#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 , 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
#60: The Wizard of Oz (1939) September 28, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Musical, Fantasy, adaptations, 4 stars, 1930s, 2008 , add a comment1939 | Victor Fleming | 98 mins | DVD | U / G
The Wizard of Oz is one of those films whose reputation unavoidably precedes it. Considering it’s nearly 70 years old now, that’s a reputation long in the making.
The biggest problem with this is that, coming to it for the first time as an adult, one knows just about everything that’s going to happen. There are still some gaps to fill for the uninitiated — it takes a surprisingly long time to get to Oz, and a surprisingly quick time from there to the Wizard — but it mostly feels oddly disconcerting: it’s such a well-known tale, even to those of us who hadn’t seen it, that having it played out in full, complete with bits one didn’t know about, is strange. That’s not really anything to do with the film, of course, just my personal impression.
My other observations amount to little more than “the second half is surprisingly light on musical numbers” and “the transition from sepia to full colour is still highly effective and glorious to watch” — as the (very interesting) restoration featurette on the DVD details, it literally looks better now than it ever has before. Beyond that, I had the sense that the film would exert a greater sense of wonder over the very young. That’s appropriate enough, but it means that, coming to it a tad later in life, it’s not a film I’m ever likely to really love.
#55: Stardust (2007) September 11, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Fantasy, 5 stars, 2000s, adaptations, Adventure, British films, 2008 , 1 comment so far2007 | Matthew Vaughn | 122 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13
Perhaps the simplest way to describe Stardust — to a film aficionado, at any rate — is as “the British Princess Bride“. That may do it a disservice however, as this tale of a boy entering a magical realm to find a fallen star is sufficiently its own beast to stand apart from such (admittedly lofty) comparisons, and be much more than a simple rehash with different accents.
Stardust succeeds in numerous ways. The plot is a good mix of fantasy archetypes, fairytale morality, a slight-but-knowing modern filter (thanks primarily to top-and-tail narration from Ian McKellen), humour and action. It rattles along, occasionally running the risk of becoming episodic, but thankfully avoiding it by linking and returning to various episodes. For a British film the effects work is perhaps surprisingly good, with impressive sequences that neither suggest restraint or budget limitations, nor smack of ambitious overreaching by the filmmakers (unlike, for example, the recent Tin Man miniseries).
This sort of fantasy adventure film is a somewhat unexpected choice for co-writer/director Vaughn, who previously produced Lock Stock, Snatch and Mean Machine, and directed Layer Cake, but his direction is neither over-grounded in reality (as you might expect from his background), nor over-done to the point of distraction (as if he were compensating). Instead, he demonstrates an entirely appropriate flair and skill, which promises much for future work.
If you watch a lot of British TV the cast seems star-studded, though even if not there’s the likes of Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer in major roles. Both are clearly having a whale of a time — as is everyone else, to be fair. De Niro’s role is especially surprising and fun, though to say any more would ruin it. It stands out as one of the best and most memorable elements in a film loaded with them. Charlie Cox is a likable lead, while Claire Danes’ fallen star is pleasing subversive — you’d expect her to be sweetness and light (literally), but she is in fact amusingly stroppy — and Mark Strong is a perfectly villainous villain. They’re just three further standouts from an almost uniformly excellent ensemble. “Almost” because, sadly, the film’s weakest links are also among the cast. Ricky Gervais plays himself, as ever, almost shattering the well-constructed universe in the process; and Sienna Miller is too bitchy — and, to be frank, too wooden — for us to believe our hero could ever really want her.
But these are minor, easily ignored flaws in what is otherwise a fantastically entertaining fantasy. In fact, in recalling it for this review, it’s just magicked itself an extra star. How very appropriate.
#51: The Golden Compass (2007) September 3, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Fantasy, 2000s, adaptations, 4 stars, Adventure, British films, 2008 , add a comment2007 | Chris Weitz | 113 mins | Blu-ray | PG / PG-13
This adaptation of the first novel in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materals trilogy (known as Northern Lights in the UK, but adopting the US title for the film — unlike Sorcerer’s Stone, it’s actually more appropriate) received quite the critical drubbing on its cinematic release, and wasn’t a huge success at the US box office either — which has cast doubt on the prospects of the following two installments ever being produced. Which is a shame, because this is actually a fine family fantasy film.
The requisite elements are present and correct: a well-realised alternate world, engaging heroes, slightly camp villains, mysterious items, mysterious backstories, a globe-trotting quest, talking non-human characters, a couple of action sequences and casual doses of spectacle. The latter was something that worried me going into the film, in fact, as the CGI looked dreadful in the trailer. When it won the Oscar I really couldn’t understand how, but now having seen the film — and in high definition to boot — it was, to my surprise, mostly exemplary. There are weak patches, of course (Mrs Coulter’s monkey being the main one), but the majority is either appropriately realistic or in a suitable style enough that it didn’t matter. “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover,” as they say; or indeed a film by its trailer.
Another key sticking point for me was the discarding of the books’ religious elements, which is far too atheistical for most Americans (not that I’ve actually read the books yet, but I always a enjoy a good bit of Christian baiting). The filmmakers have found an appropriate way around this however: there’s a subtext, blatant to the intelligent viewer, which carries such views. It will like whoosh over the heads of those who would’ve been offended by it, which is surely the point. Nonetheless, the lack of commercial success suggests that the stir it had already caused served to cement it as “the anti-Christian film” in too many people’s minds. Or perhaps it was merely that too few had heard of the books? Or there’s always those variable reviews…
Leading the cast as Lyra, Dakota Blue Richard’s accent seems forced and occasionally grates, but really speaking she’s pretty good (pun retrospectively intended). The rest of the cast make a good account of themselves, though the likes of Daniel Craig, Derek Jacobi and Christopher Lee were clearly cast in readiness for the intended sequels. Ian McKellen is as good value as ever and the rest of the voice-only actors offer able support. Nicole Kidman never really gets the chance to unleash her full evil potential however.
In fact, therein lies probably the film’s primary weakness. While Golden Compass does work in its own right, it’s as much Part One of a trilogy as Fellowship of the Ring: at the end you feel curiously fulfilled, even though there’s clearly a lot of tale left to tell. I can only hope that the muted success it achieved is enough to get the continuing and concluding parts made, though that seems increasingly, disappointingly, unlikely.
100 Films on a Cover August 30, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, Animation, Comedy, Action, James Bond, Drama, Thriller, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Disney, Fantasy, Sci-fi, War, Akira Kurosawa, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Crime, David Fincher, 2000s, adaptations, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, Adventure, British films, Mystery, world cinema, extended/director's cuts, Historical, superhero films , 1 comment so farEmpire, not content with conducting a ludicrously huge reader poll to find the 500 greatest films ever made, have also roped in 150 (as yet unnamed) “key directors and producers” and “the world’s most influential film critics” to have their say.
And Empire, not content with conducting a ludicrously huge reader poll and gathering the opinion of key directors, producers and critics to find the 500 greatest films ever made, have gone and created a “magazine milestone” — 100 different covers for the issue featuring the list! In fact, it’s 101, with the 101st being a subscriber-only cover that’s currently secret. I’m currently quite glad that Empire’s the only magazine I’ve bothered to keep up my subscription to.
I’m a bit of a collector and hoarder, but even I’m not mad enough to fork out £150 to get all 100 covers. That said, at just £1.50 an issue it’s a pretty reasonable deal, all things considered, and certainly better than the one Total Film offered when they did their 21 different Bond covers a short while back. Nonetheless, I’ll surely try to get my hands on a few different ones, and here’s my current pick of the bunch — mainly, films I love that have especially cool covers, but also some that just look good.
Click to enlarge.
#38: Field of Dreams (1989) June 9, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Fantasy, Sport, adaptations, 4 stars, 1980s, 2008 , 5 comments1989 | Phil Alden Robinson | 103 mins | TV | PG / PG
I’ve never made much of an effort to see Field of Dreams, for a couple of reasons. Aside from its famous mantra/catchphrase (”if you build it he will come”), the only things I’d heard were it was mawkishly sentimental and was about Kevin Costner trying to build a baseball pitch for a ghost — which doesn’t sound particularly exciting and is about sport, something I’m not very fond of. Of course, as anyone who’s seen it will know, I was a tad mislead on that last point, as the glorified rounders pitch is built in the first 20 minutes. What follows certainly has its fair share of sentimentality, but I wouldn’t call it mawkish.
In fact, it’s almost unremittingly pleasant. The lack of anything hard-hitting is no doubt why some have such a dim view of the film, as “nice” has become synonymous with “not very good” in modern parlance (I blame Primary School teachers desperate to increase vocabulary). Field of Dreams won’t shock you, it likely won’t make you think very hard, and any moral message or meaning it has is positive and reassuring… but what’s so wrong with that? The plot keeps moving, refusing to be bogged down in navel-gazing or star-gazing. The story is also too unusual to be marred by any serious degree of predictability, though some events are of course easily guessed, but the mystery of how the various elements would come together kept my attention throughout. Crucially, it doesn’t labour its sentimentality or batter you round the head with morals or meanings. It’s hardly ambiguous, but nor is it over done.
Field of Dreams may not be astounding filmmaking — it’s not especially complex, radical, thrilling, thought-provoking, intense or revolutionary, nor terribly serious or terribly funny, nor indeed wholly original — but it is nice. And I mean that in a good way.
#19: Beowulf: Director’s Cut (2007) April 19, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Action, Fantasy, 2000s, adaptations, 2 stars, Adventure, 2008, extended/director's cuts, Historical , 5 comments2007 | Robert Zemeckis | 110 mins | DVD | 12
Back to catching up on last year’s films that I missed, this time with Beowulf in its Director’s Cut form — which, much to my amusement at the time, prominently featured a BBFC 18 icon on its initial cover art but only received a 12 when classified. Clearly the BBFC didn’t feel the “bolder, never-before-seen images” were any more unsuitable for kiddies than the originals. Personally, I’m not so sure. This version of the film is bloody violent (literally); more so than Lord of the Rings, which is the comparison the BBFC make. I’m not a parent and I’m not pro-censorship (far from it), but this feels more like a 15 to me.
Anyway, that’s not the point. What of the film itself? Well, let’s stick with the violence for a moment. It’s bloody and brutal… and completely undermined by the quality of the animation. I like animated films; I have absolutely no problem with animated films for adults; but the issue here is that most of the characters (especially the ‘extras’) seem of about the same quality as humans in Shrek. So while the battle scenes are often very violent, it becomes hard to take them seriously because it’s all too cartoony. Perhaps this is where classifying became problematic. But it’s not just the violence — the animation is awkward throughout. It’s not lifelike enough to be confused with reality, but not ‘animated’ enough to accept on that level. The characters move stiffly, are mostly too smooth (things do improve with aged characters in the final act), and are ‘dead behind the eyes’. The creatures are largely less realistic CGI than you’d see in a live action film. There are even times when things aren’t far above the graphics from a high-end computer game.
It’s not all bad. Anthony Hopkins is entertaining (and sounding more Welsh than ever), and I enjoyed Alan Silvestri’s score. The screenplay plays fast and loose with the original poem, but Gaiman and Avery have justified this and it’s mostly pretty good. While the third act initially slows the film’s pace to a crawl, the tiredness of an older Beowulf and an exciting duel with a dragon make it the best bit, despite the occasional lack of internal logic (why doesn’t the dragon’s fire burn his heart?) It goes someway to making up for the Beowulf-Grendel battle earlier on. In a rare attempt at genuine faithfulness, Beowulf strips naked for the fight so as to be on equal terms with Grendel. Understandably, the filmmakers don’t want his CGI manhood flying around, so he’s always shot with something helpfully blocking his groin. Problem is, the lengths and tricks involved in achieving this are too reminiscent of similar bits in Austin Powers, turning what should be a big heroic action sequence into a comedic exercise (though, it must be said, not an especially amusing one).
I wanted to like Beowulf. All those people on IMDb who whined that it was animated and you couldn’t do an animated action movie for adults annoyed me something rotten, and I really wanted them to be proved wrong. Plus I like many of Zemeckis’ other films, I like the poem, and there’s a lot of potential for a good adaptation. But the weak CGI, sometimes leaden dialogue (I forgot to mention the 300-wannabe “I am Beowulf” and comedically repetitive “I’ve come to kill your monster”), and uncertain level of violence all get in the way. For the majority of its running time, Beowulf left me with a sadly inescapable feeling of disappointment.
There seem to be a couple of conflicting reports on how different the two cuts are. A comparison lists 90 seconds of new material, but shows the running times to be four-and-a-half minutes different (without credits). On the other hand, the BBFC list the director’s cut as being just 30 seconds longer. However much is completely new, there’s definitely added blood in existing scenes and some shots have been replaced with more graphic versions.