Alfie (2004) September 14, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Charles Shyer
Back in 1966, Michael Caine played a classic lady-killer living in London. His character fit perfectly into the swinging 60’s backdrop preserving the manners & social scene of the era, and it is because of this that the movie has remained popular ever since. But could it still work as affectively in a modern day setting? Charles Shyer, who directed & adapted the screenplay for this remake, certainly thought so.
The story is nice and simple. As a Brit living in Manhattan, Alfie (played by Jude Law) is surrounded by beautiful women. Working as a modest limousine driver affords him the opportunity to meet girls while still popping in on his sort-of girlfriend. He’s the typical commitment adverse male who’s just living for the moment. But it isn’t long before his life starts to fall apart, and he loses friends, women and ultimately the belief that he is living his life well. Alfie narrates us through the ups and downs as we learn what makes an international playboy tick.
There’s a scriptwriting ‘rule’ that says you shouldn’t rely on voiceovers or characters talking directly to the camera to move your plot along. It’s supposed to be like admitting that you can’t tell a story through visuals & dialogue. But I think that it’s been done effectively in plenty of movies (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, High Fidelity, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) to prove this rule wrong, and it works pretty well here too. In fact, most of the enjoyment comes from Alfie’s honest remarks straight to the audience.
Alfie, as a guy who can get any woman he wants and proceeds to do so at every opportunity, is not a very emphatic character. The filmmakers try hard to create reasons for us to care about him, but the situations he finds himself in are primarily the result of his own stupid actions. So it’s to Jude Law’s credit that he pulls even the slightest amount of emotion from the character, luckily he’s quite a personable actor. And this movie is all about him, with any of the supporting cast appearing only as plot devices rather than fully rounded characters. They are used, in a fashion typical of Alfie himself, until the story has no need for them.
Which brings me on to another problem with this movie. There are numerous points during the film when Alfie resolves to change his life, but he always seems to fall at least partly back to his old ways. Come the end of the film you’re left feeling like he probably still won’t change, as there’s nothing that happens to definitively force him to look at his life. Even his potentially life-threatening problem is cleared up mid way through the picture.
Ultimately, this is a movie that might have worked during the mid-60s, but fails to reflect modern culture quite as well. The Alfie character is certainly still relevant, but do we care enough about him to make this tale worth watching? I think it starts deceptively strong, being both funny and engaging for the first 10 minutes. But Alfie’s antics quickly grow tiresome, and his lack of noticeable growth makes for a boring conclusion.
America’s Sweethearts (2001) September 12, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Joe Roth
Here’s the thing, I like watching John Cusack in stuff. High Fidelity, Grosse Pointe Blank, Identity, I think they’re all great and only made better by the fact he’s in them. I don’t know what it is, and I know he always seem to play the same role, but I just enjoy watching him be that character. So maybe that’s why I like this movie.
Yeah, you read that right, I like the film that everyone seems to consider a total and utter failure. I’m not sure why though. Maybe people were expecting more from a top-of-their-game cast like Julia Roberts, Billy Crystal, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Mr Cusack. Maybe they thought that a script by Crystal and Analyse This co-writer Peter Tolan would be pure comic gold. Or maybe everyone assumed that after 11 years of not directing, Joe Roth would make his return with a bang. Whatever it was, it turned out to be a critical disappointment.
The story is simple, Gwen Harrison & Eddie Thomas (Zeta-Jones & Cusack) used to be Hollywood’s perfect couple both on & off the screen. Now, after a nasty break-up, their final movie together is about to be released. The studio needs it to be a hit so it’s up to expert publicist Lee Phillips (Crystal) to make the press junket weekend into an Eddie & Gwen ‘back together’ spectacular. A difficult job since they’re not even speaking to each other. And to make matters worse, the director (Christopher Walken) has hijacked the film so nobody can see it. And they say there’s no business like show business, eh?
So okay, I’ll admit that the story is fairly predictable, especially when you factor in the crush Gwen’s sister (and assistant) Kiki (Roberts) has on Eddie. But there are lots of good things in there too. Zeta-Jones is suitably bitchy and annoying as the self-obsessed Hollywood star (why Eddie would like her I’ll never know). The script is pretty funny, with some nice digs at Hollywood at the expense of both the stars and the publisists. And the supporting characters are great, with Walken as the eccentric director, Hank Azaria playing Gwen’s new Spanish boyfriend, Stanley Tucci as a desperate studio executive, and Seth Green who’s the inexperienced publicist shadowing Lee.
In the end I’m just not sure people wanted such a cutesy movie out of America’s Sweethearts, even though that’s all it ever pretended to be. Everyone expected a sharp industry satire with a bit of relationship fluff, and kind of got something that was the other way around. I can admit that there are plenty of things wrong with it, and it is by no means perfect. But it’s entertaining, it’s got laughs (including some trademark Billy Crystal one-liners), and the way I see it, that’s all you need to enjoy this flick. Oh, and John Cusack is in it.
Snakes On A Plane (2006) September 10, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: David R. Ellis
It’s hard to know what to say about this movie that hasn’t already been said. Especially on the internet where SoaP (as it is affectionately known) has a following stronger than most countries armed forces. But a following based on what exactly? I mean, the movie wasn’t pre-screened anywhere so all the ‘fans’ have to go off is some trailer clips, one Sam Jackson quote, and importantly - the title. And in the marketing of this movie, the studio is trying to find out if a title is really all you need.
Okay, plot summary. Well I guess ’snakes on a plane’ isn’t quite enough so here goes: Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips) witnesses a Chinese gang member commit a murder in Hawaii. Luckily Sean is saved by FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L Jackson) before the gang can assassinate him. After agreeing to testify in court they both travel to LA aboard a commercial red eye flight, but there’s a twist (can you guess what it is?). The villain has had hundreds of poisonous snakes loaded onto the plane, which are let loose in the cabin. Panic ensues. Now, trapped in the sky above the ocean, it’s up to the passengers and Agent Flynn to find a way of making it to LA alive.
Here’s the thing about this film, very few elements are consistent throughout. This can be blamed primarily on the re-shoots which were undergone to raise the rating from a PG-13 to an R. The additions are painfully obvious at times, like whereas the main conversations don’t contain too much swearing, any cutaways with dialogue will suddenly turn blue. It’s most notable in the already over-famous line “I’ve had it with these *** snakes on this *** plane” which is so blatantly dropped into a scene that never contained this statement originally, they may as well have left the edit-point markers in. It’s the same for the violence, because all the worst attacks come in one specific part of the movie, you can see where they’ve gone back and ‘turned it up’.
The CG too follows this inconsistent trend, being passable in some parts and like an 80’s B-movie in others. Seriously. Some snakes look almost real, and some (usually when there are a lot together) look like they might be play-doh models. The story is fairly uninspiring (is this really the best way to go about getting rid of a witness?), but you have to suspend disbelief for a film of this nature, so that’s ok. Both script & direction are nothing special, following all the obvious routes and taking no chances. But that’s not to say that it doesn’t do its job.
Ultimately this film is all about snakes on a plane, and it does have snakes, and they are on a plane. So far, so good. There are plenty of jumpy moments with snakes appearing or lunging at people, far more probably than in most recent horror movies. So if you don’t like snakes, or shocks, then this film is almost certainly going to affect you. And maybe that’s what it’s all about - that 15-minute sequence when the snakes first get loose. After that, things start to calm down on the bite-front, and while it never completely stops, it also never reaches the same high either.
There were so many people hoping that this movie would be great, and so many hoping that it would be complete garbage. The fact is that both groups are going to be disappointed. UK critic Mark Kermode described this movie as “just a bit rubbish” which, having already seen it, I thought was a perfect summary. If you have decided to see it however, then I doubt any review is going to sway you now. So enjoy it, and save your disappointment for afterwards.
Derailed (2006) September 7, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Mikael Håfström
I’m not sure if it’s just me, but Clive Owen seems to have been picking a lot of similar roles recently. Or maybe they’re not similar, maybe he just plays them the same. Either way there’s certainly a line that can be drawn through his characters in Closer, Sin City and now Derailed. I’m just not sure why.
Now I like Clive Owen as an actor. He has a certain moodiness that works pretty well in the movies he does, and he pulls it off again here without breaking a sweat. The plot revolves around a family man whose life has fallen into a middle-age rut. He’s not unhappy, but it’s certainly nothing to get excited about. He is thrown into turmoil when he meets an attractive woman (Jennifer Aniston), and proceeds to start an affair with her. When they check into a low rent hotel together they are robbed by a ruthless thief (Vincent Cassel) – he beats up Owen and rapes Aniston, leaving them to deal with the consequences.
That’s not the end of it however. Cassel then proceeds to blackmail Owen for more and more money, or else he’ll reveal the affair he discovered to Owen’s wife. It’s an interesting set-up with everyone performing strongly in their characters, Aniston particularly playing away from the light, funnier roles we are used to seeing her in. There are a couple of good twists along the way, but whether you catch them early or not is probably based on whether you’re trying to second-guess the story.
Though not outstanding overall, this movie has some good things going for it. The mugging in the hotel is particularly brutal and effective, plus it’s well shot, showing how quickly their affair goes from enjoyable lust to fearsome danger. And the scene where Cassel shows up at Owen’s family home raises the tension nicely. So it’s kind of a shame that when the final twist is played a lot of the pressure is suddenly released, and the ending becomes like any average revenge thriller.
Titan A.E. (2000) September 6, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Don Bluth, Gary Goldman
With the recent explosion in CG movies, traditional animation is almost completely dead in modern cinema. Back in 2000, 20th Century Fox took a chance and created a sci-fi action adventure that utilised both traditional animation methods for the characters, and computer animation for the detailed objects. That movie was Titan A.E. (that’s ‘After Earth’, if you were wondering).
Set 1000 years in the future, Cale (voiced by Matt Damon) is the down & out son of a scientist who died during the destruction of Earth by the evil Drej race. But when he is hunted down by a gang of some of the last surviving humans, he discovers his true purpose. The ring Cale was given by his father allows access to a map which shows the whereabouts of The Titan, a ship with the ability to create a new Earth. Now, with the Drej on their tail, it’s a race to find The Titan, or else risk facing the extinction of the human race.
The main characters are voiced well for the most part, with Bill Pullman as the cocky ship captain, John Leguizamo & Nathan Lane in comic roles, and Drew Barrymore as the sassy love interest. The only character I had problems with was Matt Damon’s, whose voicing seemed slightly unnatural at times. The story is serviceable and nothing more while the pacing is a little erratic, often cramming the action in with no breathing space then moving on too quickly. I also thought that the mix of 2D animation and 3D models didn’t quite gel as well as it could, but maybe that had something to do with the animated characters being very ‘cartoony’ in their motions. They just didn’t fit next to the more realistically modelled spaceships and locations.
It is interesting to note that Joss Whedon is credited as one of three writers on this project, which makes Titan AE like an early draft of what would eventually become his cult (but mistreated) series Firefly, and later the movie Serenity. There are certainly parallels to be drawn: futuristic setting, a past war, a rogue space crew etc. While it’s not the sole reason Whedon went on to make a sci-fi series, it certainly shows that there was potential in the initial idea.
This movie hoped to pioneer the combination of digital and traditional animation, but unfortunately ended up being the project that closed Fox Animation Studios. Although it would later be Blue Sky, who did the computer effects for this film, that would produce Fox’s recent CG animated feature Robots, and the two popular Ice Age movies. So it wasn’t a complete loss. It’s just a shame that this movie wasn’t better, because hand drawn animation needs a saviour in western cinema, and this style would’ve been a good compromise.