Last week, whilst booking tickets for the Bourne Ultimatum, I stumbled across an ad for a gala screening of the film version of Ian McEwan's novel 'Atonement', which I read on holiday and loved. I went along, got to see the film two weeks in advance, and even got a free book and copy of Pride & Prejudice on DVD for my troubles. Awesome. Here, then, is a review of the film.
Atonement
It is the summer of 1935, Cecelia Tallis (Kiera Knightley) has just returned from Cambridge, as has her childhood friend Robbie Turner (James McAvoy). An incident at a fountain sets them on a path which would seem to lead to a very happy ending. However, Cecelia's younger sister Briony witnesses the incident, and reaches a different conclusion. Her misunderstanding, coupled with a series of events, leads her to falsely accuse Robbie of a serious crime and she will spend the rest of her life trying to seek penance for her involvement.
Adapted from Ian McEwan's critically acclaimed novel of the same name, Atonement is a film as tragic, and sorrowful as it is visually beautiful. Sumptuous, lush, gorgeous, all these and more superlatives can be attached to a film which packs more visual splendour into every frame than any film in recent memory. The scope of the film is incredible, veering from the relatively small and intimate moments near the start of the film to the huge, sprawling scenes on the beaches of northern France in which hundreds of extras can be seen, all interacting with each other and the world around them.
Director Joe Wright, who previously helmed the better-than-expected Pride and Prejudice film, brings a stately, simplistic directorial style to proceedings. Though the angles and camera angles may not be inventive or original, they really don't need to be since Wright realises that the images on screen are beautiful enough as is. The best example of this can be found midway through the film on the beaches during the retreat from Dunkirk. As Robbie arrives on the beach, the camera follows him and other soldiers on the beach as they mill about. The scene is shot in one continous, four and a half minute shot and whilst the camera doesn't move around much it takes in the sheer scale of what is going on, showing the personal side of the English retreat from France, both in terms of the bravery of those involved and the sheer chaos and madness of the situation.
Elsewhere, the film employs simple but highly effective techniques to convey the emotional journey of the characters. The early part of the film, which takes part in 1935, is given a hazy, wistful feeling to it through the use of soft-focus lenses and bright lighting. The time after Briony accuses Robbie, though, is shot with a more naturalistic style. This rather simple transition perfectly underlines the fact that Briony destroys the idyllic world which she, Cecelia and Robbie had previously known.
In the main roles, Knightley and McAvoy are very impressive. Knightley's progression from a cold, distant girl to a lovelorn woman is really very good, displaying acting skills that she seems to have kept carefully hidden throughout much of the rest of her career. Likewise, Robbie's journey from idealistic young man to a soldier is carried off superbly by McAvoy, a very good thing considering how much more time he is on screen than Knightley. The only thing that counts against their performances is the super-posh accents they put on which initially feel very forced, though they do get less noticeable as the film progresses.
As an adaptation it is a great piece of work. It takes just enough liberties with the source material to make the film work as a completely separate piece from the novel. Mostly it's very faithful, though it does reverse the order in which characters become aware of events and alter the ending slightly from the book. Initially the decision to reverse when characters see certain events seemed unnecesary but in the context of the film it really works well. Likewise, the ending as written in the novel would have required quite a lot of time and a considerable amount of voiceover. Screenwriter Christopher Hampton strikes upon an elegant solution that keeps the heartrending nature of the ending intact, even if it ultimately slightly weaker than the original.
It's just a shame that this scene is undermined by a final scene which, in my opinion, was totally unnecessary. The monologue delievered by an elderly Briony (Vanessa Redgrave) is beautiful, and the addition of a final coda makes the ending far more heavyhanded than is strictly necessary. If the film has any weakness it is that at crucial moments it lacks subtlety. Things which in the novel are only hinted at and revealed later, or not at all, are displayed far too obviously. These moments don't ruin the film, but they do stand out for being the only real flaws on display.A really quite stunning film which, apart from a few minor quibbles, is nigh on perfect and a truly breathtaking adaptation of a wonderful novel.
François Truffaut once said that "Film lovers are sick people." He may have been on to something.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
You know what, we really get screwed in Europe
Now that I've finished Uni, I've had to cut back on my spending on certain luxuries, namely DVDs. I spent a good deal of my student loan on films in Fopp in an effort to improve my film education and I now struggle to justify such expenditure. At least on films which I've never seen. Now I can only really justify buying films I know I like and leave discovering new films to the cinema and renting them. However, whenever I go to America on holiday, I take advantage of the very good exchange rate and invest in films and TV series which I just can't get over here. Over the last few days I've watched a handful of them and I can't help but think that we are really missing out.
This time around I purchased the two TV series made by Judd Apatow, director of Knocked Up and The Forty-Year Old Virgin, named 'Freaks and Geeks' and 'Undeclared'. I may dedicate a whole article to those two shows since they are both very good, but I will say that it is a terrible shame that not only can these two shows not be purchased in Britain, they have never even been screened on any channel over here. Because of this I can understand why the series has never seen a DVD release here, but that doesn't mean I feel any better about how much people are missing out.
A much bigger oversight, though, is that some films which are considered genuine classics, many of which were released over here at some point, have not been released on DVD. The film which immediately springs to mind, mainly because I watched it today, is Robert Altman's 1975 opus Nashville. An ensemble piece about the intersecting lives of country music performers and hangers-on in Nashville, it is a hugely ambitious film about not only the country music scene but also politics, the American dream and the state of America in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal and it presents an interesting snapshot of America at a very specific point in its history. It is widely regarded as Altman's greatest film, was a fair hit on its release and it has never seen a DVD release. Every one of Uwe Boll's celluloid abortions is available in pretty much every Blockbuster, but you can't get a film which is so well regarded for love nor money. Well, you can get it for money. And 'love' but that is called 'prostitution' and is technically illegal.
Of course, commercial success is not a necessity in getting a DVD release, Boll's inexplicable proliferation on the digital format attests to that, so we also don't get early minor classics that may not have been terribly successful from directors who have gone on to great success. Take Robert Zemeckis, Oscar-winning director of Forrest Gump, Back to the Future and the forthcoming Neil Gaiman/Roger Avary-scripted Beowulf. To look in HMV, you'd think that his directing career started with Romancing The Stone. In reality, Zemeckis made two films beforehand which he co-wrote with his Back To The Future co-hort Bob Gale; I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars.
I Wanna Hold Your Hand, as the name would imply, is a Beatles-related film. The plot revolves around a fictionalised version of the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show and the efforts of a group of New Jersey teenagers to get into the show. It's a very simple idea for a film and it is a work of real technical skill and is one of the most enjoyable films I've ever seen. As with his later films, most notably Forrest Gump, Zemeckis mixes archive footage and newly filmed scenes to terrific effect, making it really seem as if we the viewer are watching the Beatles performing for the first time. The film has a terrific verve and sense of fun to it and is a hugely impressive debut. Used Cars is an altogether different beast. An R-Rated comedy in which a sleazy used car salesman (Kurt Russell) tries to keep his workplace in business after his boss dies is a dark comedy and a surprisingly biting satire. Again, it's a brilliantly made film which is incredibly funny. However, both films were flops on their release due to poor marketing and made Zemeckis and Gale box office poison for about 4 years. Both films are available on DVD in the US despite their lack of success, why can't they get a release in Europe?
Even directors who are incredibly popular have films from their back catalogue which aren't available here. The most notable example is Steven Spielberg whose 1979 film 1941, scripted by the aforementioned Zemeckis and Gale, can only be imported. It's most notable as Spielberg's first flop, but other directors' flops are available on DVD. You can get Howard the Duck here. Howard. The. Duck. Why then, can we not get films which are genuine curios from the careers of some of the world's most prolific and beloved filmakers? These are a very select few choices, of course, but it is indicative of how many good films just aren't available to the average person in the UK.
The obvious response to these questions would be 'why not import and stop whining you poncey student bastard?' but I'm not concerned about that. If someone is going to import a film you can be pretty certain that they are a fairly serious film fan who wants to see these films and will spend sometimes considerable amounts of money to do so. My concern is with casual film fans who are missing out on some really fantastic, often very accessible films which would appeal to huge numbers of people if they were given a chance. As I've already said, I Wanna Hold Your Hand is one of the most incredibly fun films I've ever seen and it really saddens me that it is not available for more people to watch. It doesn't really matter if film fans can't walk into a shop and buy a copy, they'll find a way around it, but that so many people are deprived of really enjoyable films is a terrible shame.
This time around I purchased the two TV series made by Judd Apatow, director of Knocked Up and The Forty-Year Old Virgin, named 'Freaks and Geeks' and 'Undeclared'. I may dedicate a whole article to those two shows since they are both very good, but I will say that it is a terrible shame that not only can these two shows not be purchased in Britain, they have never even been screened on any channel over here. Because of this I can understand why the series has never seen a DVD release here, but that doesn't mean I feel any better about how much people are missing out.
A much bigger oversight, though, is that some films which are considered genuine classics, many of which were released over here at some point, have not been released on DVD. The film which immediately springs to mind, mainly because I watched it today, is Robert Altman's 1975 opus Nashville. An ensemble piece about the intersecting lives of country music performers and hangers-on in Nashville, it is a hugely ambitious film about not only the country music scene but also politics, the American dream and the state of America in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal and it presents an interesting snapshot of America at a very specific point in its history. It is widely regarded as Altman's greatest film, was a fair hit on its release and it has never seen a DVD release. Every one of Uwe Boll's celluloid abortions is available in pretty much every Blockbuster, but you can't get a film which is so well regarded for love nor money. Well, you can get it for money. And 'love' but that is called 'prostitution' and is technically illegal.
Of course, commercial success is not a necessity in getting a DVD release, Boll's inexplicable proliferation on the digital format attests to that, so we also don't get early minor classics that may not have been terribly successful from directors who have gone on to great success. Take Robert Zemeckis, Oscar-winning director of Forrest Gump, Back to the Future and the forthcoming Neil Gaiman/Roger Avary-scripted Beowulf. To look in HMV, you'd think that his directing career started with Romancing The Stone. In reality, Zemeckis made two films beforehand which he co-wrote with his Back To The Future co-hort Bob Gale; I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars.
I Wanna Hold Your Hand, as the name would imply, is a Beatles-related film. The plot revolves around a fictionalised version of the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show and the efforts of a group of New Jersey teenagers to get into the show. It's a very simple idea for a film and it is a work of real technical skill and is one of the most enjoyable films I've ever seen. As with his later films, most notably Forrest Gump, Zemeckis mixes archive footage and newly filmed scenes to terrific effect, making it really seem as if we the viewer are watching the Beatles performing for the first time. The film has a terrific verve and sense of fun to it and is a hugely impressive debut. Used Cars is an altogether different beast. An R-Rated comedy in which a sleazy used car salesman (Kurt Russell) tries to keep his workplace in business after his boss dies is a dark comedy and a surprisingly biting satire. Again, it's a brilliantly made film which is incredibly funny. However, both films were flops on their release due to poor marketing and made Zemeckis and Gale box office poison for about 4 years. Both films are available on DVD in the US despite their lack of success, why can't they get a release in Europe?
Even directors who are incredibly popular have films from their back catalogue which aren't available here. The most notable example is Steven Spielberg whose 1979 film 1941, scripted by the aforementioned Zemeckis and Gale, can only be imported. It's most notable as Spielberg's first flop, but other directors' flops are available on DVD. You can get Howard the Duck here. Howard. The. Duck. Why then, can we not get films which are genuine curios from the careers of some of the world's most prolific and beloved filmakers? These are a very select few choices, of course, but it is indicative of how many good films just aren't available to the average person in the UK.
The obvious response to these questions would be 'why not import and stop whining you poncey student bastard?' but I'm not concerned about that. If someone is going to import a film you can be pretty certain that they are a fairly serious film fan who wants to see these films and will spend sometimes considerable amounts of money to do so. My concern is with casual film fans who are missing out on some really fantastic, often very accessible films which would appeal to huge numbers of people if they were given a chance. As I've already said, I Wanna Hold Your Hand is one of the most incredibly fun films I've ever seen and it really saddens me that it is not available for more people to watch. It doesn't really matter if film fans can't walk into a shop and buy a copy, they'll find a way around it, but that so many people are deprived of really enjoyable films is a terrible shame.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Second Chance Film Club: X-Men 3: The Last Stand
After taking on a critically-loved classic last time, we now turn our attention to a somewhat less loved film in the shape of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. When it was released last year, I wrote the following review on an internet forum I frequent:
http://www.spaced-out.org.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=12147&st=330&p=523428&#entry523428
The bile heaped upon the film from some quarters, coupled with the fact that I have only seen it the one time, made me think that a rewatch was in order. With more than a small degree of worry and fear, I delved into Brett Ratner's take on one of the most beloved franchises of recent years. As usual, since I'll be looking at the plot in some detail, and this will entail including information of the fates of several main characters, there will be spoilers.
First, a little context about my first viewing. I loved the first two X-Men films and followed the development of the third film with interest and, eventually, concern. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, here's the basics. Bryan 'The Usual Suspects' Singer, who had directed the first two films, was set to direct the third one and had developed a treatment with his regular writers Dan 'Student #2 at Metropolis Museum' Harris and Michael 'Student #1 at Metropolis Museum' Dougherty. However, at the same time, Brett 'Rush Hour' Ratner left as director of the new Superman film and the job was offered to Singer. A lifelong fan of Supes, Singer left X-Men 3 taking Harris, Dougherty and other member of his crew with him to make what would then become Superman Returns. Matthew Vaughn, director of the excellent Layer Cake, then stepped in and made a number of decisions about the film, including the casting of Frasier Crane as Beast (woo!) and Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut (buh?), before leaving the film for 'family reasons'. The stage was then set for Brett Ratner to step in, having completely swapped places with Singer.
This sequence of events made awaiting the arrival of the film something of a rollercoaster ride and my expectations fluctuated repeatedly as time wore on. By the time of the film's release in May 2006, my expectations had been lowered so much that I went in thinking ''as long as I don't throw myself off a bridge after watching it, it'll have been a good movie''. Seeing as I am still alive, it can be presumed that I got enough enjoyment out of it to warrant the good review I gave it. So it was more a case of my expectations being defied than the film actually blowing me away, then. If anything, my expectations are higher the second time.
As with any director taking on a series already in process, Ratner had to deal with characters and plotlines already set in motion in the first few issues. Further complicating the issue was the fact that the end of the second film, which saw Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) seemingly dead at the bottom of a lake, illuminated by a bird-like shape, established that the third film would deal with the Phoenix Saga, one of the most famous stories in comic book history. Clearly, Ratner had a lot to take on.
However, rather than making the whole film about Jean's resurrection as The Phoenix, which was the direction Singer intended, Rattner and his writers saw fit to graft on an entirely separate story revolving around the development of a cure for mutation, something which was taken from Buffy creator and all-round Geek God Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men series. It is the collision of these two stories that causes many of the problems for the film and, for me at least, the more enjoyable moments.
The first casualties of this treatment are the characters themselves. Whilst the first two films gave them room to breathe and gave them real depth, X3 just throws characters into the mix and doesn't really do anything with them, aside from allowing for some mutant-on-mutant action. This is particularly true of the new characters introduced in the film. The best example of this is the treatment of Angel, played by Ben Foster. Although you could have just sellotaped some wings on a mop and achieved the same effect, considering how little he actually has to do. Angel is introduced in the opening scenes of the movie as a child who is so ashamed of his mutation that he tries to file off his newly grown wings. This seems to be setting him up as a major character, and one who is filled with self-loathing and disdain for his own kind. Just the sort of compelling character the series had previously prided itself upon. However, what actually happens is that Angel is merely used as a MacGuffin, providing the reason for the development of the mutant cure. He is next seen 37 minutes into the film escaping his father's laboratory, then again 20 minutes later when he shows up at X-Men manor, then finally to save his father from being killed by other mutants. Considering how central he was to the film's marketing campaign, it seems strange that he's on screen for less than five minutes.
The returning characters fare a bit better, but that's really down to the actors rather than the direction, plot or the script. McKellan and Jackman are as good as they were in the previous films, but the dialogue they are given and the events that occur to them undermine their otherwise fine performances. One of the defining aspects of Singer's X-Men movies which set them apart from many other superhero films, even the hugely enjoyable Spider-Man films, was the nuanced nature of the scripts and the way in which they avoided cliched or obvious dialogue. In X-Men 3, however, you could quite easily make a very enjoyable drinking game out of spotting the cliches in the script. My personal 'favourite' moment in the film where this is most prevalent comes near the end. Having been deprived of his powers, Magneto looks on in horror as Phoenix spins out of control, destroying everything around her. Magneto then utters 'what have I done?'. before running off. Now, I don't want to suggest that Mr. Ratner didn't know what he was doing, but could the TRAINED SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR not have displayed his fear and terror using his face, rather than being given a flat and utterly unnecessary line of dialogue? There also seems to have been a rather strange development in Magneto's character. Whereas before he was seen as a guerilla leader of a small but powerful organisation, in this film he turns into a Bond supervillain who seems to base his operations in a cave made of tinfoil. Which is, in turn, situated in a massive forest. This is never explained and just makes him seem rather daft, not the meancing ''I will achieve my aim at any cost'' extremist of the first two films.
Elsewhere, Halle Berry is just as useless as she was in the previous films, but this time she's been promoted to head of the X-Men, so takes up even more screentime. I like the character of Storm as portrayed in the comics and the TV series, she's feisty but also quite insecure. Berry just plays her as a dull, straightforward heroine character and it makes her the least interesting character in the whole franchise.
The propensity of the film to kill off characters also suggests that those involved really didn't know what they had on their hands. Cyclops bites it within the first ten minutes in a manner which serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to tell the audience that Phoenix is bad. Big fucking insight there, Brett. Likewise, three minor villain character are established early on, battle Storm and Wolverine, then are killed in an instant, having served their purpose and not allowing for them to possibly return in future films. Finally, Xavier dies halfway through the film, thus depriving the film of one of its most charismatic performers and the possibility 0f examining the darker parts of his character which are only really hinted at during a scene in which he describes how he built up mental walls around Jean's mind, limiting her power in the process, for 'her own good'. This is just one of many examples where the film botches the chance for any decent characterisation. Having said that, Xavier's death does allow for a surprisingly revealing moment when Magneto chastises one of his underlings for mocking Xavier's death, reminding everyone that they were friends at one point and that they were not as different as you'd think. Admittedly this point is undermined by the mutant smackdown at the end of the film, but it's a surprisingly nice touch.
The character that best represents the missed opportunity of the film is Phoenix. If we look at the comics again, The Phoenix saga deals with Jean being possessed by an alien force named The Phoenix which, initially, seems only to enhance her powers and not have any other ill-efects. However, as time passes, it begins to take over her and she ends up destroying several planets, resulting in a war crimes tribunal in which Jean is put on trial for Phoenixes crimes and the saga ends with Jean sacrificing herself, rather than letting her friends die for her. Admittedly, trying to tell this story on screen wouldn't work since, like many Marvel stories, it's just fucking stupid. However, elements of it, namely the fact that Jean and Phoenix are separate entities are included in the film but never really fully explained. In the end it just seems like Jean is an irrational bitch. Admittedly, this explanation for her behaviour works if you want to view X-Men 3 as a rant against menstruation (Phoenix goes around wearing a RED cloak, see?The film take place over two or three days, eh?) but otherwise it is rather inadequate an explanation.
However, despite its many, many, many flaws, I can't help but enjoy it. I love the sheer ridiculousness of it all, the constant cliches, the fact that the President of the United States sounds like Sylvester the Cat (''Hell hasth no fury like a woman scthorned''), the stupid action sequences and the complete and utter lack of any subtlety in any form throughout the film. I even like how ridiculous the ending is, in which Wolverine is able to get close enough to Jean without being killed because he keeps healing, apparently doing so fast enough to not be completely obliterated like everyone else. It makes no sense, and in a way that makes it brilliant. Sure I'm disappointed that it isn't as good as the previous two films, but if I just try and forget about them and pretend the film has nothing in common with the other films, then it's an unintentionally hilarious film on a par with Reefer Madness or The Wicker Man remake. It's a bit like playing Battleships. For every ounce of enjoyment you eke out of it, you get a pound og frustration back. But I do rather enjoy a game of Battleships.
http://www.spaced-out.org.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=12147&st=330&p=523428&#entry523428
The bile heaped upon the film from some quarters, coupled with the fact that I have only seen it the one time, made me think that a rewatch was in order. With more than a small degree of worry and fear, I delved into Brett Ratner's take on one of the most beloved franchises of recent years. As usual, since I'll be looking at the plot in some detail, and this will entail including information of the fates of several main characters, there will be spoilers.
First, a little context about my first viewing. I loved the first two X-Men films and followed the development of the third film with interest and, eventually, concern. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, here's the basics. Bryan 'The Usual Suspects' Singer, who had directed the first two films, was set to direct the third one and had developed a treatment with his regular writers Dan 'Student #2 at Metropolis Museum' Harris and Michael 'Student #1 at Metropolis Museum' Dougherty. However, at the same time, Brett 'Rush Hour' Ratner left as director of the new Superman film and the job was offered to Singer. A lifelong fan of Supes, Singer left X-Men 3 taking Harris, Dougherty and other member of his crew with him to make what would then become Superman Returns. Matthew Vaughn, director of the excellent Layer Cake, then stepped in and made a number of decisions about the film, including the casting of Frasier Crane as Beast (woo!) and Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut (buh?), before leaving the film for 'family reasons'. The stage was then set for Brett Ratner to step in, having completely swapped places with Singer.
This sequence of events made awaiting the arrival of the film something of a rollercoaster ride and my expectations fluctuated repeatedly as time wore on. By the time of the film's release in May 2006, my expectations had been lowered so much that I went in thinking ''as long as I don't throw myself off a bridge after watching it, it'll have been a good movie''. Seeing as I am still alive, it can be presumed that I got enough enjoyment out of it to warrant the good review I gave it. So it was more a case of my expectations being defied than the film actually blowing me away, then. If anything, my expectations are higher the second time.
As with any director taking on a series already in process, Ratner had to deal with characters and plotlines already set in motion in the first few issues. Further complicating the issue was the fact that the end of the second film, which saw Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) seemingly dead at the bottom of a lake, illuminated by a bird-like shape, established that the third film would deal with the Phoenix Saga, one of the most famous stories in comic book history. Clearly, Ratner had a lot to take on.
However, rather than making the whole film about Jean's resurrection as The Phoenix, which was the direction Singer intended, Rattner and his writers saw fit to graft on an entirely separate story revolving around the development of a cure for mutation, something which was taken from Buffy creator and all-round Geek God Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men series. It is the collision of these two stories that causes many of the problems for the film and, for me at least, the more enjoyable moments.
The first casualties of this treatment are the characters themselves. Whilst the first two films gave them room to breathe and gave them real depth, X3 just throws characters into the mix and doesn't really do anything with them, aside from allowing for some mutant-on-mutant action. This is particularly true of the new characters introduced in the film. The best example of this is the treatment of Angel, played by Ben Foster. Although you could have just sellotaped some wings on a mop and achieved the same effect, considering how little he actually has to do. Angel is introduced in the opening scenes of the movie as a child who is so ashamed of his mutation that he tries to file off his newly grown wings. This seems to be setting him up as a major character, and one who is filled with self-loathing and disdain for his own kind. Just the sort of compelling character the series had previously prided itself upon. However, what actually happens is that Angel is merely used as a MacGuffin, providing the reason for the development of the mutant cure. He is next seen 37 minutes into the film escaping his father's laboratory, then again 20 minutes later when he shows up at X-Men manor, then finally to save his father from being killed by other mutants. Considering how central he was to the film's marketing campaign, it seems strange that he's on screen for less than five minutes.
The returning characters fare a bit better, but that's really down to the actors rather than the direction, plot or the script. McKellan and Jackman are as good as they were in the previous films, but the dialogue they are given and the events that occur to them undermine their otherwise fine performances. One of the defining aspects of Singer's X-Men movies which set them apart from many other superhero films, even the hugely enjoyable Spider-Man films, was the nuanced nature of the scripts and the way in which they avoided cliched or obvious dialogue. In X-Men 3, however, you could quite easily make a very enjoyable drinking game out of spotting the cliches in the script. My personal 'favourite' moment in the film where this is most prevalent comes near the end. Having been deprived of his powers, Magneto looks on in horror as Phoenix spins out of control, destroying everything around her. Magneto then utters 'what have I done?'. before running off. Now, I don't want to suggest that Mr. Ratner didn't know what he was doing, but could the TRAINED SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR not have displayed his fear and terror using his face, rather than being given a flat and utterly unnecessary line of dialogue? There also seems to have been a rather strange development in Magneto's character. Whereas before he was seen as a guerilla leader of a small but powerful organisation, in this film he turns into a Bond supervillain who seems to base his operations in a cave made of tinfoil. Which is, in turn, situated in a massive forest. This is never explained and just makes him seem rather daft, not the meancing ''I will achieve my aim at any cost'' extremist of the first two films.
Elsewhere, Halle Berry is just as useless as she was in the previous films, but this time she's been promoted to head of the X-Men, so takes up even more screentime. I like the character of Storm as portrayed in the comics and the TV series, she's feisty but also quite insecure. Berry just plays her as a dull, straightforward heroine character and it makes her the least interesting character in the whole franchise.
The propensity of the film to kill off characters also suggests that those involved really didn't know what they had on their hands. Cyclops bites it within the first ten minutes in a manner which serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to tell the audience that Phoenix is bad. Big fucking insight there, Brett. Likewise, three minor villain character are established early on, battle Storm and Wolverine, then are killed in an instant, having served their purpose and not allowing for them to possibly return in future films. Finally, Xavier dies halfway through the film, thus depriving the film of one of its most charismatic performers and the possibility 0f examining the darker parts of his character which are only really hinted at during a scene in which he describes how he built up mental walls around Jean's mind, limiting her power in the process, for 'her own good'. This is just one of many examples where the film botches the chance for any decent characterisation. Having said that, Xavier's death does allow for a surprisingly revealing moment when Magneto chastises one of his underlings for mocking Xavier's death, reminding everyone that they were friends at one point and that they were not as different as you'd think. Admittedly this point is undermined by the mutant smackdown at the end of the film, but it's a surprisingly nice touch.
The character that best represents the missed opportunity of the film is Phoenix. If we look at the comics again, The Phoenix saga deals with Jean being possessed by an alien force named The Phoenix which, initially, seems only to enhance her powers and not have any other ill-efects. However, as time passes, it begins to take over her and she ends up destroying several planets, resulting in a war crimes tribunal in which Jean is put on trial for Phoenixes crimes and the saga ends with Jean sacrificing herself, rather than letting her friends die for her. Admittedly, trying to tell this story on screen wouldn't work since, like many Marvel stories, it's just fucking stupid. However, elements of it, namely the fact that Jean and Phoenix are separate entities are included in the film but never really fully explained. In the end it just seems like Jean is an irrational bitch. Admittedly, this explanation for her behaviour works if you want to view X-Men 3 as a rant against menstruation (Phoenix goes around wearing a RED cloak, see?The film take place over two or three days, eh?) but otherwise it is rather inadequate an explanation.
However, despite its many, many, many flaws, I can't help but enjoy it. I love the sheer ridiculousness of it all, the constant cliches, the fact that the President of the United States sounds like Sylvester the Cat (''Hell hasth no fury like a woman scthorned''), the stupid action sequences and the complete and utter lack of any subtlety in any form throughout the film. I even like how ridiculous the ending is, in which Wolverine is able to get close enough to Jean without being killed because he keeps healing, apparently doing so fast enough to not be completely obliterated like everyone else. It makes no sense, and in a way that makes it brilliant. Sure I'm disappointed that it isn't as good as the previous two films, but if I just try and forget about them and pretend the film has nothing in common with the other films, then it's an unintentionally hilarious film on a par with Reefer Madness or The Wicker Man remake. It's a bit like playing Battleships. For every ounce of enjoyment you eke out of it, you get a pound og frustration back. But I do rather enjoy a game of Battleships.
The Darkness - XBOX360/PS3
Following on from the criminally overlooked ‘Chronicles of Riddick’, Starbreeze present this heart warming tale of a boy and his demon squid monster.
On his 21st birthday, Jackie Estacado finds out that he’s being just been put at the top of a mafia hit list, whilst an ancient family curse forces him to be host to “The Darkness”, a creature that provides Jackie with the means to survive, but with plans of its own. The game begins like a typical FPS, quickly shifting into something far more unusual as the Darkness comes to Jackie’s aid in gruesome style. As the game progresses, the player seeks to protect Jackie from the mob whilst he must keep the Darkness at bay within.
It's not just the demonic powers that set this title apart: there are fantastic characters and storytelling, giving a powerful, cinematic experience. Strangely for a game that is so strongly focused on the narrative, side quests are available which often involve you deviating from your main arc. I say strangely simply because the game has an immaculate sense of tension, it does feel like Jackie is being hunted from all sides, yet he's more than happy to help a man get his harmonica back. They are a welcome diversion nonetheless, but could do with better integration into the storyline. They're not quite as frustrating as the recent "Oblivion" whereby the player could ignore the demon invasion for seemingly months on end without any negative repercussions, as those in The Darkness generally don't divert the player for as long.
Another strange but welcome diversion is in the use of televisions throughout the game, showing real TV shows and films. At one point, near the start, the character is invited to sit with his girlfriend and watch To Kill A Mockingbird. Not entirely sure if it was the whole film, but I got 10 minutes into it, which in itself is impressive. Despite this, one wonders whether the disk space could have been used more productively, given the game is only around seven hours, even on hard mode.
Speaking of which, Hard Mode is the only mode to play the game on for a challenge. Though it begins as a very hard game, the enemies never really become more powerful, whereas Jackie does. As he embraces the Darkness, he gains powers such as a tendril that can lift and throw cars as well the ability to summon a black hole, which can even bring down helicopters. This imbalance makes the last part of the game difficult to rate, though some will relish becoming the monster, as the enemies cower in fear.
The powers are fueled in two ways; through hiding in the dark and eating hearts of fallen enemies. The first provides a strange twist to the stealth genre, with Jackie having to create shadows as he progresses by breaking the lights out, the dark provides him with both cover and firepower. The latter allows Jackie to 'level up' in a sense, increasing the strength of the abilities used. This is done through a brutally gruesome animation, where the snake like heads of the Darkness rip into corpses and fight over the heart meat. It seems unnecessary after a while, but it adds a lot of character to the demon.
As well as these powers, Jackie can also summon minions called "Darklings", gibbering little goblin creatures that have a variety of applications and powers. Though they are a nice idea, they aren't very well implemented, very often they do not obey commands and wander off to do their own thing elsewhere. Whether this is a cigarette break or they just have no attention span is never explained, but one can only assume that this wasn't intentional in the programming.
The Darklings make a slightly better impression in the multiplayer mode, where players can shift between forms of human and darkling, the latter being unarmed but able to pounce and crawl along ceilings. In many respects, it's similar to Alien Vs Predator, but without the erm... Predator. Sadly, although it's a nice idea, the implementation is dreadful. If a patch was released after I played it, this section may warrant a re-evaluation.
Old film review: Event Horizon
I'd heard quite a lot about Event Horizon for a few years but never got around to watching it, simply because of two words: Paul Anderson. This is the director of such epics as Resident Evil and Alien Vs Predator, but I was assured that this was his good film. As well as this, favourable comparisons were given between Event Horizon and this years fantastic gloom fest, Sunshine.
The first thing that hits you about the movie is the soundtrack: bookended by mid nineties rave songs, they do little to help build atmosphere or tension, unless you have a phobia of such things. The film quickly recovers when it actually begins, with shades of films like Alien and Solaris, the dark setting suggests that judging Mr Anderson on later works may have been the wrong thing to do. Just think, if you judged Woody Allen on "Melinda and Melinda", you'd probably never have watched "Annie Hall".
Sadly, this is definitely a film of two halves- first being brooding and sinister, providing the occasional jump and being generally quite sinister. There's a moment in the medi-lab that's like "The Shining" in space, which is as weird as it sounds. Despite the creeping tension, the film still seems reliant on the old tactic of scares: lower the volume, then raise it very quickly with a bang. It works, but these are only cheap shots mixed in with some far more disturbing imagery.
There are some nice ideas within the film, some presented rather well and some not so. The Dune-esque space folding drive, was well explained and opened the door for the scarier elements to arrive. Equally nice was the hallucinatory feel of the visions presented by the ship to the crew members, making them relive painful memories. However, the vision of hell doesn't make sense- suggested to be a dimension of "pure chaos", it only seems to be violence. Chaos suggests anything could happen, rather than just pure nastiness (perhaps it should have been called that). If it were said to be filled with energy, power or even consciousness, then this may have made more sense. In addition to the logic, it doesn't make sense how/why someone would try to embrace this new dimension.
The acting is generally quite decent for the most part, despite being saddled with some strange dialogue (On walking into an empty room, "This place is like a tomb". This must be one of those ones without coffins). However, it descends into a poorly thought out romp as the ship becomes a hell vessel. Terminal stupidity seems to infect the crew, causing them to be picked off in fashions where it is difficult to care- anyone with vague intelligence would be able to avoid the traps laid, but the idiotic characters walk straight into them with the numbing inevitability of death itself. Plus, the showdown near the end is so bad, it's almost worth putting it as a point of comic recommendation.
In some ways, I don't want to be too harsh as it is infinitely better than his later films, but this earlier effort is still grossly flawed. It's a shame, as the first half is actually really rather good too, but like many similar films it's let down by its own conclusion.
The first thing that hits you about the movie is the soundtrack: bookended by mid nineties rave songs, they do little to help build atmosphere or tension, unless you have a phobia of such things. The film quickly recovers when it actually begins, with shades of films like Alien and Solaris, the dark setting suggests that judging Mr Anderson on later works may have been the wrong thing to do. Just think, if you judged Woody Allen on "Melinda and Melinda", you'd probably never have watched "Annie Hall".
Sadly, this is definitely a film of two halves- first being brooding and sinister, providing the occasional jump and being generally quite sinister. There's a moment in the medi-lab that's like "The Shining" in space, which is as weird as it sounds. Despite the creeping tension, the film still seems reliant on the old tactic of scares: lower the volume, then raise it very quickly with a bang. It works, but these are only cheap shots mixed in with some far more disturbing imagery.
There are some nice ideas within the film, some presented rather well and some not so. The Dune-esque space folding drive, was well explained and opened the door for the scarier elements to arrive. Equally nice was the hallucinatory feel of the visions presented by the ship to the crew members, making them relive painful memories. However, the vision of hell doesn't make sense- suggested to be a dimension of "pure chaos", it only seems to be violence. Chaos suggests anything could happen, rather than just pure nastiness (perhaps it should have been called that). If it were said to be filled with energy, power or even consciousness, then this may have made more sense. In addition to the logic, it doesn't make sense how/why someone would try to embrace this new dimension.
The acting is generally quite decent for the most part, despite being saddled with some strange dialogue (On walking into an empty room, "This place is like a tomb". This must be one of those ones without coffins). However, it descends into a poorly thought out romp as the ship becomes a hell vessel. Terminal stupidity seems to infect the crew, causing them to be picked off in fashions where it is difficult to care- anyone with vague intelligence would be able to avoid the traps laid, but the idiotic characters walk straight into them with the numbing inevitability of death itself. Plus, the showdown near the end is so bad, it's almost worth putting it as a point of comic recommendation.
In some ways, I don't want to be too harsh as it is infinitely better than his later films, but this earlier effort is still grossly flawed. It's a shame, as the first half is actually really rather good too, but like many similar films it's let down by its own conclusion.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Second Chance Film Club: Citizen Kane
Hello again, welcome to the first of what will be a semi-regular feature (depending on whether or not I own the films in question and how quickly Lovefilm can deliver them) in which I, or Neil, depending on who wants to write for it, will watch films which we have dismissed in the past and re-evaluate them to see if, however unlikely it may seem, we were wrong about the films in question. It also offers up a chance to watch films we may have previously raved about to see if they are actually any good.
In keeping with this momentous occasion, we have to start with a big target and there can be few bigger than Orson Welles’ 1941 debut film, one considered by many smart film types such as Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode to be the greatest film of all time, Citizen Kane, a film which I have in the past dismissed as dull, plodding and terribly over-rated.
Since this article is going to involve looking at the film in quite a considerable amount of detail, it goes without saying that it will contain spoilers and discussion of the minutiae of the plot. You have been warned.
Now, I’d just like to establish the context of my first viewing of the film. I was 18, had just returned from my first semester at the University of Sheffield and was only just starting to get interested in films on any serious level. Whilst I’m now only 21, I’d like to point out that I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of films since, so on my first viewing I wasn’t completely aware of how influential Citizen Kane is as a film. I was also largely unaware of Orson Welles’ other output and the well-documented decline of his career following the release of Citizen Kane. Essentially, I didn’t really know how central to the story of cinema Citizen Kane is. So, now that I am more able to grasp these factors, I sat down and watched the film again.
First off, the technical innovations of the film are quite staggering and the praise heaped upon the film for the way in which it changed the very nature of film-making, in terms of camera techniques, narrative and the use of sound, is completely and utterly warranted. The use of deep-focus photographer by Welles (a cinematic technique where everything on screen is in focus, rather than having objects in the back-or-foreground blur) creates a stark and cold vision of the world which perfectly suits the story, one of isolation and personal destruction. The technique had been used before, most notably in Erich von Stronheim's epic, 9 hour long film Greed, but Kane really showed the possibilities of it and deep focus photographer is now frequently used. Elsewhere, the film features a number of innovations which nowadays are among some of the basic techniques of film-making; Citizen Kane saw one of the first instances of a film illustrating the passage of time by having actos change clothing and make-up whilst sitting in a single set. Before then, most films used speeches full of exposition or title cards to the effect of ‘Ten years later’ to achieve the same effect. Citizen Kane is littered with little moments and innovations which show just how much of an impact it has had on the very basic and central tenets of film-making. It’s really impossible to imagine how film would look today had Orson Welles not stepped behind the camera. Even porn films owe a considerable debt to it. Admittedly I’m no expert on pre-1941 pornographic films, but I imagine it was all pretty unimpressive.
The story of the film, following the efforts of a reporter to discover the meaning behind the dying words of newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane (Welles), is similarly inventive. As the reporter travels around and meets people who knew Kane, the story of his life unfolds in front of the audience but, rather than have it all revealed chronologically, the facts of Kane’s life are told out of sequence, leaving it to the audience to assemble the pieces themselves. This also allows for Welles to contrast certain events in Kane’s life and create a terrific sense of irony about them. For example, we learn that Kane’s first newspaper failed before we actually see how Kane got his start as a newspaperman. When we are shown Kane’s younger years, his youthful enthusiasm and enormous self-belief as he starts to build his empire is already tempered by the fact that we as an audience already know that the paper runs into financial difficulties down the line and, thanks to the newsreel that opens the film, that Kane has already reached his peak in life and that all he has ahead of him is a steady, inexorable and terrible decline. Considering the huge number of films made since which have used unconventional narrative structures, it is easy to see Citizen Kane’s influence on how stories could be told on screen.
At the time of its release, and even now, this was quite an unusual and brave storytelling technique since it is very demanding of the audience, requiring them to actively think about the film, rather than passively accept the events onscreen. In doing so, it requires them to constantly construct, deconstruct and reconstruct their opinions of events in the film and how this impacts on the characters. To get even the slightest bit of enjoyment or understanding from the film requires the complete attention of the audience and there are no concessions made, even going so far as to never tell the audience when exactly events in Kane’s life happen. It was this aspect of it which put me off the film originally, though now I can see it is very brave and innovative, even if it is a bit infuriating and prevents Citizen Kane from being a film you can just stick on a Sunday afternoon and switch off to.
However, it is very easy to gush over the technical merits of the film and its influence and, in doing so, ignore its failings. Some of which result from the very techniques I’ve spent so long enthusing over. The use of deep focus photography, for example, distances the audience from the characters of screen. Because deep focus photgraphy creates an image of the world which is so well defined, moreso than the human eye can actually achieve, it brings attention to the fact that the audience is watching a film, that the people on screen are fictional, and this makes the already cold and sterile world Kane occupies even more distant, creating a sense of emotional detachment from the events on screen. That the characters themselves are pretty dislikable in the first place makes it difficult to empathise with them. The story itself presents something of a problem for the film because it follows the decline of a man who is just too likeable and charismatic, whatever Welles' intentions when the film was made, and that's something which makes for rather sad viewing.
The acting is also quite suspect. Aside from Welles, whose progression from an over the top, youthful Kane to a quiet and bitter old man is perfectly suited to the story, and Joseph Cotton, who is wonderfully subdued as Kane’s oldest, and possibly only friend, Jebediah Leland, the performances from most of the principle cast tend to be horribly hammy, even by the standards of Golden Age Hollywood, a time not renowned for subtle performances. One particular moment when a character screams quite loudly ‘‘hey, let’s look out the window’’ as a host of newspaper workers make their way to see Kane and his new fiancée outside, feels parodic, so bad and misplaced is the emphasis and so unnecessary is the line. Further compounding this is the worrying propensity of the cast to look directly at the camera, rather than at each other or at events off-screen. Whether or not this is intentional is unclear, the film as a whole is, after all, an attempt to play with form and the conventions of film, but these moments are still very distracting and make the acting seem rather amateurish, undermining the rest of the film. Both of these shortcomings probably stem from the fact that much of the cast had been brought over by Welles from his stint at the Mercury Theatre company in New York, so a certain staginess in their performances in understandable, if not wholly forgivable.
Probably the biggest mark against Citizen Kane is one not of its own doing. The problem is that it has accrued such a reputation over the years, has become so universally accliamed as a classic, and has been so thoroughly referenced and parodied in the last sixty-six years that there is no real surprise in it. This is primarily the fault of The Simpsons, the writers of which have repeatedly claimed that if you were to collect all their Citizen Kane’s homages together in one place, you’d have pretty much the entire film. Considering the ubiquity of the Simpsons in modern culture, that means that large portions of the film have already been seen by people who would usually have no interest in watching old films.
The most damaging aspect of this, as far as the narrative of the film is concerned, is that hardly anyone doesn’t know that ‘Rosebud’ is Kane’s sled which he left behind when, as a boy, he was taken from his family. As such a lot of the mystery surrounding the reporter’s search is lost and, as with any film with an important twist, the experience of the viewer is affected by it. If, on first viewing, someone doesn’t know what Rosebud is, they are more caught up in the mystery and the search for it and, when the revelation eventually comes, they are forced to reassess their opinions of the film and, most crucially, Kane’s character, since his pining for Rosebud, and the lost childhood it represents, reveals the hollowness of Kane’s life and underpins the film’s central message that the quest for money and power is, ultimately, futile. Admittedly watching the film and already knowing the ending doesn’t detract from the other things the film does well, but it does affect the emotional impact of the end and removes an extra chance for the audience to contemplate the actual events of the film. Knowing the ending removes the need to reconsider it, and in doing so deflates the mystery at the centre of what is, essentially, a detective film.
So what, at the end of it all, has changed about my opinion of Citizen Kane. The most influential film of all time? Almost certainly. The greatest film of all time? Arguably. The best film of all time? Not really. It’s sluggish, difficult to empathise with and the technical innovations can’t hide the shortcomings of it. It does have dozens of moments which have, quite rightly, become part of film lore and it still fizzes with the energy and enthusiasm of all those involved, particularly those who had never made a film before. It’s too uneven to be considered the best film of all time, but it’s hard to envisage a world without it.
In keeping with this momentous occasion, we have to start with a big target and there can be few bigger than Orson Welles’ 1941 debut film, one considered by many smart film types such as Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode to be the greatest film of all time, Citizen Kane, a film which I have in the past dismissed as dull, plodding and terribly over-rated.
Since this article is going to involve looking at the film in quite a considerable amount of detail, it goes without saying that it will contain spoilers and discussion of the minutiae of the plot. You have been warned.
Now, I’d just like to establish the context of my first viewing of the film. I was 18, had just returned from my first semester at the University of Sheffield and was only just starting to get interested in films on any serious level. Whilst I’m now only 21, I’d like to point out that I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of films since, so on my first viewing I wasn’t completely aware of how influential Citizen Kane is as a film. I was also largely unaware of Orson Welles’ other output and the well-documented decline of his career following the release of Citizen Kane. Essentially, I didn’t really know how central to the story of cinema Citizen Kane is. So, now that I am more able to grasp these factors, I sat down and watched the film again.
First off, the technical innovations of the film are quite staggering and the praise heaped upon the film for the way in which it changed the very nature of film-making, in terms of camera techniques, narrative and the use of sound, is completely and utterly warranted. The use of deep-focus photographer by Welles (a cinematic technique where everything on screen is in focus, rather than having objects in the back-or-foreground blur) creates a stark and cold vision of the world which perfectly suits the story, one of isolation and personal destruction. The technique had been used before, most notably in Erich von Stronheim's epic, 9 hour long film Greed, but Kane really showed the possibilities of it and deep focus photographer is now frequently used. Elsewhere, the film features a number of innovations which nowadays are among some of the basic techniques of film-making; Citizen Kane saw one of the first instances of a film illustrating the passage of time by having actos change clothing and make-up whilst sitting in a single set. Before then, most films used speeches full of exposition or title cards to the effect of ‘Ten years later’ to achieve the same effect. Citizen Kane is littered with little moments and innovations which show just how much of an impact it has had on the very basic and central tenets of film-making. It’s really impossible to imagine how film would look today had Orson Welles not stepped behind the camera. Even porn films owe a considerable debt to it. Admittedly I’m no expert on pre-1941 pornographic films, but I imagine it was all pretty unimpressive.
The story of the film, following the efforts of a reporter to discover the meaning behind the dying words of newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane (Welles), is similarly inventive. As the reporter travels around and meets people who knew Kane, the story of his life unfolds in front of the audience but, rather than have it all revealed chronologically, the facts of Kane’s life are told out of sequence, leaving it to the audience to assemble the pieces themselves. This also allows for Welles to contrast certain events in Kane’s life and create a terrific sense of irony about them. For example, we learn that Kane’s first newspaper failed before we actually see how Kane got his start as a newspaperman. When we are shown Kane’s younger years, his youthful enthusiasm and enormous self-belief as he starts to build his empire is already tempered by the fact that we as an audience already know that the paper runs into financial difficulties down the line and, thanks to the newsreel that opens the film, that Kane has already reached his peak in life and that all he has ahead of him is a steady, inexorable and terrible decline. Considering the huge number of films made since which have used unconventional narrative structures, it is easy to see Citizen Kane’s influence on how stories could be told on screen.
At the time of its release, and even now, this was quite an unusual and brave storytelling technique since it is very demanding of the audience, requiring them to actively think about the film, rather than passively accept the events onscreen. In doing so, it requires them to constantly construct, deconstruct and reconstruct their opinions of events in the film and how this impacts on the characters. To get even the slightest bit of enjoyment or understanding from the film requires the complete attention of the audience and there are no concessions made, even going so far as to never tell the audience when exactly events in Kane’s life happen. It was this aspect of it which put me off the film originally, though now I can see it is very brave and innovative, even if it is a bit infuriating and prevents Citizen Kane from being a film you can just stick on a Sunday afternoon and switch off to.
However, it is very easy to gush over the technical merits of the film and its influence and, in doing so, ignore its failings. Some of which result from the very techniques I’ve spent so long enthusing over. The use of deep focus photography, for example, distances the audience from the characters of screen. Because deep focus photgraphy creates an image of the world which is so well defined, moreso than the human eye can actually achieve, it brings attention to the fact that the audience is watching a film, that the people on screen are fictional, and this makes the already cold and sterile world Kane occupies even more distant, creating a sense of emotional detachment from the events on screen. That the characters themselves are pretty dislikable in the first place makes it difficult to empathise with them. The story itself presents something of a problem for the film because it follows the decline of a man who is just too likeable and charismatic, whatever Welles' intentions when the film was made, and that's something which makes for rather sad viewing.
The acting is also quite suspect. Aside from Welles, whose progression from an over the top, youthful Kane to a quiet and bitter old man is perfectly suited to the story, and Joseph Cotton, who is wonderfully subdued as Kane’s oldest, and possibly only friend, Jebediah Leland, the performances from most of the principle cast tend to be horribly hammy, even by the standards of Golden Age Hollywood, a time not renowned for subtle performances. One particular moment when a character screams quite loudly ‘‘hey, let’s look out the window’’ as a host of newspaper workers make their way to see Kane and his new fiancée outside, feels parodic, so bad and misplaced is the emphasis and so unnecessary is the line. Further compounding this is the worrying propensity of the cast to look directly at the camera, rather than at each other or at events off-screen. Whether or not this is intentional is unclear, the film as a whole is, after all, an attempt to play with form and the conventions of film, but these moments are still very distracting and make the acting seem rather amateurish, undermining the rest of the film. Both of these shortcomings probably stem from the fact that much of the cast had been brought over by Welles from his stint at the Mercury Theatre company in New York, so a certain staginess in their performances in understandable, if not wholly forgivable.
Probably the biggest mark against Citizen Kane is one not of its own doing. The problem is that it has accrued such a reputation over the years, has become so universally accliamed as a classic, and has been so thoroughly referenced and parodied in the last sixty-six years that there is no real surprise in it. This is primarily the fault of The Simpsons, the writers of which have repeatedly claimed that if you were to collect all their Citizen Kane’s homages together in one place, you’d have pretty much the entire film. Considering the ubiquity of the Simpsons in modern culture, that means that large portions of the film have already been seen by people who would usually have no interest in watching old films.
The most damaging aspect of this, as far as the narrative of the film is concerned, is that hardly anyone doesn’t know that ‘Rosebud’ is Kane’s sled which he left behind when, as a boy, he was taken from his family. As such a lot of the mystery surrounding the reporter’s search is lost and, as with any film with an important twist, the experience of the viewer is affected by it. If, on first viewing, someone doesn’t know what Rosebud is, they are more caught up in the mystery and the search for it and, when the revelation eventually comes, they are forced to reassess their opinions of the film and, most crucially, Kane’s character, since his pining for Rosebud, and the lost childhood it represents, reveals the hollowness of Kane’s life and underpins the film’s central message that the quest for money and power is, ultimately, futile. Admittedly watching the film and already knowing the ending doesn’t detract from the other things the film does well, but it does affect the emotional impact of the end and removes an extra chance for the audience to contemplate the actual events of the film. Knowing the ending removes the need to reconsider it, and in doing so deflates the mystery at the centre of what is, essentially, a detective film.
So what, at the end of it all, has changed about my opinion of Citizen Kane. The most influential film of all time? Almost certainly. The greatest film of all time? Arguably. The best film of all time? Not really. It’s sluggish, difficult to empathise with and the technical innovations can’t hide the shortcomings of it. It does have dozens of moments which have, quite rightly, become part of film lore and it still fizzes with the energy and enthusiasm of all those involved, particularly those who had never made a film before. It’s too uneven to be considered the best film of all time, but it’s hard to envisage a world without it.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Coming Soon: The Second Chance Film Club
Whilst on holiday in Florida last month, I purchased a cheap copy of Citizen Kane. This will come as a surprise to some people because I have repeatedly said that I consider it to be a horribly overrated movie, though I do still consider Welles to have been a horribly talented man, I've never thought much of his much-vaunted debut. However, I bought the DVD because a) it was cheap, b) it was a version you can't get over here which boasts a commentary by legendary film critic Roger Ebert, and c) because I really felt like I needed to give the film a second chance.
So, following this logic, I've decided to start a feature whereby I watch films which I have previously dismissed as overrated or terrible and post my thoughts on them having sat down and watched them again. This is a rather good feature as far as I'm concerned because it allows me to have my cake and eat it. If, on second viewing, I decide that the film is fantastic and reappraise my original view, I will have had agood experience and be able to wax lyrical about the merits of the film. If I decide that I was right all along and the film is overrated or terrible, then I get to smugly lecture people about how I am right and they are wrong.
To counteract this, I will mix it up so that I will also watch films I have raved about after seeing only once and childhood favourites so that I will be forced to face my worst mistakes. I imagine this will be particularly bitter when I have to review X-Men 3, which I wrote a moronically positive review of when it was first released and which, so far, hasn't come back to bite me in the arse yet, so I'll pre-empt it by watching it in a few weeks time.
First up, though, will be Citizen Kane since it was the impetus for all of it and I'll post back about that sometime in the next week.
So, following this logic, I've decided to start a feature whereby I watch films which I have previously dismissed as overrated or terrible and post my thoughts on them having sat down and watched them again. This is a rather good feature as far as I'm concerned because it allows me to have my cake and eat it. If, on second viewing, I decide that the film is fantastic and reappraise my original view, I will have had agood experience and be able to wax lyrical about the merits of the film. If I decide that I was right all along and the film is overrated or terrible, then I get to smugly lecture people about how I am right and they are wrong.
To counteract this, I will mix it up so that I will also watch films I have raved about after seeing only once and childhood favourites so that I will be forced to face my worst mistakes. I imagine this will be particularly bitter when I have to review X-Men 3, which I wrote a moronically positive review of when it was first released and which, so far, hasn't come back to bite me in the arse yet, so I'll pre-empt it by watching it in a few weeks time.
First up, though, will be Citizen Kane since it was the impetus for all of it and I'll post back about that sometime in the next week.
A look to the future...Cloverfield
If you were lucky enough to see the new Transformers movie at the cinema, by my mind the best action blockbuster in recent memory, then you may have been treated to a glimpse of the forthcoming J.J. Abrams movie. This, incidentally, is all you find out from the trailer as they elusively withhold the name. However, a quick search for the Mission Impossible 3 helmer on IMDB reveals the working title "Cloverfield", a name that is less than inspiring in itself.
So what's to be excited about? Well for a start, the trailer itself was more atmospheric in two minutes than most films manage to generate across their entire run time. A feel of the atmosphere is all you really get from the trailer, but it's enough to sell it. The sense of impending doom is so tangible it almost warrants a rendition of Invader Zim's "Doom Song".
In addition to this the trailer only suggests at what the film could be about, rather joining in with the exciting phenomena of the Spoiler Fest™ telling the audience everything they need to know before they see the film. "Notes on a Scandal” and "300" were recent examples of this, leaving only exposition to link the plot points you already knew, then adding an epilogue.
As the city lights up, people begin to scream "It's alive!" and such like, which one would hope dispels the real horror show of a natural disaster movie. There hasn't been a big one for a while, so it would be disappointing if this is a comeback for a hopefully dead genre.
Still, the team behind Lost should be given the benefit of the doubt. As part of a new wave of dark, intelligent US Dramas (see the Battlestar Gallactica remake, Dead Wood and Heroes for more examples), Lost managed to be abstract and layered, whilst being accessible to main stream audiences. In an age where programmes analysing toilets are becoming worryingly popular, it was a refreshing change. Even though the series was overly stretched out, it constantly shifted viewer expectations, answering each question that it raised with three more, like some kind of interrogatory hydra.
Check out the trailer below and I'm sure you'll agree it's one to watch for 2008. Especially if they make the name sound a little less like a butter brand in the meantime...
So what's to be excited about? Well for a start, the trailer itself was more atmospheric in two minutes than most films manage to generate across their entire run time. A feel of the atmosphere is all you really get from the trailer, but it's enough to sell it. The sense of impending doom is so tangible it almost warrants a rendition of Invader Zim's "Doom Song".
In addition to this the trailer only suggests at what the film could be about, rather joining in with the exciting phenomena of the Spoiler Fest™ telling the audience everything they need to know before they see the film. "Notes on a Scandal” and "300" were recent examples of this, leaving only exposition to link the plot points you already knew, then adding an epilogue.
As the city lights up, people begin to scream "It's alive!" and such like, which one would hope dispels the real horror show of a natural disaster movie. There hasn't been a big one for a while, so it would be disappointing if this is a comeback for a hopefully dead genre.
Still, the team behind Lost should be given the benefit of the doubt. As part of a new wave of dark, intelligent US Dramas (see the Battlestar Gallactica remake, Dead Wood and Heroes for more examples), Lost managed to be abstract and layered, whilst being accessible to main stream audiences. In an age where programmes analysing toilets are becoming worryingly popular, it was a refreshing change. Even though the series was overly stretched out, it constantly shifted viewer expectations, answering each question that it raised with three more, like some kind of interrogatory hydra.
Check out the trailer below and I'm sure you'll agree it's one to watch for 2008. Especially if they make the name sound a little less like a butter brand in the meantime...
Monday, August 06, 2007
Give us Europeans a bit of a break, please?
In the last year or so, I've noticed that there is quite a considerable movement in television towards interactivity and intercontextuality, by which I mean the creation of content online which enriches the experience of the viewer by either offering insights into characters, such as the webcomics that have appeared online for Heroes, or by getting the audience to become actively involved in the show, something which Lost has repeatedly used to great effect.
What's quite nice about this stuff is that it isn't actually necessary, it's just a little something extra for people who want to get a bit more out of watching TV but which ultimately would not detract from the viewer's enjoyment or understanding of the show. Really and truthfully, it's a brilliant idea and one which heralds a new age for cult television and suggests that networks are starting to utilise the internet as a tool to get the viewers even more sucked into the worlds of their favourite TV shows.
However, there is something wrong with this idea which I personally have found rather annoying, these sites and features are all geared solely towards US audiences. This is, of course, necessary since that is where the shows air first and which provides a huge market for the shows that utilise the internet in such an innovative way, but is it too much to ask for European versions of these features? Having to rely on US sites can either lead to spoilers or end up just being horribly confusing.
An example. As I've already said, Heroes uses extra features such as webcomics to flesh out the already rather splendid universe created in the show itself, even going so far as to set up myspace accounts for two of its teenage characters, Claire Bennett (the cheerleader that has to be saved to save the world) and Zack, her best friend. On the one hand, these accounts are quite cute, revealing what sort of music the characters listen to and what films they like, but on the other hand they act as useful insights into the minds of the characters. I imagine that seeing blog entries appear in accordance with events in the episodes would be a real treat for fans of the show and, if you show self restraint and look at them in order, then they still are. However, in the case of Zack's myspace profile, you get a fairly major spoiler about events relating to him and Claire which, whilst quite clever and funny, would be a terrible thing to find out if you were watching the series for the first time.
An even more infuriating, and downright mind-boggling, example would be the website set up for the fictional Dharma Institute, the shady organisation behind the strange goings on in loose Celebrity Love Island reimagining Lost. By entering in certain passwords, you get to see extra content relating to events in the show and, whilst it doesn't really make that much sense, it's still a pretty cool addition. However, since the site responds (or responded, I haven't checked in a while) to events on episodes being screened in the US, and with no way of accessing the former content, the site only served to make an already willfully obscure show even more annoying.
I know it's a bit much to expect separate myspace accounts for different countries, especially since they don't really spoil anything if you can show even a modicrum of self-respect, but what's wrong with a UK version of the Dharma site? Surely they must have fictional offices in fictional England which will need a fictional website overseen by a chubby, fictional webmaster. Is that too much to ask to provide loyal viewers, who don't want to download, with an extra level of enjoyment from a show?
Yes, probably, but I might as well ask.
What's quite nice about this stuff is that it isn't actually necessary, it's just a little something extra for people who want to get a bit more out of watching TV but which ultimately would not detract from the viewer's enjoyment or understanding of the show. Really and truthfully, it's a brilliant idea and one which heralds a new age for cult television and suggests that networks are starting to utilise the internet as a tool to get the viewers even more sucked into the worlds of their favourite TV shows.
However, there is something wrong with this idea which I personally have found rather annoying, these sites and features are all geared solely towards US audiences. This is, of course, necessary since that is where the shows air first and which provides a huge market for the shows that utilise the internet in such an innovative way, but is it too much to ask for European versions of these features? Having to rely on US sites can either lead to spoilers or end up just being horribly confusing.
An example. As I've already said, Heroes uses extra features such as webcomics to flesh out the already rather splendid universe created in the show itself, even going so far as to set up myspace accounts for two of its teenage characters, Claire Bennett (the cheerleader that has to be saved to save the world) and Zack, her best friend. On the one hand, these accounts are quite cute, revealing what sort of music the characters listen to and what films they like, but on the other hand they act as useful insights into the minds of the characters. I imagine that seeing blog entries appear in accordance with events in the episodes would be a real treat for fans of the show and, if you show self restraint and look at them in order, then they still are. However, in the case of Zack's myspace profile, you get a fairly major spoiler about events relating to him and Claire which, whilst quite clever and funny, would be a terrible thing to find out if you were watching the series for the first time.
An even more infuriating, and downright mind-boggling, example would be the website set up for the fictional Dharma Institute, the shady organisation behind the strange goings on in loose Celebrity Love Island reimagining Lost. By entering in certain passwords, you get to see extra content relating to events in the show and, whilst it doesn't really make that much sense, it's still a pretty cool addition. However, since the site responds (or responded, I haven't checked in a while) to events on episodes being screened in the US, and with no way of accessing the former content, the site only served to make an already willfully obscure show even more annoying.
I know it's a bit much to expect separate myspace accounts for different countries, especially since they don't really spoil anything if you can show even a modicrum of self-respect, but what's wrong with a UK version of the Dharma site? Surely they must have fictional offices in fictional England which will need a fictional website overseen by a chubby, fictional webmaster. Is that too much to ask to provide loyal viewers, who don't want to download, with an extra level of enjoyment from a show?
Yes, probably, but I might as well ask.
A thought, shared.
When bus companies "revise" fares, do they ever revise them down? Seriously, it only ever goes up, unless they cut the service down. Then they lower it, just to raise it later.
Example of this- Bus company (called so to disguise the true identity) didn't sell return tickets, but charge £1.50 to go each way. People complain so they introduce the return fair at £3, and raise the individual price to £1.60.
That's the kind of customer focus that I like to see...
Example of this- Bus company (called so to disguise the true identity) didn't sell return tickets, but charge £1.50 to go each way. People complain so they introduce the return fair at £3, and raise the individual price to £1.60.
That's the kind of customer focus that I like to see...
Sunday, August 05, 2007
The only good reason to teach religion in schools
I had a secular upbringing, my Dad is Catholic and my Mum is CoE so I imagine they never tried to force either doctrine onto me or my sister for fear of it leading to marital strife. I went to several different schools as a kid, ranging from Church of England, red jumper and prayers in the morning types, to state schools in downtrodden areas of Coventry where the only God was the kid that could throw the biggest brick first. As such I've never really felt as if I missed out on a religious education and have failed to really see the need for it to be taught in schools.
Until now.
Whilst doing a pub quiz at my local, and doing quite well thanks to a round based solely on TV and film themes, I was confronted with a round entitled ''Religious Fifths'', in which several questions relating to religion were asked and at the end of which would spell out a final answer (which, in case you were wondering, was Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible from which the round got its name). Needless to say, I did not do well.
Never before has a lack of religious education impinged upon my life and now I feel cheated. I wouldn't have won if I had known some of the answers, admittedly, but I could have had a shot at getting my pound entrance fee back. I was quite pleased that I knew the answers my teammates were going to put down, Hannukah and Ramadan, were wrong, but it's the ever elusive right answers that haunt my every waking moments. Not my sleep, though, that's my time.
It's too late for me because, quite frankly, I've got better things to do than read the Bible. Building a large house of cards or counting the bumps on my living room ceiling, for example. But it's not too late for my descendants! They shall have a good knowledge of religion so that never again will the Davies family be tripped up by our lack of knowledge on religious matters, though we'll probably still be pretty hopeless on 80s one-hit wonders.
Oh, and no one else should learn about religion. It's a collection of myths and half-truths lost to time designed to control people by exploiting the wonderful capacity of humans to believe in the fantastical. But I'll be damned if I'll lose a pub quiz based on it!
Until now.
Whilst doing a pub quiz at my local, and doing quite well thanks to a round based solely on TV and film themes, I was confronted with a round entitled ''Religious Fifths'', in which several questions relating to religion were asked and at the end of which would spell out a final answer (which, in case you were wondering, was Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible from which the round got its name). Needless to say, I did not do well.
Never before has a lack of religious education impinged upon my life and now I feel cheated. I wouldn't have won if I had known some of the answers, admittedly, but I could have had a shot at getting my pound entrance fee back. I was quite pleased that I knew the answers my teammates were going to put down, Hannukah and Ramadan, were wrong, but it's the ever elusive right answers that haunt my every waking moments. Not my sleep, though, that's my time.
It's too late for me because, quite frankly, I've got better things to do than read the Bible. Building a large house of cards or counting the bumps on my living room ceiling, for example. But it's not too late for my descendants! They shall have a good knowledge of religion so that never again will the Davies family be tripped up by our lack of knowledge on religious matters, though we'll probably still be pretty hopeless on 80s one-hit wonders.
Oh, and no one else should learn about religion. It's a collection of myths and half-truths lost to time designed to control people by exploiting the wonderful capacity of humans to believe in the fantastical. But I'll be damned if I'll lose a pub quiz based on it!
An introduction and a Film Review
Oh, so this is the blogosphere. It's so shiny! Hello, I'm Ed, the other contributor here and formerly the co-host of A Mighty Fine Shindig. Admittedly I was only there in the twilight days of the show, but that still kinda counts. Anyway, I just wanted to say a brief howdy before posting my first review and I have done. So, here's the review of the sleeper hit pregnancy comedy (a rather specialised sub-genre, it has to be said) Knocked Up, which I saw in America on holiday and which will be hitting UK cinemas later this month.
And, before anyone points it out, I have posted this review elsewhere and I will do it again because I am very, very lazy. Sorry for the horribly portentous beginning but I'm in a portentous mood at the moment.
Knocked Up
In an age where marketing has become such a pervasive force in movies, the idea of a film dropping out of nowhere to become a hit is an all too rare occurence and one which is more often than not unappreciated. This has become particularly obvious this summer as the ceaseless march of sequels, all with blanket marketing campaigns aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, has made for a rather depressingly dull couple of months at the cinema. It is with great pleasure, then, that I was able to sit down and watch the first genuine surprise of the blockbuster season, Knocked Up, which has already taken the US by storm, and hits UK cinemas on August 24th.
To say that the success of Knocked Up in the US is a surprise would be an understatement; released against a host of films with bigger stars and bigger budgets, a script littered with pop culture references, both mainstream and obscure, utilising a particular vein of adult-orientated humour but dealing with a story which the audience most often associated with that kind of humour (twentysomething males. Possibly stoned, probably drunk) might not get, or particularly want to think about; conceiving a child after a one night stand and the effect that has on the lives of those involved. Not exactly Old School now, is it?
The story revolves around Ben (Seth Rogen), a lazy stoner who plans to become an internet millionaire by setting up a website with his equally lazy and stoned friends, and Alison (Katherine Heigl) an up-and-coming presenter on the E! entertainment network. The two meet at a bar and end up sleeping together and, following a rather awkward morning after, seem destined to never meet again. Until Alison starts feeling nauseous in the mornings and takes a pregnancy test. The two are then thrown together as they try to become a couple and work out how to deal with their impending parenthood.
This would seem to be the plot for a more serious movie or perhaps a quirky inependent film. However, director/writer Judd Apatow already demonstrated in his previous film, The 40-Year Old Virgin, that he can take subjects others might consider unsuitable for comedy and turn them in veritable goldmines of snappy one-liners, believable characters and hilarious situations.
Apatow is largely successful at creating a reverse rom-com; the sex and children come first, then the relationship starts. After a slow start in which the two protagonists are established, the huge laughs fly thick and fast, coming from both the main characters and the supporting cast which consists of some of the finest comedic talent currently being ignored by most Americans. Their are great cameos from former Ghostbuster Harold Ramis as Ben's father, Korean-American stand-up Ken Jeong as a rather unnerving gynaecologist and Alan Tydyk (known to some as Wash in Firefly, and to considerably more people as Steve The Pirate from Dodgeball) as a television executive. The real scenestealer is Paul Rudd as Alison's brother-in-law, Pete, who waltzes off with every single scene he is in and has some wonderful chemistry with Rogen. These and many more minor characters add to a surprisingly rich and character-driven narrative which only occasionally drifts away from the story.
However, on the occasions that the film does move away from the story, it slows down markedly and the laughs decrease as a result. At various points in the film it shifts focus to the unhappy relationship between Alison's sister Debbie (Debbie Long) and Pete. Whilst these moments do present an interesting examination of what might happen to Ben and Alison if they stay together, they more often than not cause sudden and disorientating shifts in mood that jar with the light tone shown throughout the rest of the film. Admittedly these moments tend to be quite brief and are always followed by more moments of hilarity, but getting through them can be a chore. It doesn't help that the more confrontational moments, such as arguments between Alison and Pete, can be uncomfortable to watch. Almost as bad, though slightly funnier, are the moments when the film shifts to a more heartfelt, almost mawkish, sentimentalism when characters have 'heart-to-hearts' which, whilst not as bad as they could be, detract from the comedy. These moments give the film an uneven tone which will probably be less noticeable after multiple viewings, but on first watch makes the film an unusual and unpredictable enterprise, and not necessarily in a good way.
The film also suffers whenever it moves away from any of the main male characters. The scenes in which Ben interacts with Pete or any of his drug-addled friends are uniformly hilarious, as indeed are many of the scenes between male and female characters, but it appears that Apatow struggles whenever he has to write scenes which are exclusively for women. The best example of this can be seen about three-quarters of the way into the film, when Ben and Pete head to Vegas for some time away and Alison and Debbie go out clubbing. Whilst out gallivanting the two pairs both have tête-à-tête's about their fears, concerns and relationships but whilst those between Ben and Pete are by turns hilarious and genuinely heartfelt, demonstrating a terrific insight into the male psyche on the part of Apatow, Alison and Debbie's scenes never really go anywhere and deliver up some annoyingly stereotypical ''hysterical women'' moments. In a film that otherwise remains quite refreshing, such moments really stand out and make you cry out for more Pete and Ben moments.
However, these moments of unwarranted seriousness or saccharine ramblings are all part of the build up to the final moments of the film, adding to the emotional impact of the birth, a scene which is very touching and sweet. The elation of all those involved feels very real thanks to the more serious moments seen earlier in the film, and the pay-off feels incredibly gratifying for the audience as well. Before anyone complains, that's not a spoiler; the film was never realistically going to be only twenty minutes long and end with Alison having an abortion, though the issue is raised and dealt with with a surprising lightness of touch early on in the film.
Knocked Up is not quite deserving of the hype being thrust upon it, but that shouldn't distract from the fact that it is a smartly-written comedy which focuses on characters rather than cheap gags, but isn't afraid to throw a few around where necessary, and which is also emotionally involving. The shifts in mood and tone are jarring but are integral to the emotional punch of the final moments, and the whole package is a crass, charming, infantile, endearing and heartfelt film which is a real joy behold.
Be warned though; it's incredibly media-savvy and a lot of the references may be obscure to some people, so before you see the film, google Matisyahu, Swingers (the movie, not the sexual practice) and Back To The Future. The least media-savvy amongst you might benefit from googling Google. It's not a necessity to know all the references since the film is hugely accessible, but it'll help you to get the most out of the most entertaining mainstream comedy of the summer, and one which will be very difficult to top as one of the best comedies of the year full stop.
And, before anyone points it out, I have posted this review elsewhere and I will do it again because I am very, very lazy. Sorry for the horribly portentous beginning but I'm in a portentous mood at the moment.
Knocked Up
In an age where marketing has become such a pervasive force in movies, the idea of a film dropping out of nowhere to become a hit is an all too rare occurence and one which is more often than not unappreciated. This has become particularly obvious this summer as the ceaseless march of sequels, all with blanket marketing campaigns aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, has made for a rather depressingly dull couple of months at the cinema. It is with great pleasure, then, that I was able to sit down and watch the first genuine surprise of the blockbuster season, Knocked Up, which has already taken the US by storm, and hits UK cinemas on August 24th.
To say that the success of Knocked Up in the US is a surprise would be an understatement; released against a host of films with bigger stars and bigger budgets, a script littered with pop culture references, both mainstream and obscure, utilising a particular vein of adult-orientated humour but dealing with a story which the audience most often associated with that kind of humour (twentysomething males. Possibly stoned, probably drunk) might not get, or particularly want to think about; conceiving a child after a one night stand and the effect that has on the lives of those involved. Not exactly Old School now, is it?
The story revolves around Ben (Seth Rogen), a lazy stoner who plans to become an internet millionaire by setting up a website with his equally lazy and stoned friends, and Alison (Katherine Heigl) an up-and-coming presenter on the E! entertainment network. The two meet at a bar and end up sleeping together and, following a rather awkward morning after, seem destined to never meet again. Until Alison starts feeling nauseous in the mornings and takes a pregnancy test. The two are then thrown together as they try to become a couple and work out how to deal with their impending parenthood.
This would seem to be the plot for a more serious movie or perhaps a quirky inependent film. However, director/writer Judd Apatow already demonstrated in his previous film, The 40-Year Old Virgin, that he can take subjects others might consider unsuitable for comedy and turn them in veritable goldmines of snappy one-liners, believable characters and hilarious situations.
Apatow is largely successful at creating a reverse rom-com; the sex and children come first, then the relationship starts. After a slow start in which the two protagonists are established, the huge laughs fly thick and fast, coming from both the main characters and the supporting cast which consists of some of the finest comedic talent currently being ignored by most Americans. Their are great cameos from former Ghostbuster Harold Ramis as Ben's father, Korean-American stand-up Ken Jeong as a rather unnerving gynaecologist and Alan Tydyk (known to some as Wash in Firefly, and to considerably more people as Steve The Pirate from Dodgeball) as a television executive. The real scenestealer is Paul Rudd as Alison's brother-in-law, Pete, who waltzes off with every single scene he is in and has some wonderful chemistry with Rogen. These and many more minor characters add to a surprisingly rich and character-driven narrative which only occasionally drifts away from the story.
However, on the occasions that the film does move away from the story, it slows down markedly and the laughs decrease as a result. At various points in the film it shifts focus to the unhappy relationship between Alison's sister Debbie (Debbie Long) and Pete. Whilst these moments do present an interesting examination of what might happen to Ben and Alison if they stay together, they more often than not cause sudden and disorientating shifts in mood that jar with the light tone shown throughout the rest of the film. Admittedly these moments tend to be quite brief and are always followed by more moments of hilarity, but getting through them can be a chore. It doesn't help that the more confrontational moments, such as arguments between Alison and Pete, can be uncomfortable to watch. Almost as bad, though slightly funnier, are the moments when the film shifts to a more heartfelt, almost mawkish, sentimentalism when characters have 'heart-to-hearts' which, whilst not as bad as they could be, detract from the comedy. These moments give the film an uneven tone which will probably be less noticeable after multiple viewings, but on first watch makes the film an unusual and unpredictable enterprise, and not necessarily in a good way.
The film also suffers whenever it moves away from any of the main male characters. The scenes in which Ben interacts with Pete or any of his drug-addled friends are uniformly hilarious, as indeed are many of the scenes between male and female characters, but it appears that Apatow struggles whenever he has to write scenes which are exclusively for women. The best example of this can be seen about three-quarters of the way into the film, when Ben and Pete head to Vegas for some time away and Alison and Debbie go out clubbing. Whilst out gallivanting the two pairs both have tête-à-tête's about their fears, concerns and relationships but whilst those between Ben and Pete are by turns hilarious and genuinely heartfelt, demonstrating a terrific insight into the male psyche on the part of Apatow, Alison and Debbie's scenes never really go anywhere and deliver up some annoyingly stereotypical ''hysterical women'' moments. In a film that otherwise remains quite refreshing, such moments really stand out and make you cry out for more Pete and Ben moments.
However, these moments of unwarranted seriousness or saccharine ramblings are all part of the build up to the final moments of the film, adding to the emotional impact of the birth, a scene which is very touching and sweet. The elation of all those involved feels very real thanks to the more serious moments seen earlier in the film, and the pay-off feels incredibly gratifying for the audience as well. Before anyone complains, that's not a spoiler; the film was never realistically going to be only twenty minutes long and end with Alison having an abortion, though the issue is raised and dealt with with a surprising lightness of touch early on in the film.
Knocked Up is not quite deserving of the hype being thrust upon it, but that shouldn't distract from the fact that it is a smartly-written comedy which focuses on characters rather than cheap gags, but isn't afraid to throw a few around where necessary, and which is also emotionally involving. The shifts in mood and tone are jarring but are integral to the emotional punch of the final moments, and the whole package is a crass, charming, infantile, endearing and heartfelt film which is a real joy behold.
Be warned though; it's incredibly media-savvy and a lot of the references may be obscure to some people, so before you see the film, google Matisyahu, Swingers (the movie, not the sexual practice) and Back To The Future. The least media-savvy amongst you might benefit from googling Google. It's not a necessity to know all the references since the film is hugely accessible, but it'll help you to get the most out of the most entertaining mainstream comedy of the summer, and one which will be very difficult to top as one of the best comedies of the year full stop.
Game Review - Overlord (PC/XBox360)
As a kid, the bad guys always seemed the coolest. Overlord gives you the chance to play the champion of evil, in this case wrestling control of a fantasy kingdom from seven heroes, each of which has succumbed to one of the seven deadly sins.
Overlord is hard to dislike, but infuriating at the same time. The game looks fantastic, from the pretty scenery to the highly detailed models, all with a great sense of character. What’s best is that if you too were annoyed by Lord of the Rings, you get to take it out on the hobbits, in this called Halflings. The sense of humour is sufficiently dark to portray the right atmosphere, between cartoon sweetness and brutal violence. Even better is the design of the game, feeling a lot like films like Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, though with nothing as scary as David Bowie’s tight trousers.
Despite this, the control system feels limited for both the Overlord and the minions. The confused morality also doesn’t help matters, with the heroes being tainted by evil themselves the Overlord often feels more like an altruistic social worker, rather than the insane despot the game promised.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Music Recommendation: Martin Grech - March of the Lonely
After the "why didn't that sell" 'Open Heart Zoo' and the "it makes sense why this didn't sell" 'Unholy', Martin Grech returns with a new album, "March of the Lonely". An artist who plays to his influences, Grech's first album sounded like the missing work of Radiohead, and the second sounding like Trent Reznor in a particularly bleak mood. This new album keeps elements of the past, but it's a far more understated affair and bringing to the forefront newer folk influences. It's a strange mixture, but it works wonderously, his Thom Yorke meets Jeff Buckley vocals soaring over delicately played accoustic guitars.
Though it's not as epic nor disturbing as past work, there's a definite element of menace under the music - much of it would not feel out of place underscoring a horror movie set piece in a forest. There are two songs on the album which break from this: the Johnny Cash-esque 'The Heritage' and 'The Giving Hands', the latter being one of the few genuinely jolly sounding songs he's ever release. This doesn't really fit with the vibe of the album, the concept behind it described as "the last survivor of a battle surveying his surroundings." Maybe whilst doing this the character befriends a puppy during this song. The gloomy atmosphere returns a track later, so one can only assume that the puppy died soon after.
If you're a fan of accoustic, chillout, ambient or slightly creepy music, then this is definately worth checking out. Sadly, it's not in the shops, but iTunes have been good enough to stock it.
Though it's not as epic nor disturbing as past work, there's a definite element of menace under the music - much of it would not feel out of place underscoring a horror movie set piece in a forest. There are two songs on the album which break from this: the Johnny Cash-esque 'The Heritage' and 'The Giving Hands', the latter being one of the few genuinely jolly sounding songs he's ever release. This doesn't really fit with the vibe of the album, the concept behind it described as "the last survivor of a battle surveying his surroundings." Maybe whilst doing this the character befriends a puppy during this song. The gloomy atmosphere returns a track later, so one can only assume that the puppy died soon after.
If you're a fan of accoustic, chillout, ambient or slightly creepy music, then this is definately worth checking out. Sadly, it's not in the shops, but iTunes have been good enough to stock it.
A Mighty Fine Blog
Hello and welcome to A Mighty Fine Blog, a sequel of sorts to http://www.sureradio.com/ 's Friday night show, A Mighty Fine Shindig. Ringleaders of the show, Neil and Ed, now present this carnival of features, reviews, comments and recommendations of media past, present and future.
Upon these hallowed pages, we will try to further the cause of the Shindig, despite our lack of broadcast equipment. Please check back regularly, as it should soon be a thriving metropolis of articles, free from the sensationalism of people with better things to do with their time.
Thank you for your attendence, we hope you enjoy our work here.
Let the games begin,
Neil
P.S. I would like to finish with an apology, which may not be the best start to a blog, about the use of hyphens in the blog address. This was basically a necessity due to someone taking the more typing friendly name, then only leaving two posts both of which stating that they had nothing to say. Thanks for that.
Upon these hallowed pages, we will try to further the cause of the Shindig, despite our lack of broadcast equipment. Please check back regularly, as it should soon be a thriving metropolis of articles, free from the sensationalism of people with better things to do with their time.
Thank you for your attendence, we hope you enjoy our work here.
Let the games begin,
Neil
P.S. I would like to finish with an apology, which may not be the best start to a blog, about the use of hyphens in the blog address. This was basically a necessity due to someone taking the more typing friendly name, then only leaving two posts both of which stating that they had nothing to say. Thanks for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)