Reign Over Me (2007) April 28, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Mike Binder
The comic actor. A species known more for their skills in the former part of that title than in the latter, although there’s an increasing trend towards our biggest screen comedians taking jobs that many would consider ‘above their weight’. In 2002, Saturday Night Live graduate Adam Sandler took his biggest step away from the lovable comic-idiots that had formed his career (The Wedding Singer, The Waterboy, Big Daddy, and Little Nicky) to star in acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love. He received much praise and surprised many who were unconvinced that Sandler could suitably tone himself down for the role. Since then their careers have followed different paths - Anderson’s next film was to be the Oscar-courting There Will Be Blood [review]; Sandler’s was Mr Deeds. Still, he’s not lost the touch, as this Sandler-starring 2006 movie about pain, loss, love and survival, clearly shows.
The story details the relationship between two men: Alan Johnson and Charlie Fineman - both struggling to find their place in the world, but from opposite sides of the field. Alan has a good life, but feels worn down by the pressures of his family and craves freedom. Charlie, on the other hand, has all the freedom he can handle after losing his family a few years ago. The two used to be college roommates and, after a chance meeting, rekindle their friendship. Seeing the delicate emotional state that Charlie is in, Alan attempts to help him, and therefore himself, face the future.
Written and directed by Mike Binder, the film has a certain presence about it that certainly proves its intentions as a heartfelt piece of work. There are some scenes that really give the story a sold emotional core, namely whenever Sandler and co-star Don Cheadle are together. But equally there are scenes that take away form those intentions, like those featuring Saffron Burrows’ completely out-of-place character. Where the film needs to work, it does, forming a conduit for the emotions of repressed pain and terrible loss to be exemplified without explicit introspective turmoil. Charlie Fineman is indeed the figurehead of inhibited emotion in this film, but the way its ‘we could all use a little help’ narrative takes the time to divert from the norm and tell us: ‘but sometimes we don’t', is admirable in itself. The opening sequence, in which Charlie wanders through New York on his motorised scooter to Graham Nash’s ‘Simple Man’, is indicative of the tone of the movie, and a beautifully inspired beginning to the tale.
In opposition to this, however, the film makes the rather brave (or some might say, ill-advised) choice to invoke the 9/11 disaster into its central story. In a strange way this is both important and completely unimportant, as most movies that have mentioned the tragedy, either through story (like World Trade Centre [review]) or visually (like Spike Lee’s 25th Hour), have been using it to make a wider point, or parallel a character to the state of New York - a city in recovery. Reign Over Me uses 9/11 as merely a plot point, like a car crash or a disease, without ever trying to take the reference further. It’s the first appearance I’ve seen that doesn’t have a bigger relevance behind it, and I actually think its low-key use is adequately handled, but there’s no doubt that its very mention affects your perception slightly. Maybe because you expect a message attached, but if feels odd to have used such a specific event when a faceless tragedy would probably have sufficed.
Either way, the uneven surface of the plot is mostly plastered over by the central performances, not least from male leads Don Cheadle and Adam Sandler. For Cheadle, this is familiar territory - his character is not too dissimilar to the one he played in Crash - but he anchors the film well and gets to let loose a little next to a top-form Sandler, whose ability to not just play the wounded victim, but to inhabit him entirely, is one of the film’s greatest strengths. Charlie’s final breakdown may leave viewers split as to its appropriateness, but it is merely the scripting that is to blame here, as Sandler is clearly giving it his all. Supporting them is Jada Pinkett Smith doing a good job as Alan’s slightly confining wife, while, as previously mentioned, Saffron Burrows gets a rather horribly written part and tries to do her best with it. You’ll also see Liv Tyler show up as a psychologist and director Mike Binder himself, in a completely redundant part that allows him to get his face on screen for a few seconds, and share a line with Donald Sutherland.
Binder may be best sticking behind the camera in the future though, since his script, while up and down on the accuracy of its characters, has enough heart to provoke an emotional reaction, while his direction is assured and perfectly adequate for the job. Many of the comments I’ve read that criticise this film expressed that it was overly sentimental, or didn’t carry enough weight to really open the floodgates come Charlie’s acceptance of his loss. I, on the other hand, thought that it was fundamentally sentimental for a reason, and not mawkish or self-pitying like many other films that deal with this subject matter. It’s a film with solid intentions - a word that covers it against unrealistic expectations - as well as nice performances, and (one character aside) a firm grounding in reality that holds it firmly in place. Not for nothing, but that should mean something in a Hollywood so quick to make sunset-and-roses romantic comedies at the mere mention of a public holiday.
As for Sandler, whether it’s the pressure of always having to be the funny guy that leads comic actors into the dramatic arena, or simply the opportunity to be taken more seriously, it is notable that they rarely make the leap full time. Nor do they want to, I expect, since even the average comedy movie looks like more fun to be involved in than being nominated for a hundred Oscars. Jim Carrey has happily alternated his career since his dramatic breakout in The Truman Show, while Will Ferrell has seen his straighter Stranger Then Fiction [review] role followed by two back-to-basics sports comedies. The same looks true for Sandler, who stared in last year’s I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and the upcoming You Don’t Mess with the Zohan - both out-and-out comedy vehicles. Will we see him back in the realms of the serious again? After this, I can honestly say that I hope so.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) April 25, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Nicholas Stoller
Being a friend of Judd Apatow certainly has its perks, not least if you’ve got a screenplay knocking around. As a major player in both Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared (the Apatow produced TV shows that launched careers and took on cult followings), Jason Segel gets his turn in the limelight, following the path charted by Seth Rogen’s dramatic rise to fame last year. As writer and lead, he brings his unique talents to the fore in this comedic tale of love and loss. Mostly loss.
Currently the star of a hit TV crime series, actress Sarah Marshall has plenty going for her: fame, money, and her adoring musician boyfriend, Peter Bretter. But when a change of heart sees Sarah dump Peter for a promiscuous rock star named Aldous Snow, he is sent into a downward spiral of despair and sadness. Under advice from his best friend, Peter flies out for a holiday in Hawaii - a spot Sarah had once mentioned visiting. Of course, when he arrives at the resort, she and her new beau are already there, and Peter is faced with a constant reminder of the one thing he is trying to forget.
In the writing position, Jason Segel displays competent skill in crafting a story that, if a little obvious, manages to adequately fill its 110-minute running time. Where it really shines though is through the ‘lets get on with it’ attitude taken in the first act. 
With acute awareness of the fact that you know exactly where the story is going, Segel wastes no time on a languishing half-hour trawl to the awkward meet-up in Hawaii. Within about ten minutes, he’s there. And even the first time Peter spies Sarah at the resort is a moment so completely underplayed it’s practically a non-issue – and yet at the same time it’s the driver for the entire story.
This headfirst dive into the centre of the tale is both admirable and a little unnerving. You may find Peter a bit of an annoying character at first – his whiney, self-destructive tendencies don’t make for a very sympathetic protagonist. You warm to him through the picture, that’s undeniable, but immediately it can be a bit of a turn off. There’s also something that feels slightly sketch-like and ill balanced to the opening, which kept me away from really engaging with the story. Distance is never something you want to present in comedy, yet Forgetting Sarah Marshall puts its guard up right from the off, only letting you in as it gets to know you.
On the plus side, the film’s most consistent aspect is its comedy. Packed with laughs of varying degrees, every scene from the shockingly visual opening to the ‘you knew it was coming’ ending keeps delivering the gags at a consistent rate. You can even see where Segel airs his personal grievances - I bet there was hours of TV crime drama parody they wanted to include. 
Strangely, when it was all over and despite a warm ending, I was left slightly melancholic. That might have something to do with the fact that you walk out to a subdued, non-English interpretation of Nothing Compares 2 U, or maybe it’s that the undercurrent of good-natured sentiment inherent in the Apatow comedies doesn’t burn quite as brightly in this one.
The connection that this film does share with the Apatow cannon is through its unashamed revelling in adult humour. Yet somehow, it manages to be the mellower of the bunch, never equalling the rambunctious bawdiness of Knocked Up [review], nor the profane vulgarity present in Superbad [review]. Despite the ubiquitous swearing and sex humour, there’s still the sense that this is ‘Knocked Up’s day off’. Not a bad thing, just worth noting given the flaming that previous Apatow movies have taken for their coarse content. On the other hand, the critics who lambaste these films for their ideals about waster guys being able to get beautiful women won’t be similarly appeased. That theme is once again right at the centre of this film, and try as they might to make you believe it could happen, reality suggests that there’s more than a bit of wishful thinking going on here.
Where the film nearly breaks free of its overly standard narrative arc is during a scene in which we discover that Peter is maybe entirely to blame for his own situation – a diverse turn on the hard-done-to character we had seen so far. This is a really interesting idea that isn’t explored anywhere near enough, as the film quickly equals the balance by way of an extra reveal about Sarah’s involvement with Aldous Snow that puts Peter firmly back in the sympathetic protagonist position. I guess you have to keep your relatable characters clear of potential conflict but it’s a shame that the suggestion is introduced and then brushed under the carpet.
Jason Segel does a great job in the lead role, playing the slightly miserable, slob guy with just enough compassion to make him likable. This is a good role for him, as it requires a quieter side that we haven’t seen from the other very funny, but usually more full on, Apatow regulars like Seth Rogen or Jonah Hill. Kristen Bell and Mila Kunis get to play cute (a simple task), but as with many films of this ilk they are a little underwritten, especially Kunis whose fun-loving character just seems to fit in with the plot as necessary. They both make it work though. Meanwhile, British stand-up Russell Brand makes his US big screen debut playing, well, pretty much himself actually. That’s partly down to the outgoing, brash nature of his character mixing well with his outgoing, brash real life public image, and partly down to the improvisational dialogue, into which he injects his own eloquent wordsmith mannerisms.
In the end, it’s a comedy that succeeds at being funny, and maybe that’s all that matters. Plus it features an unforgettable idea for a stage musical that would be a shame to give away here. Jason Segel gives up everything (and believe me, that means everything) to make his film as funny as possible, while backup from familiar faces such as Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill and Bill Hader only add to what is a strong comic cast. As director Nicholas Stoller’s first feature film, he has managed to create a wide appeal comic tale that is perfectly entertaining, but not quite the revolution that Knocked Up was last year. For him, Jason Segel, and newcomer Russell Brand, this could be the start of a bigger presence in Hollywood. But Stroller knows how this works - he has been working with this crew since the Undeclared years. Yet more proof that it pays to be a friend of Judd Apatow.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is on UK general release from April 25th.
Final Destination 3 (2006) April 23, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: James Wong
The horror genre is undoubtedly the largest purveyor of the extraneous sequel - you only have to look as far as the excess of Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Hellraiser flicks to see the heady heights that a franchise can reach when not hindered by a Hollywood preoccupation with the ‘trilogy’. That trend has most recently been reignited by the Saw movies [reviews: Saw II & Saw III], of which we will be subjected to its fifth instalment this year. What is notable about all these examples is the generally held view that what starts out as an interesting take on the genre very quickly descends into lazy repetition and a loss of the spark which made the franchise so big in the first place. Now reaching its third movie, you can welcome into this group: Final Destination.
Plotted as an almost identical replica of its original, the film begins with high school girl Wendy Christensen being subjected to the now obligatory premonition, which this time features a roller-coaster accident. As a result of her outburst, friends and a few hangers-on get off the ride and, naturally, it proceeds to crash horribly. But that’s not the end of it. Having cheated death, the lucky few are tracked down by a dangerous entity which causes other unlikely accidents to occur to them one by one. Nobody, it seems, can cheat death.
And that’s it. What the original Final Destination offered was a nice take on the teen slasher, whereby the ‘killer’ was in fact the invisible force of death itself. This brought something to the movie and made the systematic one-by-one knocking-off of various high school students much more bearable. The second film, on the other hand, simply changed the location and upped the gore-factor for cheap thrills. There was an admirable attempt at linking the films, but it still suffered from inferior sequel-itis. This instalment is unfortunately just more of the same, once again changing the location and jumping on the proliferation of bloody violence in the likes of Hostel and Saw by making its deaths more gruesome, instead of making its story more interesting.
The result is a film that offers almost nothing to anyone who has seen the Final Destination movies before and in this respect pitches itself as maybe the laziest of all the horror franchises for having to do little more than come up with an accident and some thinly-drawn high school characters, before letting you watch them go through the motions of figuring out what is going on and then trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to save those marked for death. Nothing will come as a surprise, including the film’s ‘6 months later’ coda which viewers of the first Final Destination will know makes the plot itself even more futile due to the nature of how ‘death’ deals with survivors.
What you’re left with is nothing more than some inventive killings and the vacuous wait time between them. It’s interesting that James Wong, the director of the original Final Destination, has returned to both write and direct this movie, after having no involvement in the first sequel. Where the story has the most fun is playing with your expectations, most notably during the scene set inside a hardware store at night. They throw all kinds of completely unnecessary heavy machinery and dangerous apparatus into the scene to keep you guessing what horrible fate will befall the characters. It’s all a stalling tactic though, and the ‘picture clues’ element of the story sometimes gives the game away too early. I also thought that ingenuity in the ‘accidental’ deaths had been lost somewhat in favour of a pinball-style domino effect that was a little too complicated for its own good.
There’s really not much to recommend here and despite perfectly adequate performances from Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ryan Merriman and Kris Lemche in the title roles, plus competent direction from James Wong, it’s ultimately an empty watch, especially if you’ve seen the prequels which, let’s face it, if you’re considering this then you probably have. I enjoyed the original Final Destination, which makes it an even bigger blow that it has descended into such a sub-standard franchise. It was always to be one-hit wonder though, and with its central premise explained and exhausted in one movie, has had little option but to circle round and do it all again in subsequent outings. If there are to be more, then the plot is going to need a real shot of creativity, because Final Destination, as a concept, has reached the end of the line.
300 (2007) April 19, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Zack Snyder
The influence that green-screen visual techniques (or ‘chroma keying’, as the process is known) have had on modern film is not to be underestimated. The method known best for producing the animated weather map on the TV news has been called into action on all sorts of films - and not just the typical special-effects extravaganzas you would imagine. From romantic comedies to period dramas, the green screen has been filling gap between what the set designer builds and what you see on screen. But it wasn’t until George Lucas - a pioneer in the blending of chroma key techniques with modern CGI visual effects - took the revival of his Star Wars series into the digital realm with Episode I, that all the possibilities started to emerge. Zack Snyder saw the potential, and a way to bring highly stylised worlds to the screen in a brand new way. 300 is that potential realised.
Set in 480 BC, the film tells the story of the brave Spartan warriors who fought against the odds to keep King Xerxes from invading Thermopylae. Starting with the boy who would be king, we see how Spartans are trained through the eyes of Leonidas, later the royal leader who leads his 300-strong army into battle despite the wishes of their supposedly wise elders. But Leonidas, despite his confidence, makes one fatal flaw. After denying a deformed creature the opportunity to join his army, he is betrayed by the same creature, allowing Xerxes to gain a strategic upper hand against the heroes. With only their instilled sense of honour, the Spartans make a last glorious stand against the Persian army.
In jumping from Star Wars to 300 during the introduction of this review we have, of course, passed over a very important link in the chain that connects these films together. The Robert Rodriguez-directed Sin City took a popular graphic novel by comic writer and artist Frank Miller, tore out the pages, and projected them abstractly onto the screens of cinemas worldwide. It was the most ambitious visualisation of the comic strip style even seen and it used the chroma key technique to make it all possible. The immediate popularity of Sin City opened the door for Snyder to bring this project into production - it as, after all, very similar in concept.
Based on another graphic novel by Frank Miller, 300 has a slightly less idiosyncratic visual style when compared to the monochrome shadow-infused world of Sin City. But Zach Snyder still manages to direct an optical feast, full of comic book inspired angles, mood-stricken lighting and a flagrant attitude towards violence. It certainly earns its ‘R’ rating (UK ‘15′ certificate) with the blood splattering left and right during the action sequences, and even forming the logo for the movie’s title itself. As well as calling the shots behind the camera, Snyder also took a hand in penning the screenplay alongside Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon. What is there in terms of dialogue consists mostly of shouting and rousing speeches, although they get a little bit of mileage out the story, which is the surprisingly simple single-threaded tale of the Spartans taking a stand against King Xerxes. It helps that the flaws in this area are covered by frequent bouts of action, which form the film’s strongest asset.
Taking the lead role of King Leonidas is no easy task, but it is handled admirably by Gerard Butler, who gives the character a bit of personality in his quieter moments. It would be easy to reduce him to a simple brute, so it’s nice that we get a little more from Butler’s performance. He is supported by Lena Headey as Queen Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, and while her sub-plot is an addition to the original story (it never appeared in the graphic novel), there is some argument to say that the structure of the film would seem very one-note without it. Incidentally, Headly does a fine job as the resourceful queen, as do the central Spartan characters played by the likes of Dominic West, David Wenham and Vincent Regan. It’s undoubtedly King Leonidas who takes the most glory (and screen time), but there’s no faulting a cast who had to go through a rigorous training regime and spend two months standing around in little but their underwear.
While it doesn’t quite have the all-round ‘wow factor’ of Sin City, this technological treat drains the most out of its battle sequences and even manages to feature the greatly overused slow motion fighting shots without coming off as a cliché. I don’t think there’s much else beyond the bloodshed though, and with the graphical novel’s conscious weak grasp on historical accuracy leaking through to the movie version, it becomes hard to get fully involved in the actual tale. At the most basic level, this is an entertaining picture with all the trappings of a historical epic, even if it doesn’t quite have the narrative weight to pull that off. Most notably, the film has been a gateway for Zach Snyder, who is using the experience gained here to tackle an even bigger, but not dissimilar project. 2009 will see the release of Snyder’s version of the well-respected Allen Moore graphic novel, Watchmen - complete, no doubt, with the odd bit of chroma keying. 300’s huge box office returns have earned him the attention of the mass audience - now let’s see if he can hold on to it.
The Lives of Others (2006) April 17, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
The 2007 Academy Awards featured its fair share of ’sure thing’ winners. Not that anything is ever in the bag, but it wouldn’t have been a mistake to put money on Helen Mirren taking home Best Actress for The Queen, Forest Whitaker grabbing Best Actor for The Last King of Scotland [review], or Martin Scorsese winning Best Achievement in Directing with The Departed [review]. Others too might have suggested that Guillermo del Toro’s runaway fantasy hit Pan’s Labyrinth [review] was a shoo-in for Best Foreign Language film. It was, therefore, a welcomed upset to see this German Stasi themed drama - a film only just on limited release in the US at the time - rob the crown from the front runner. And a well-deserved theft it was too.
As a tension-filled account of post-war suspicion, the story concerns the lives of dramatist Georg Dreyman and his girlfriend Christa-Maria Sieland, who are players on the regional social scene but rebel against many of the ideals shared by their peers. Concerned by their behaviour (and smitten with Christa-Maria) the powerful Minister of Culture decides to have Georg watched, and so hires agent Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler to conduct a full-time surveillance operation. But as time passes, Wiesler’s passive eavesdropping draws him into the life of the couple, until he doesn’t know which loyalties are more important to him - that of his bosses, or his unknowing subjects.
This is writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s first feature film, yet he handles it with great skill. His script carefully builds the tension as well as the emotionally involved nature of the non-relationship that forms between Wiesler and the subjects of his mission. It’s not an overly judgemental story, although it does side against oppression, and it takes the time to involve us with Dreyman and Sieland’s activities as much as it does Wiesler’s. A wise move, since as the plot progresses we need empathy for both side’s actions, and this is one area where the story really shines.
As with many first-features, it was made on a rather miniscule $2 million budget, with the central actors all working for a fraction of their usual fee. Not that it shows in the final product, as the 1980’s decor and the quality of the performances all ring true. Ulrich Mühe is engrossing in the central role, a seemingly cold follower of the rules who breaks down as he becomes involved in the lives of the two artists. To call him a Kevin Spacey look-alike is almost too easy, but there’s definitely something there that reminds you of Spacey and it’s in more than just his looks. Martina Gedeck and Sebastian Koch are the unstable couple under surveillance, while Ulrich Tukur plays the ruthless Lieutenant Colonel Anton Grubitz, and Thomas Thieme takes the part of an even more ruthless political minister, Bruno Hempf.
Set definitively in its time, the story is one of frightening reality when you consider that the actions of the Stasi Police were indeed as intrusive and covert as shown here. It takes history and wraps a dramatic element around it that far outweighs the experience of its creator. With a haunting score and cinematography that displays the cold reality of living with, and under, such paranoid authorities, everything has its place in telling the story with as much detail as possible - from the threat of blacklisting for artists, to the educational research and teaching that was part of developing the Stasi interrogation techniques. Though this is not a particularly ’scary’ film about 1980’s East Germany, there is an undeniable lingering sense of dread.
The Lives of Others was an Oscar win that didn’t pander to everyone’s expectations and hopefully raised the profile of a wonderful foreign language film - something that can only help their all-too limited distribution. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck has outdone himself as a career opener, and even if I’d argue that the film could have taken some light editing to trim down the 137 minute running time, or that the ending endures maybe one-too-many jumps forward in time before it rests on a conclusion, this is still a credible Oscar winner and, in my opinion, a better film than Pan’s Labyrinth. Whatever you think of Guillermo del Toro’s fairytale horror, you owe it to yourself to see The lives of Others. Cries of “we were robbed!” are unfounded until you do.
