croc, which is no small feat, and Kevin Conroy, now in his mid-50s, still makes a good younger Batman. Thankfully he doesn’t attempt Bale’s over-done Bat-voice, though a nod in that direction might’ve been nice.
I’ve managed to get this far without invoking The Animatrix, unquestionably the forefather of this and other similar projects. Gotham Knight takes the concept a step further by linking its shorts so clearly, and while it’s not wholly satisfying in this respect, it’s a successful enough step in the right direction. If we do get a The Dark Knight 2, I’d be quite happy to see another direct-to-DVD effort in this vein.
#64: Zodiac (2007) October 19, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Thriller, Crime, 5 stars, 2000s, adaptations, 2008, true stories , add a comment
Context time: I’m a David Fincher fan. Se7en and Fight Club number among my favourite films of all time; I’ve always found The Game to be an immensely enjoyable thriller; much the same can be said of Panic Room, especially the famous slow motion sequence, which is one of my favourite action scenes ever; and I love The Hire series of short films, which Fincher produced but (sadly) never directed. I’ve never seen Alien3 (or Aliens, or any other entry in that series bar Ridley Scott’s first for that matter), but considering its troubled production history one might say it barely counts. All this considered, why’s it taken me so long to see Zodiac? Well, laziness, to be honest, but I’m here now. And unlike another recently-viewed highly-anticipated film (namely, Southland Tales), this was more than worth the wait.
As other reviews have pointed out, Zodiac is really a film about obsession, and it makes for as engrossing a tale as the case was for those investigating it. In following the story the film chooses to eschew normal structural niceties for fact-following, yet structure is never a problem. Yes, it jumps from character to character, and if you step back and analyse it that’s odd, but while watching it doesn’t matter one jot — this is more like real life than some shallow crime thriller dependent on a twist ending. That level of realism is key throughout, be it the period detail or the exemplary performances — both are excellent and accurate without being showy. Much like Fincher’s direction, in fact, which is appropriately more restrained than usual, though he can still display a suitable level of flair when warranted.
Some have called it slow, even dull, but I was totally engrossed throughout and never overwhelmed by the number of facts being thrown around — and I was watching it in the middle of the night when I should have been asleep. At 5AM, when it finally ended, I was even wishing there was more. (It seems a shame that the recently-released (in the UK) director’s cut adds barely five minutes.) It does exactly what it aims to: it’s not about the killer’s mind and it’s not a whodunnit; it’s about procedure, obsession, and how one deals with an unsolved mystery. The fact it isn’t definitively solved — and yet, for all the characters, there’s a way out or a solution that satisfies them — is possibly the most telling part of the whole film.
After the disappointment of the long-awaited Southland Tales, it’s especially pleasing that the long-awaited Zodiac is such a triumph. It’s easily up there with Fight Club and Se7en, and perhaps even surpasses them both. My most unreserved full marks since Dark City.
Zodiac placed 2nd on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2008, which can be read in full here.
To 100 films… and beyond! October 14, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, 2007 , add a commentTo misquote the immortal words of a certain plastic space policeman — “To 100 films… and beyond!”
In case you can’t decipher the complex meanings of that modified reference, with this 2007 update we reach #100 — not for 2008, obviously, but for 2007. I think I chose a pretty momentous film for the occasion. But the viewing didn’t stop there, oh no (it was only early September for one thing), and this update contains #101-104 as well. Plus there’s still a couple more updates to come…
Regular readers may remember I had a riddle (that’s being generous) in my last ‘07 update, which contained references to all the films in this one. I repeat it here for your deciphering pleasure — or annoyance… or 10-second distraction…
“Following a starter for ten you’ll be transported twice to Linklater’s Europe, where 300 Spartans face a final fantasy and there are great expectations of Welles’ first — though miracles will be needed for De Palma’s Ellroy adaptation to get a good score.”
- 300 (2006)
- Before Sunrise (1995)
- Before Sunset (2005)
- The Black Dahlia (2006)
- Citizen Kane (1941)
- Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (2005)
- Great Expectations (1946)
- Miracles (1989)
- Starter For Ten (2006)
- Transporter 2 (2005)
It’s all gone a bit quiet next time on 100 Films in a Year, as I review five silent features and a couple of silent shorts. Just to round things out a bit, there’s two films from the same year: a film noir… and a Bob Hope comedy. Who says variety’s dead?
#63: Southland Tales (2006) October 11, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Comedy, Drama, Thriller, Fantasy, Sci-fi, 2000s, 2 stars, 2008, Mystery, films about films, Film Noir: Pre/Post/Neo/etc. , 1 comment so far2006 | Richard Kelly | 139 mins | DVD | 15 / R
- confusing mess? or profound experience?
I won’t go into my full “how I discovered Donnie Darko” spiel [save that for whenever I finally watch the Director’s Cut!], but ever since I saw Richard Kelly’s first writing/directing effort way back on its original UK release I’ve been waiting eagerly for his second film. It’s a testament to the negativity of the reviews it received — and, perhaps, the influence of reviews in general — that I skipped Southland Tales at the cinema, left it five months after release before getting it on DVD… and even then it was only a rental. [something about “I will be buying it” or “I won’t be buying it”, or “But will I be buying it?” and answer at the end (definitely the latter if i want to say “it’s rubbish, but i’ll buy it anyway”-kinda-thing)]
At some point, Kelly split his story into six parts and, in a Star Wars-like move, the film was to be Parts 4-6, while the first three would be told in accompanying graphic novels. “The film will work fine without reading them,” he said (I paraphrase here), “but reading them will lead to a deeper experience.” Southland Tales: The Movie begins with a long recap of events from these books, going so far as to include images from their art. “Oops”?
You have to wonder, if you switched “Directed by Richard Kelly” for, say, “Directed by David Lynch”, would the critics’ reviews have suddenly jumped up a star or two? [some of it is certainly very Lynchian in feel — not a normal film with bemusing aspects, like Donnie Darko, but an all-out muddled weird-fest]
** raises the question, should you ever have to go further (e.g. reading companion books, comics, websites, etc) to understand a film? Yes and no. If it’s consciously part of a wider ‘experience’, labelled and marketed as such, then why not? But if it’s sold as a film in its own right — or, at least, potentially in its own right (as this was) — then it should really work that way too.
i thought, with respect to the film’s crazy half-constructed mess of half-ideas, i’d copy&paste my notes rather than a normal review. so at least that’s one answer at the end for you. except this bit wound up in the middle
when it was originally conceived, it was set a couple of years in the future; now, it’s just set ‘now’; and soon, of course, it will be set in a fictional past — the copyright year on the film is 2005; it’s credited as 2006 on IMDb (which is when it turned up at Cannes); it was finally released in 2007; and it’s set in 2008
I really wanted to like Southland Tales, in spite of the critical mauling it received, and because I loved Donnie Darko and actually enjoyed Domino too (which Kelly wrote). Maybe — maybe — with time to invest in reading the prequel graphic novels, and exploring whatever official sites or crazy fan theories may be out there on the web, I could get more from this film. Personally, I don’t have that kind of time to invest right now, but I might give it a shot sometime. Until then, it will just remain a largely disappointing mess.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405336/faq
this is the way the review ends, not with a bang but with a whimper
2/5
Southland Tales featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2008, which can be read in full here.
#62: Agatha (1979) October 8, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, 3 stars, 1970s, British films, 2008, true stories, Mystery , add a comment
There are no giant wasps in sight as Vanessa Redgrave’s Agatha Christie goes missing for eleven days in December 1926, and Dustin Hoffman’s journalist tries to track her down. While the frame of the story is true, the reasons behind Christie’s disappearance, and what occurred during it, aren’t known — which makes it fertile ground for speculation. Sadly, a fantastical plot about jewel thieves and shapeshifting aliens is much more exciting than the down-to-earth mystery we’re offered here.
It’s easy to see the attraction of Christie’s disappearance — it’s a real-life mystery about arguably the greatest mystery author ever, with enough unusual events surrounding it to make it extra suspicious and a long enough gap for something significant to have happened. But while the idea is initially exciting, when it comes to retelling it there isn’t a great deal there — the facts of her disappearance are just the ‘before & after’, amounting to little more than an abandoned car, an assumed name and some amnesia. Unless one invents something to fill those missing days, there’s little to tell (she went to a hotel and forgot what happened, essentially) — so, of course, this film fills in the gap. With a murder mystery, naturally. Sort of, anyway.
To be honest, I found it a tad confusing for the most part. While the initial setup is well handled, showing what drives Christie to run away (consciously or not) and the beginning of the police search, it begins to flounder once the plot slides into its fully fictional phase. Hoffman’s journalist, who had been hoping to interview Christie, manages to stumble across her at the hotel, where he pretends not to know who she is, while she… has health treatments… It’s only at the conclusion, when Christie’s plan begins to come together, that one realises there was a plan at all. It’s a shame the revelation comes so late because it’s actually not that bad a plot, and makes for quite a neat and almost plausible (providing you can accept Christie as a potential murderess (sort of)) explanation for everything.
The performances do nothing to raise the film. Redgrave is lumbered with little to do, mostly wandering around looking dazed. Her performance is decent but the material she has is lacking. Hoffman, on the other hand, is just flat, while Timothy Dalton’s sneering Colonel Christie sadly barely features. On a more technical level, the police investigation subplot is disappointingly forgotten halfway through, and everything is shot with too little light. Sometimes the latter is effective, such as during a train journey where occasional flashes of light illuminate Christie’s uncomfortably blank face, but at other times it merely obscures events. (It’s possible this is just the print, of course.)
Christie’s disappearance remains a fascinating mystery, though in all likelihood the true causes were either very internal or mental health related — not the easiest thing to depict in a movie, especially when your audience is likely expecting a thriller. Agatha has a game stab at weaving an interesting tale into the gaps in the facts, but by the end I was wondering if a straightforward biopic mightn’t have been a better idea.
