#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 , add a comment2006 | 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
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 cut, 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 made 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.
#48: WALL-E (2008) August 8, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Comedy, Disney, Sci-fi, Romance, 2000s, 4 stars, Adventure, 2008 , add a comment2008 | Andrew Stanton | 98 mins | cinema | U / G
“Pixar films” seem to have become a bit of a genre unto themselves — yes, they fit into “animation” (always dubious as a genre), “family” (almost as bad), “comedy”, and occasionally a few others, but, much as the Bond films have their own rules and expectations outside the “action” and “spy thriller” conventions, the work of Pixar always achieves special and particular attention. WALL-E subverts some of these expectations (it’s not a buddy comedy, mainly) and has received huge amounts of praise — “consequently”, some might add. It is indeed a very good film, but you’ll surely have heard all that elsewhere; instead, I’m going to draw attention to a couple of things that bothered me.
Most of these issues can be attributed to the fact that WALL-E is a film of two halves. They’re not exactly poorly linked, as elements from each feed into the other, but they are notably different. The first presents a realistically-rendered future Earth, deserted by humans (who are nonetheless represented on hologram screens by live-action actors) and now only inhabited by insects and a trash-collecting robot called WALL-E. Silent but for R2D2-like bleeps, WALL-E quickly endears himself to the audience through his actions. He’s cute, funny and likable, and the early scenes cement him in the audience’s sympathies, which is certainly handy for later. When EVE — a futuristic, iPod-alike ‘female’ robot — turns up, the film becomes a sweet love story, as WALL-E tries to instill the human-like emotions he’s developed into the cold new robot. A very funny and surprisingly touching love story, this is the film’s better half.
The second travels out into space, taking us to meet cartoon humans on a cartoony spaceship. It jars painfully with the realism that pervades the Earth-bound scenes, and the continued use of real actors in holograms highlights the cartoonish style of the future humans. There’s nothing wrong with a cartoon style, I hasten to add — certainly, it works better in films like The Incredibles and Ratatouille than the attempts at realism do in the Toy Story films — but it’s the contrast that’s uncomfortable. The story itself also takes a weak turn here: it becomes a light kiddy-adventure runaround, which is fun and still has flashes of humour and heart, but is nowhere near as daring or as effective as the first half. This is where the sympathies engaged earlier become important, because it’s the audience’s affection for WALL-E that provides most of the genuine quality in this half.
If I were to broadly characterise the two halves, I’d say the first is everything you’d hoped for after the advance hype, while the second is something you could have feared. It’s not bad — it’s still a superior light kiddy-adventure runaround, with exciting-enough sequences and a largely interesting (if unoriginal and preachy) plot — but it’s not as groundbreaking or engaging as the first half. Worst of all is when the cartoon humans land on the realistic Earth, however — it brings to mind films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, where cartoon characters are placed in the real world. In this instance, that’s not a positive comparison.
WALL-E is a good film. The bits that work do so perfectly, keeping the overall quality high, and the weaker sections are ultimately only poor by comparison. If the whole film were like the second half I’d probably merrily accept it as a cartoon runaround but, coming after that beautiful beginning, it only served to gradually erode the fifth star from my rating. It’s a shame, in that respect. On the other hand, this is still one of Pixar’s very best films — I’d certainly rate it above the even-more-over-praised Ratatouille, and probably slot it close behind The Incredibles or Toy Story 2 at the top of the scale. Being pipped by films of that level — and then only just — is nothing to be ashamed of.
#47a: I Am Legend: Alternate Theatrical Version (2007/2008) July 29, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, adaptations, 3 stars, 2008, extended/director's cut , add a comment2007 / 2008 | Francis Lawrence | 104 mins | Blu-ray | 15
This review contains spoilers.
I only watched the theatrical version of I Am Legend earlier this year (it’s #35), but, for reasons I won’t elaborate on for once, I’ve found myself watching this alternate version already.
Most of the comments in my original review still apply, as this cut only has minimal differences: there are a couple of very short new scenes in the third act, which were presumably excised because they primarily feed into the different ending, the main attraction of this version. Personally, I prefer it. The whole butterfly thing is too God-messagey, recalling the weakest elements of Signs, but if one can put that aside then the new content fits in much better with several threads that develop in the rest of the film (in both versions — in the original cut they’re just ignored). It feels like this was the intended conclusion but, for whatever reason, someone decided it needed changing. Perhaps it wasn’t explosive enough; or, indeed, conclusive enough, as it dispenses with the safe-haven epilogue and its pathetic attempt at justifying the title — another pleasurable loss as far as I’m concerned.
One other element I’ve reconsidered thanks to this repeat viewing are the CGI humans. They’re good enough in and of themselves, and would make more than passable foes in another action film, but here they ruin the ambiance that’s so carefully built up before their first appearance. Yes, the CGI lions are also clearly fake, but with limited methods to create such scenes they seem more acceptable. The arrival of the Dark Seekers, on the other hand, barges the film from thoughtful sci-fi drama into horror action blockbuster stylistically, in a way that using real actors simply wouldn’t. The not-real Dark Seekers may have superhuman jumping abilities, but the film doesn’t need those either, and could easily have crafted a similarly action-packed climax with real performers.
I Am Legend is still as middle-of-the-road as before, with very little to choose between the two versions. However, thanks to a less irritating final few minutes, this version just has the edge — if you ever intend to watch I Am Legend, be it a repeat viewing or your first, I recommend you plump for the alternate cut.
#47: The Dark Knight (2008) July 20, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, Sci-fi, Christopher Nolan, 5 stars, 2000s, 2008, superhero films , add a comment2008 | Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
The Dark Knight — the sixth film in the modern Batman series (though not connected to the first four) — comes with a heavy weight of expectation on its back. It’s the sequel to the last film, Batman Begins, which relaunched the flailing series in style and is one of the best comic book movies ever — so Nolan and co had to top that. There was Heath Ledger’s death, a sad accident that has heaped extra focus on his penultimate performance here (his final one, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, is currently in post-production with no release date) — especially as some sources cited his appropriation of the Joker’s mindset as related to his death. And then there were the trailers too, which caused ridiculous levels of excitement among some — personally, I found them a tad lacking. But I was fairly confident that, a bit like Begins, The Dark Knight would turn out to be the sort of film that doesn’t necessarily trail all that well but is excellent when seen.
And I was right. In this respect, it’s because the action sequences aren’t the point of the film. They occur when required by the story, while still being well-spaced and appropriately exciting, rather than serving as check-boxes for a plot designed primarily to link them together — the latter being what most blockbusters seem to settle for these days. Many are pleasantly old-school in style, the stunts performed largely for real, and at least one major example is even left without music. On the odd occasion when effects must have been used, they’re seamlessly achieved. The most obvious use of CGI — which I won’t describe for the sake of spoilers, though many will already know about — is incredibly well done. All of this helps ground the film in a perhaps-surprising (for some) degree of reality, one that goes far beyond what other ‘realistic’ superhero movies have strived for.
In fact, this realism is probably The Dark Knight’s main strength. Obviously there’s never going to be a real city where a billionaire dressed in bat-inspired armour protects the populace from a deranged man in clown make-up, but if there were then this is how it would be. Where Burton’s two Bat-films were “dark”, and Schumacher’s were “gaudy” (or “crap”), Nolan’s pair are “real”. It’s an excellent thriller as well as everything else. The focus of the plot — at least at first — is on the mob and their control over Gotham, and it’s from their criminal desires — plus the very existence of Batman — that the Joker grows. Ledger’s performance is as outstanding as you’ll have heard said elsewhere, and while it still feels like a supporting role it receives more attention than the psychology of Bruce Wayne/Batman — which, considering that’s what Batman Begins focused on, seems fair enough. Every other performance is equally as flawless (I’ll name names in a moment), but it’s Ledger’s disturbing, engrossing turn that will stay with you. He is the Joker, in a way Jack Nicholson certainly never was, and — among obviously more upsetting effects of his premature death — the fact we’ll never see him in a rematch is a huge shame.
As Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart’s role is much larger than I was expecting. The floating-head posters that seemed to divide the film between him, the Joker and Batman are spot on — they’re the three central characters, everything revolves around them, their actions, choices, and emotions. While Ledger may dominate with his (appropriate) theatricality, Eckhart is more the heart of the film, with a genuinely tragic story. Viewed in this light, the order of the film’s final scenes — which I think some may see as incorrectly balanced, perhaps even anticlimactic — make all the more sense. However, I don’t mean to undersell the rest of the cast by highlighting Ledger and Eckhart — in their supporting parts, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and especially Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman, all do brilliant work. The talented Christian Bale manages to hold his own as the ambiguously heroic crimefighter, even against the more obviously attention-grabbing performances of Ledger and Eckhart.
As with other superior superhero sequels like X2 or Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight uses the groundwork of its successful predecessor to craft an experience that’s even greater. In fact, there’s an awful lot more that could be said about the qualities of The Dark Knight. At two-and-a-half hours, it’s a packed epic of a movie — which makes Nolan’s confident juggling of plot threads, character development, several large performances, action sequences, and more, all the more impressive. I certainly enjoyed seeing it with a large, American (importantly), opening-weekend crowd — several moments produced whoops and sustained applause from the audience, as well as a good number of well-deserved laughs.
The Dark Knight is great entertainment, with a good deal of meat on its bones too — the performances and emotional stories are as engrossing as the thriller-ish plot and impressive action. When all is considered, it’s possibly as perfect a thriller/blockbuster as they come. In fact, as I publish this, The Dark Knight sits at #1 — the best film of all time ever — on IMDb. It will drop, of course, because that’s opening-weekend fan-lead gut reaction for you… but, even when time’s passed, I’m certain it deserves to remain high on the list.
Sadly (though not surprisingly) the Manhattan IMAX was booked solid all through opening weekend (and most of next week, at least). As soon as I manage to see it on the extra-big screen, I’ll share my thoughts here.
#45: The Incredible Hulk (2008) July 6, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Sci-fi, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008, superhero films , add a comment2008 | Louis Leterrier | 114 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
Now here’s something I didn’t think we’d see: a sequel to Ang Lee’s disappointing 2003 version of the Hulk, Marvel’s big green superhero-monster-thing. It’s not precisely a sequel though — for those who’ve somehow missed the behind-the-scenes goings on, this one has an all-new cast and crew, led by Hulk-fan Edward Norton on both leading man and (uncredited) writing duties. But does that mean it’s any better?
I think you’d be hard pushed to deny that this version is more entertaining. From the off it strikes a good balance between plot, character development and action. It doesn’t try to dig as far into the hero’s psychology as Lee’s film, but as that crippled the earlier attempt it’s for the best. Norton is a more appropriate Banner than Eric Bana was, achieving drama, humour and action with aplomb. In fact, even though there’s notably less of it, it seems Leterrier and his cast are as adept at crafting dramatic scenes as Lee and his lot were. They’re certainly better at action sequences, of which there are a good number and all well executed. Attempting an athletic chase over rooftops and through small streets so soon after Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum did similar things to such acclaim seems a bold move, and while Hulk’s version isn’t as memorable it doesn’t suffer unduly from comparison. The final monster-on-monster punch-up is immeasurably better than the first film’s bizarre climax, but the real stand out for me was the battle on the university campus. All of this is helped by vastly improved CGI. No longer is the Hulk an oversized action figure, but instead has weight and grit, and is altogether more believable. You’re never going to be convinced he’s real, obviously, but this time round they’ve made him more than close enough.
In terms of being a sequel, The Incredible Hulk pretty much has its cake and eats it. It makes good use of all the benefits of being Film 2 — it’s not an origin story, it doesn’t waste too much time introducing the characters — but without a dependence on the poor first film — new actors and a modified origin story distance it, so the main plot grows out of the basic ‘facts’ of Hulk’s origin rather than specific incidences from the first film. In fact, those who were lucky enough not to see Lee’s Hulk may well assume the opening credits’ origin story recap is just a retelling of the first film — and there’s no need to inform them otherwise. As well as dispensing with all the first film’s “evil dad” stuff, the version of the origin story here is apparently highly in debt to the ’70s live action Hulk TV series. In fact, there are also numerous nods and cameos to that version throughout (check out the IMDb trivia page for more).
Considering I did as much for Marvel’s other 2008 blockbuster, Iron Man, I feel I should make some comment on the brief franchise-building coda. Unlike Iron Man, however, Hulk doesn’t bury its scene after 10 minutes of credits, much to my joy. For those who don’t know, the brief scene sees Tony Stark — yes, Iron Man himself, naturally played by Robert Downey Jr — have a brief chat with General Ross about the problem of the Hulk. It’s initially immensely fanboy-pleasing, but is allying such a cool, likable hero as Stark with the despicable General Ross such a good idea? Of course, we’ll find out just what the Marvel planning bods have in mind come 2011.
In the end, this sequel is unquestionably superior to Hulk — who’d've thought a near-unknown director, whose major previous credit was the fairly risible Transporter 2, could best Ang Lee? The Incredible Hulk is a good blockbuster in its own right, requiring no need to have suffered the previous film, and there’s even room for a sequel. Now there’s something I didn’t think last time.
#44: The Happening (2008) July 1, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Horror, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, 3 stars, 2008, M. Night Shyamalan , add a comment2008 | M. Night Shyamalan | 90 mins | cinema | 15 / R
This review contains spoilers.
While others have been lamenting the slide in quality of Shyamalan’s work since his breakthrough 1999 hit The Sixth Sense, I’ve been quietly enjoying most of his films since then. I liked Sixth Sense and appreciated its ingenious twist, but it was the fantastic real-world-superhero tale Unbreakable that did the most to cement him in my affections. Signs was another strong effort, an unusual perspective on alien invasion backed by decent family drama and a few good laughs, helped by the always-watchable Joaquin Phoenix and a sweet kid. On the other hand, it suffered from a stretch of a resolution, and that it starred Mel Gibson. His next was the The Village, in my opinion his biggest misfire thanks to a story disappointingly reliant on an easily-guessed twist, further undermined by a third act structure that bent over backwards to hide the reveal for as long as possible. Most reviewers seem to disagree slightly though, as Lady in the Water was widely panned. Personally I liked it, at least on the level at which it was intended, as a modern fairytale.
This, his latest effort, falls mostly in the middle of the road — a bit like a few of its extras, then. You see, the plot concerns the release of a toxin (from where, no one knows) that causes people to begin committing suicide en masse, by jumping off buildings, or shooting themselves, or a variety of other, more gruesome ideas. It’s in these sequences that The Happening is at its best — Shyamalan can still craft chilling scenes and effective jumps, even if their onset is obvious to a moderately seasoned film viewer. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a tad weak. Mark Wahlberg’s performance is flat, John Leguizamo struggles to do much better, and Zooey Deschanel gets by in a kooky role that is by turns endearing and slightly irritating. The script is mostly passable, though occasionally heavy-handed, repetitive and clunky — one moment especially jarred for me, when in a middle-of-nowhere diner it seems one person’s dialogue has been split between two actors.
Shyamalan nicely keeps the cause of the toxin up in the air — though the most probable cause is first suggested fairly early on, other theories continue to float around — but with no last-minute revelation such juggling feels unwarranted. Instead there’s just a “it could happen again” final scene, that might be chilling if it weren’t so predictable. Part of the problem with the film’s central conceit is that it’s not very believable. Now, I know, being able to see dead people, developing superpowers or finding a mermaid-like girl in your pool are hardly realistic plot points either, but here it strays too close to the realm of “I expect you to believe this is possible” pseudoscience and so, unlike Princeton gardeners, my belief struggled to be fully suspended.
Ultimately, I’d rank The Happening as Shyamalan’s worst film to date. While it’s pleasing that he doesn’t force everything to rely on a final twist, the overall quality is variable — at least The Village had something going for it before the poor climax. The cod-science explanation feels like a big excuse for a topical eco-message, otherwise just being a basis to string together a collection of well-executed creepy sequences. Perhaps Shyamalan should stop trying so hard to come up with amazing new ideas and just concentrate on telling a good story. There are things to like though, enough to scrape the film into the middle of the road. Sort of the opposite to those suicidal extras then.