The Big Lebowski (1998) May 28, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Joel Coen
Writers Joel and Ethan Coen must have become accustomed to their films taking on a life of their own, since many of their titles such as Miller’s Crossing and The Hudsucker Proxy, have gotten lost on the way to success and become cult hits instead. But there’s none more worshipped than The Big Lebowski - a film so huge on the underground that it’s actually a popular of the masses again. The question remains, is this film, like poor Donnie, out of its element?
The set-up is a simple one: Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski is as laid back as they come, enjoying his life of leisure interspersed with sessions of bowling alongside his two buddies Walter and Donnie. His world is suddenly rocked however, when two thugs visit his home looking for a loan repayment he doesn’t owe. They realise their mistake, but not before one of them relieves himself on The Dude’s hallway rug. This sets The Dude on a mission to visit the ‘other’ Lebowski (the one who owes the money) and acquire compensation for the rug. Of course, it only serves to push him deeper into a mystery involving kidnapped wives, missing toes, and the ‘big’ Lebowski.
This film is notable for a fantastic script by the Coen brothers, which is further boosted by outstanding performances from the central players: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Steve Busemi. Each character is so well drawn that they immediately define themselves; the dude, a laid-back guy who just wants to take everything ‘easy’; Walter, a veteran of Vietnam who believes in strict order and isn’t afraid to argue about it; and Donnie, a nice guy who lives his life half a step behind everyone else.
It’s almost an old fashioned detective story in parts, even if The Dude is nowhere near proactive enough to be an investigator of any kind. The film does throw in a central mystery though, along with suspects, clues, and wild theories: all the trappings of a good detective noir. Despite this, it’s still genuinely funny, which is what makes the film such a joy to watch - there are plenty of laugh out loud moments.
On the flip side, the narrative does waver somewhat as it progresses into the second half and there are some characters introduced who just don’t get enough screen-time to do them justice (the detective who’s following The Dude, for example). It’s a shame because these discrepancies mean that when the conclusion finally rolls around it’s hard to feel like everything has been addressed. There are too many threads and not enough knots being tied.
Depsite this, it’s still my favourite Coen brothers movie, and their work falls on a wide continuum for me from flicks that I really didn’t like, all the way through the ‘ok’ range and, as displayed here, into the ‘great movie’ category. The Big Lebowski is just a really fun watch and it’s especially enjoyable to see such a top-notch cast make these offbeat characters their own. Its cult status is a testament to the sensibility the film holds – unique, but not for everyone – and that’s The Dude in a nutshell.
The Frighteners: Director’s Cut (1996) May 24, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Peter Jackson
As Jackson himself puts it, this is the movie that joins his low-budget indie flick Heavenly Creatures, with the mega-budget Lord of the Rings trilogy that would go on to make him an international directing legend. It’s an interesting stopgap and while it wasn’t a blinding success on its release, this film has built up a bit of a following over the years since, even producing one of the finest laserdisc releases to ever hit the format in its short existence.
The film centres on Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox) who works as a supernatural investigator, exorcising ghosts and spirits from distressed dwellers homes. Some believe he is a con-man, and he is, but not in the way you might think. You see, Frank can see and talk to ghosts - he actually employs two of them to make sure that he stays in business. Unfortunately, he is forced to use his talents for a real job when people start having mysterious heart attacks all over town. The culprit is a death-like character, swooping in and squeezing the life out of those who have been ‘marked’. Since only Frank can see the marks, it’s up to him to save the town and stop the murdering apparition, before it takes somebody close to him.
Fulfilling the comedy horror premise, this movie certainly has its moments for both laughs and scares, although both come in moderation. Michael J. Fox, in one of his last headlining film roles, is a strong lead who manages to pitch his character perfectly within the zany spooks and the caped maniacs that occupy his existence. The supporting roles are also played effectively by the likes of Trini Alvarado, Peter Dobson and Jeffrey Combs.
Film geeks might note that this feature once again teams up Michael J Fox with Robert Zemeckis (as executive producer), their first collaboration since the Back to the Future series. It was Zemeckis who pulled the story for The Frighteners from becoming a Tales from the Crypt feature, in order to make it separately. The actual script is nicely written and the dialogue flows well. The narrative structure however is a little erratic at times, putting what amounts to almost a false ending in about 20-minutes before the actual conclusion.
Peter Jackson’s direction is very strong, with good use of camera movement to keep things lively even during the non-action scenes. As for the CG sequences, they form some of the films high points - especially the ghostly ‘death’ character, although the really detailed work can be seen best in Stuart and Cyrus, Frank’s spirit colleagues. These special effects nicely foreshadow what WETA (Peter Jackson’s effects company) would eventually be able to create come later production on Lord of the Rings and King Kong.
It is also worth noting that this ‘director’s cut’ adds 14 extra minutes to the running time, but moreover, that it’s nice to have a Peter Jackson director’s cut that comes in at only two hours. The insertions are mainly conversational in nature, although the extra time does flesh out the characters a little more than in the theatrical version.
All in all this is a great slice of dark comedy, if a little overplayed in terms of the number of characters, some of whom don’t get the proper screen-time. Jackson has a lot of fun with the genre, and it comes together to form a real achievement for a director who would take the skills learnt here and apply them to a much bigger project.
Bottle Rocket (1996) May 20, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 5 commentsDirected by: Wes Anderson
This bizarre crime caper emerged in 1996 from a first-time director, Wes Anderson, and first time writer and actor, Owen Wilson. You might have heard of them. It was produced based on a 13-minute short film (also entitled Bottle Rocket) that Anderson and Wilson wrote together back in 1994. While this feature-length version would test horribly with audiences and utlimately become a box office failure, the movie has since gained somewhat of a cult following off the back of Anderson’s later work.
While the director would later go on to make the slightly more successful, but still offbeat films: Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Owen Wilson on the other hand has tapped into a more mainstream Hollywood success, starring in numerous comedy roles and become part of the recognised ‘frat pack’ of comedic actors. It is this humble comedy, however, where it all began.
The story puts a post-breakdown Anthony Adams (played by another newcomer, Luke Wilson) into the charge of Dignan (Owen Wilson), an outgoing, outspoken man with a plan. That plan, apparently, is to join up with the elusive ‘Mr Henry’ and become master criminals as part of his multi-skilled gang. Of course, along the road to destiny they hit more than a few roadblocks, not least Anthony’s falling for a shy motel worker named Inez.
A fun script helps keep the whole thing rolling along with the interactions between Dignan and Anthony providing the funniest moments. The characters are, as in all Anderson movies, slightly bizarre, although not in a glaringly obvious freak-show kind of way, it’s just an understated quirkiness that they possess. Dignan especially exemplifies this, being the born leader of the pack when it comes to heists but still succumbing to a lack of confidence in himself when challenged by people outside his friendship group.
Wes Anderson directs with skill and while there’s a definitely a simplicity to his style here, that’s not to say that what he shoots isn’t very accomplished for a first feature. He manages to create a self-encapsulated world for his characters to inhabit - an approach that would continue to appear through all his later work. The Wilson brothers play effectively alongside each other, while the surrounding characters played by the likes of Robert Musgrave and James Caan, all come together to form a strong cast of oddities for the couple to interact with.
On the down-side, there are times when the story feels as if it might lose focus; it starts as a crime story and then morphs into a story about love and friendship before flipping back to its crime caper origins for the conclusion. However, as a whole, this undecided narrative structure actually works very successfully.
Bottle Rocket is an enjoyable offbeat tale and an unconventional launch pad for those involved. It’s interesting to see how these Hollywood ‘names’ got their start; all from such a simple production. It’s not my favourite Anderson movie, but it is his least complex in terms of characters and narrative and it is this simplicity which lifts the film. The condition, in typical Wes style, is that you as a viewer have to enter the world of the characters in order to get the most out of it.
Kicking & Screaming (2005) May 16, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 1 comment so farDirected by: Jesse Dylan
This family sports comedy, telling the tale of a rag-tag youth soccer team trying to compete in the state championship, is practically screaming to be compared to movies of a similar ilk, such as Bad News Bears or The Benchwarmers. This time it’s the turn of Will Ferrell to take the helm, coaching the less-than-adept ‘Tigers’ in order to prove to his father, and coach of the league champion ‘Gladiators’, that he isn’t a complete failure.
Ferrell is allowed to get in to all kinds of PG-rated pratfalls and although he may be better known for his teenage / adult fare such as Anchorman, Talladega Nights [review] or the recently released Blades of Glory, he fits perfectly into the family-friendly bracket with just as much ease. Despite this being a bit of a Ferrell vehicle, the rest of the cast is pretty good too. There are nice parts for Robert Duval as the competitive father and ex-American football coach Mike Ditka, who does a great job playing a caricature version of himself.
The funniest moments come from Ferrell’s deliveries rather than the actual script which was probably subject to a liberal amount of ad-libbing by the cast. It’s just a shame that the story really isn’t up to much and I found myself enjoying a sub-plot about Phil Weston becoming hooked on coffee more than the main soccer championship tale.
American Wedding director Jesse Dylan adequately handles both the comedy moments and the fast-paced soccer sequences, while the nicely scored orchestral tracks help add to the tone of the film, bringing a welcome change from the aimlessly-placed contemporary pop music that features in many modern movies.
Some of the plot threads that you think are going to be expanded on are, surprisingly, barely mentioned. For example, the fact that Phil’s brother is the same age as his son would seem like an obvious avenue for some gags, but this relationship is mostly ignored (although the DVD does show a scene removed from the film that plays on their dynamic a bit).
Kicking & Screaming is a nice family comedy that will probably get more laughs from the kids than the adults, although I guess that depends on how much the parents like Will Ferrell. As a fan myself, I found the movie fairly enjoyable although not without some noticeable flaws, mainly due to its by-the-numbers narrative. At the very least it’s a harmless 90-minutes, relating a good message without having to rely on crude or offensive humour to get laughs.
Spider-Man 3 (2007) May 12, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Sam Raimi
So here it is. The first of the big-budget summer blockbusters and (arguably) the most anticipated of the bunch - which is really saying something given that 2007 will mark the third outing for both the Pirates and Shrek franchises, as well as the fourth Die Hard movie. It’s a summer of sequels, but what does it take to follow two of the best superhero movies of modern times? Can it even be done?
The story picks up a little after the events of Spider-man 2, where Peter Parker has finally begun to deal with his dual life alongside his relationship with Mary Jane. The city loves him too, or they love Spider-man at least, even staging a parade in his honour. Things don’t stay pleasant for long though, when police reveal the real killer of Peter’s Uncle Ben, a man named Flint Marko, has escaped from prison. To make matters worse, Marko stumbles into a particle physics experiment during his escape which changes his molecular structure and turns him into the Sandman.
Meanwhile, Parker’s old friend Harry Osborn returns as the New Goblin, and he’s hell-bent on taking revenge for his father’s death – which means bringing an end to Spider-man. Amongst all this, a mysterious black substance crash-lands on earth, attaching itself to the Spider-man costume. Peter feels energised by it, giving him the confidence boost he has always lacked as Parker. But it soon starts to put a strain on his personal relationships, especially with Mary Jane, as Peter starts to show traits of the dark side of human nature that he has committed himself to fighting against.
I’m going to get this out of the way now: I’m a huge Spider-man fan. Whether that should have any bearing on the rest of the review, I don’t know, but I understand that my affinity for the character puts me in a more biased position than usual when it comes to judging this particular flick. I’d like to be able to somehow use my expertise to at least give a unique insight into the film, but therein lies the problem:
Having been on release a week, it’s already hard to write anything about this film that hasn’t been said a thousand times. My plot summary alone should give you an idea how the eternal pressure to be bigger and better has clearly gotten to the filmmakers this time – and I didn’t even mention the introduction of Eddie Brock, his feud with Peter, the Gwen Stacy romance angle, or any of the Mary Jane / Harry subplot. It’s a complicated movie because it adds so much to a story already dragging two films worth of baggage.
On the plus side, there’s an inherent likeability to these characters which means that the movie doesn’t fall apart completely under the strain of its elements. While director Sam Raimi continues to impress me, dropping some wonderfully quirky styles into the film the likes of which would never appear in your average summer blockbuster. Some have criticised these sequences as out-of-place, but it is scenes like Parker in the jazz club that give the film a sense of uniqueness. Without them, it’s just ticking the boxes.
This is also the longest Spidey flick yet at 140-minutes, although I didn’t feel the length at all, since, given the amount of stories, you can rest assured that the whole affair keeps moving at a brisk pace. The regular cast return to their roles with equally strong performances to those in previous outings, and the script hasn’t lost any of the humour either, although it’s maybe a little more explicit this time around.
Looking deeper, we start to see where the criticisms lie. Harry’s storyline is clearly a quick way of sidelining him until needed, because there’s no way the film could hold another straight ‘bad guy’ with everything else that is going on. Venom too, becomes almost an afterthought in a story thread that is too long to be properly serviced by one film. The heart of evil that resides within Venom is never truly conveyed to the audience; his actual screen time squeezed in towards the end – and this is a character whose appearance should have marked a high point for the series.
The worst part of it all is that, given Raimi’s previous work on these movies, I know that this story clearly wants to tell you more; it just never quite gets the time. I can’t say that the narrative is really bad, more that it just doesn’t give itself enough breathing space to grow into a fully satisfying tale. It’s because of this that the wonderful ‘journey’ aspect of the first two films is lost here; stepping off point A in ten directions, but never truly reaching point B from any of them.
This is one for the fans I think - the people who’ll follow the web-slinger to the moon if it means they get to see him live and breathe through Toby Maguire and under the direction of Raimi. It’s infuriating for me because, unlike some lesser examples from the comic-book genre, I still see the potential in this film. There’s a great trilogy-rounding story about vengeance and forgiveness in there; but it involves the human relationship between Peter and Harry; the superhero relationship between Spider-man and the Sandman; and most importantly of all: time to explore those elements. The thing that genuinely saddens me is that if this is the last time we see Raimi’s Spider-man then it really deserved to go out on a high. Instead, we settle for merely okay.