Cast Away (2002) November 29, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Robert Zemeckis
The film that reunites Oscar winning duo Tom Hanks and director Robert Zemeckis is one of narrative simplicity and emotional complexity, taking the viewer from suburban normality to desolate survival (and back again) in just under two and a half hours. And if you thought that their previous success, Forest Gump, was a piece that focussed mainly on Hanks as an actor, then you ain’t seen nothing yet. The only competitors for screen time during half of Cast Away being the beautiful Fijian scenery and a white volleyball named Wilson.
As mentioned, the story and its set-up are nice and simple. Chuck Noland works for international courier Fed-Ex and is one of their top managers. But during a routine flight out to Malaysia over Christmas, Chuck’s plane goes down somewhere over the pacific during a terrible storm. As the only survivor, Chuck washes ashore on a small island, with only a few of the surfaced Fed-ex packages as supplies. He must now learn to live a different kind of life – fending for himself and developing his survival skills. With the plane having flown so far off course during the storm, Chuck knows that there is little chance of a rescue, but he keeps a picture of his true love Kelly with him at all times, wondering if he may ever see her again.
Robert Zemeckis handles the film with the natural flair of an experienced director, not rushing the first act but allowing the story to build slowly to the point where Chuck finds himself on the island. From there the film changes tone as we are left alone with Chuck for a substantial amount of time during which we cover the predictable stages of his early survival (struggling, loneliness, and learning to cope). The cinematography is great, but aided in many ways by some fantastic natural scenery of the kind that would be hard to make look bad. There’s not much else to say about the visuals except to mention a lengthy single-shot scene towards the climax of the movie that’s very impressive if you notice that kind of thing.
The burden of holding the film together falls squarely on Tom Hanks’ shoulders and, being the world class actor he is, he handles the responsibility with little problem. There are many stages through which his character passes, from self-assured workhorse in the beginning, to hardened survivalist as his time on the island increases, and finally to the unsure, vulnerable man that he becomes. It’s the ability to make these changes believable and relatable that makes Hanks such a good actor. Although that’s not to completely downplay the efforts of Nick Searcy as Chuck’s work friend and Helen Hunt playing Chuck’s wife, who both do admirable jobs with limited screen time.
The most interesting thing about the film, however, is the way it delves deeper into the effects of its concept rather than just relying solely on the idea. So while the scenes on the island do mostly what you’d expect, it’s the film’s third act where the real interest lies, as the story chooses to buck the normal ‘disaster movie’ trend and not fade to black after Chuck attempts his island escape. It’s not something I was necessarily expecting when I started watching the film, but it’s actually the part that interested me the most. Plus the fact that the movie is titled Cast Away (two words) rather than Castaway, is probably an indication that the film is more about the changes Chuck faces than just about him being on the island.
This is a solid and interesting movie that manages to be both engrossing and very relaxed. The subtle twist of becoming more lost once you are found is handled especially well and really gives the story a unique angle with which to provoke thought. It may be a little over-long and I’m not completely convinced of Chuck’s optimistic outlook at the end of the film, but for being a well structured piece of fiction and for featuring a wonderful central performance (earning Hanks a fifth Best Actor nomination) then you could do much worse than getting lost with this flick for a couple of hours.
Match Point (2005) November 26, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 1 comment so farDirected by: Woody Allen
One of America’s best loved filmmakers was not having a very good century. Up until 2005 the world famous writer and director of such comedy classics as Annie Hall and Manhattan had released a string of features that lost money at the box office and were promptly swept under the rug. From Small Time Crooks in 2000, to The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending, Anything Else and maybe the biggest loss-maker: Melinda and Melinda, he just couldn’t seem to catch a break. And then Match Point came along, garnering some semi-positive reviews and pulling in that important elusive accolade: a box office profit. Woody Allen was back.
The tale that turned it all around centres on a former tennis pro named Chris Wilton who, after becoming the tennis instructor for the wealthy Tom Hewett, begins a relationship with Tom’s sister, Chloe. Unfortunately, it is actually Tom’s fiancée Nola Rice that Chris discovers he has the most powerful feelings for. The two start an ill-advised affair, but as Chris becomes accustomed to the lifestyle afforded by Chloe and after taking a managerial position in the Hewett business, he finds it increasingly difficult to leave his new wife. Nola doesn’t take this well though and threatens Chris with revealing their affair, forcing him to question what he really wants.
This is a film that strays far away from Allen’s more recent dialogue-heavy and witty-aside filled output, presenting a film that has its ‘Allen-ness’ so dialled down you’d hardly know it was there at all. As such, there’s none of the comic exchanges, no references to the Jewish nature, and little humour of any sort throughout the script. What is left falls strictly into the dramatic category but makes for a much darker and more emotionally-charged tale than anything we’ve seen from the filmmaker in years.
Central players Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Emily Mortimer and Scarlett Johansson all give excellent performances, playing right into the wealthy upper-class stereotypes, but not in such a way that distracts from the main plot. Johansson has no trouble playing a beautiful temptress while Meyers gets to toe the line between his character’s light and dark sides, all while speaking in a voice that has a remarkable similarity to Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator. Supporting the love triangle admirably are Brian Cox, Penelope Wilton and Matthew Goode, all playing members of the affluent Hewett family.
The story is strong for the most part; decidedly slow building but with an interesting third act moment of desperation. The fact that the plot stumbles slightly towards the final conclusion is a bit of a disappointment, although it does allow for an unexpected reassessment of the film’s recurring theme of luck. Allen’s script is good even if there are instances where characters fall out of place (the first time Chris meets Nola he comes off uncharacteristically forceful), and there’s an ill-advised hallucination scene that might have been better suited to a movie less grounded in harsh reality than this. Still, the direction is adequate and while there are few visual highlights in this conversational crime drama, at least it isn’t heavy-handed or jerky.
Many are quick to jump to Allen’s previous film, Crimes and Misdemeanors, as a source of narrative for this feature – I haven’t seen it, but I can see how the plot summary bares a certain similarity. Whether or not Match Point will be your cup of (Earl Grey) tea may have a lot to do with your penchant for slow-burning drama - because it is slow and not always brimming with the bubbling intensity it needs to be. Only towards the end do we get to feel the full heat of the story’s flame, and for some it may just come too late. As for Allen, it might not be his best work but it’s certainly more interesting and more driven than most of his recent output. What if it was just luck? Well, as this film attests, most of life is.
The Darjeeling Limited (2007) November 23, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: Wes Anderson
He is a difficult filmmaker to encapsulate: clearly fascinated with family (or family-like) relationships, but always twisting them into dysfunctional messes; using characters who are complicated, introspective, privileged types, but are forever defining themselves by their connection to other people; a shooting style which is extremely identifiable, yet wildly simple. There’s little you can say about his movies without the acknowledgement that they are, at least in part, a definition of himself. So as fussy and detail-ridden as they can be, my belief is that this only conveys a facet of director Wes Anderson’s own life and indeed his style of film - one of over-emphasis on the minutia.
This particular story of destructive sibling bonds opens with three brothers: Jack, Francis and Peter, who haven’t spoken in over a year after their father’s unexpected death. Francis brings them together on a train heading through India with the intention of leading the group on a spiritual journey where they can learn about themselves and bond as brothers again. Almost immediately, however, the brothers start bickering and their constant mistrust of each other lands them stranded in a remote part of the country. With their laminated spiritual agenda ruined, the brothers are forced to take a real journey, in which the true meaning of the trip is revealed.
It’s typical Anderson fare, and certainly offers nothing to his cynics who often criticise him for constantly re-treading old ground and being afraid to break out of his self-crafted stereotype. There is some truth to this, but with The Darjeeling Limited the filmmaker appears to have taken a step back from the grandiose ‘epic’ spread of his previous two movies (critically acclaimed The Royal Tenenbaums, and critically denounced The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), stripping down his central cast to just a trio of sibling rivals and letting the gorgeous natural scenery of the location add the majesty.
Yet what a central cast it is, with the three leads all bringing their A-game to ensure that these characters comes to life. Owen Wilson (as Francis) has been here before, with his optimistic, determined but ultimately misguided personality drawing similarities to his character of Dignan in Bottle Rocket [review]. He’s still a welcome sight, especially next to Rushmore alumni Jason Schwartzman who grows up significantly to play Jack, the youngest and maybe the most thoughtful brother. Most impressive of all though is a newcomer to the Anderson flock, Adrien Brody playing Peter. He fits in perfectly and draws a lot of character from the slightly arrogant yet cowardly brother, as well as nailing the most heart breaking line in the picture: “I didn’t save mine”.
The script, by Anderson himself alongside Roman Coppola and actor Jason Schwartzman, is great and an elaborate joy to hear performed. It’s also one of the more outright ‘funny’ Anderson scripts combining both the typical subtle jokes with some more madcap sequences. The brother’s constant bickering and back-biting makes for most of the early laughs, while there is also fun to be found in the details (Jack’s shoeless Beatles reference, Francis and his matriarchal ‘agreement’ making, the near-constant smoking etc.). Plus there are some great carry-over gags from the short film ‘Hotel Chevalier’ that precedes the main feature.
Then there’s the visual style to contend with. To call it ‘direct’ is an understatement – almost everything is shot head-on, from the front. Flat, horizontal tracking shots and rotations of the camera are the most common forms of movement, while the slow-motion effect (usually saved for the final shot of an Anderson movie) gets plenty of play here. I can see why people dislike the visual style; personally I’ve found it to be a conflicting presence in his work. For the most part, I love it – his compositions with all three brothers in frame are fantastic and he captures the confinements of the train and the atmosphere of India with equal expertise. But that’s not the end of the story.
Part of Anderson’s appeal is how close he wants you to get to his characters – both emotionally and physically. There are frequent close-ups of the face and it’s rare that the camera is ever more than a few feet from one of the brothers. My problem with his chosen visual style is that it can feel very ‘thin’; almost fragile – like the smallest tap on the screen would shatter the entire image. It’s this delicacy that sometimes distracts from your connection to the characters, only allowing you to get so close to them before pushing you away slightly. It’s not true for everyone, but that’s my experience with it and the main reason I think some audiences have a hard time with these movies.
If there’s one thing I can say with assurance it’s that this film cemented my opinion that Anderson’s small cast pieces are preferable to his large ensemble efforts. Not that he does either badly, but it does go to show how much more joy and insight he can draw from focussing in on just three characters. It contains inherent problems, including some ill-explained character attributes (Jack as a waitress-seducer never seems to fit) and an ending that steps over itself maybe once too many times in finding a fitting conclusion. But as with all the Anderson films, if you’re willing to enter the world and accept the journey for what it is, then you’re in for an entertaining, funny, and possibly thoughtful experience.
“I wonder if we could’ve been friends in real life?”, asks Jack of his companions, “not as brothers, but as people?”. The separation may be redundant, but just asking the question is all part of The Darjeeling Limited’s charm. Nevertheless, if it’s a must for Anderson devotees, it’s only a maybe for everyone else; with no pivotal step from the formula that defines his films: family unrest, parental fracturing, finding oneself and all the objects, possessions and people that represent those things. It’s minutia, celebrated. And that’s just the way he likes it.
Rocky Balboa (2006) November 20, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: Sylvester Stallone
Putting a successful series of films to rest has never been an easy feat for Hollywood, but with fifteen years passing since the release of the fifth Rocky movie, most thought that we had seen the last of the character that turned Sylvester Stallone into a household name. So when the announcement was made that a sixth and final Rocky film was in the works, and that it would star Stallone in a role set in the present day, the internet critics and bloggers set to work on predicting what an unavoidable disaster it would be. Their main complaint was a solid one: could a now sixty year old actor still pull off the necessary physical fitness to make Rocky a formidable force in the ring?
The story that allows us to discover the answer to that question surrounds Rocky as a widower, trying to come to terms with his retirement. Meanwhile his son feels as if he is living in the shadow of the legendary fighter and so becomes naturally perturbed when a computer-generated fight is screened on TV that pitches Rocky against the current heavyweight champion, Mason Dixon. Interest in Rocky is reignited when it turns out he wins the hypothetical fight against the publicly disliked champion, which leads the famous south-paw to consider fighting again. Even though Rocky plans to keep things small, events snowball and Mason Dixon’s management convince him that maybe fighting Rocky for real might help his flailing public image.
As with all the previous instalments of the series, Stallone is on board not just as star, but as writer too. And he hasn’t lost any of the characters’ charm with some great trademark speeches and nailing his slightly bumbling but always well-meaning dialogue both in performance and on the page. The plot may be a little far-fetched in some respects, but I suppose that it at least takes the time to present a credible reason to get the Italian Stallion back in the ring again, even if the final showdown would probably play out very differently in real life.
Stallone also takes the reigns directing this movie, a role in which he is well experienced after helming Rocky II through IV (he handed part V back to original Rocky director John G. Avildsen), and does a great job here producing a very moody looking Philadelphia where apparently little has changed since the late 70’s. He uses the first half of the film to return to all the famous Rocky haunts and bring back numerous characters from earlier films either through flashback, or in person: so Burt Young reprises his long-term role as Paulie, Tony Burton returns as trainer Duke, and Geraldine Hughes takes the role of Marie - a character who first appeared way back in the original film.
The reason this movie works though, and it does work, is due to the respectful way in which it treats its central character and the knowing references back to his origins. This final tale brings the saga round full circle with a story that is closest to the original film than any of the sequels. After proving his worth and fighting to gain respect and ‘go the distance’ in the first Rocky, the character had taken on challengers that were greater, but never quite as fulfilling. The element of age gives Rocky a new and more concrete reason to be the underdog again – which is the position under which the character works best. His unfounded optimism and passionate mumblings for the sport he loves will always give you a reason to root for the character, but give him a solid weakness, and you’ve got yourself a bone-fide hero.
It’s a film that really takes its time too, with a slow, almost melancholy set-up that leaves you with an exclusively downbeat opening twenty minutes before the main plotline kicks in. With such a simple linear story there’s little need for constant plot exposition, so instead we get to see more of the relationship between Rocky and his friends (old and new) as well as with his now grown up son. It’s a brave move to be so upfront with the fact that this is more about the people than the fights, because in today’s world of big budget spectacle-flicks, a slow-building talkie could easily get left behind. What makes this film stand out is that you do care about the people, the relationships are awkward but very real, and there’s always a sense that everything will work out.
Many early reviews of the film deemed it to be the best since the original, and that’s a sentiment I can agree with given that it pays so much homage to that movie. I don’t think that as a stand-alone it would work anywhere near as effectively, since this is a film firmly lodged in its own sense of history – so all the previous episodes, good or bad, work to support this final chapter. And while I think that some of the narrative threads are resolved a little quickly (Rocky Jr. comes around hastily when required), the 100-minute running time is just right. If you’re a Rocky fan, then put aside your fears, because Balboa hits harder than any of the sequels, and gives both old fans and new audiences a chance to see one of the greatest screen role models in his full glory.
The Alibi (2006) November 17, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Matt Checkowski & Kurt Mattila
Despite massive success on television in the UK, Steve Coogan’s film career has never really taken off in the same way. Maybe his most laudable role was playing Tony Wilson in the Brit flick 24 Hour Party People, although he’s also attempted laid-back comedy (The Parole Officer), off-beat art-house movie (Coffee & Cigarettes), and big budget Hollywood supporting roles (Around the World in 80 Days, and Night at the Museum), as an attempt to break-in. Now, the straight-to-DVD release of this confidence comedy with Coogan in the leading role only goes to show that little has changed.
The Alibi (or ‘Lies & Alibis’ as it is known in the US) tells the tale of Ray Elliot, a devious character who runs a very special consulting business that allows ordinary husbands and wives to cheat on their spouses by providing a whole range of alibi services. Shortly after hiring Lola, a new assistant for the business, Ray discovers that there is a $5 million price on the head of his ex-partner Jack McAdam which he fears may lead the hit-men to him. Meanwhile after an unfortunate accident leaves one of his client’s flings dead, Ray has to go against his usual code of involvement to dispose of the body. With clients, police, gangsters and killers all after him, Ray is left with little option than to try and control the situation using his own unique management skills.
It’s a nice effort at producing a film that’s in line with the recent twist-laden scam movies such as Confidence, Lucky Number Slevin [review] or the Ocean’s series [review]. It does what has become standard for the genre by setting up its catalogue of characters, introducing a problem, having the main character put a scheme into operation and then watching the whole thing play out. Unfortunately, that’s all that really happens, as the film does nothing to buck the trend or try something new. What makes other examples of the genre such fun are the problems; the bumps in the road that lead to plans having to be changed or improvised. This movie doesn’t fail to produce an interesting story, but it also doesn’t do anything except tell it straight.
The casting is fairly good, although I can’t help but feel that putting Steve Coogan in the lead role was somewhat of a brave move. His character not only runs the story, but narrates it also, and while Coogan is not an acting slouch by any means, his accent and mannerisms do feel slightly out of place in this otherwise very American movie. He makes the best of it though and gives a confident if not entirely convincing performance as the top-dog of this rather unique ‘personal consulting’ business.
The supporting cast are well fleshed out by some ‘name’ actors and actresses – many more than one would expect in a low budget feature such as this. Rebecca Romijn (of X-men fame) plays the new recruit, while James Marsden, Selma Blair, Sam Elliott and John Leguizamo all appear as participators (knowingly or unknowingly) in the scam. Some characters are required to do more than others, but all performers appear to be giving it their best which helps the film enormously.
First-time directors Matt Checkowski and Kurt Mattila hold the reigns well and manage to do quite a bit with what must have been a fairly limited budget. The movie is well shot although the editing is a little choppy at times, while the script by another newcomer, Noah Hawley, has some nice bouncy dialogue but falls apart a little in the over-use of voiceover narration. I also found that in early parts of the movie, things flew by a little too fast and conversations were almost too quick to catch – and there’s little point to having a smart plot if you can’t understand the set-up.
It’s an admirable attempt and an entertaining bit of fun but not a complete success, especially for Coogan who it seems may never get his break in Hollywood. For a comedy there aren’t really enough laughs and for a confidence movie it too nearly ties itself up in a knot during the third act. It seems that everything works out nicely, but the final scenes do rely on some convenient circumstances – Ray’s plan is hardly foolproof. Still, with a decent cast and some clever small touches (Ray’s interrupted voice over is a nice moment), the movie is not a complete waste of time. It’s just unfortunate that, like the alibi company itself, this film will probably operate well under most people’s radar.
