Posts Tagged ‘conspiracy’

They Live!

They Live!

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass! And I’m all outta bubblegum…”

Hmm… this, yet again, is a movie that’s been on my “to watch” list for far too long. I’m not sure I’d call myself a John Carpenter fan but I’ve liked a lot of his work, and this one had a lot of good things said about it. I’m not sure if I’d agree with them but I still enjoyed it a lot. The movie kind of plods along for a while like a standard thriller but really got interesting for me when Roddy Piper (yes, the wrestler) finds a pair of sunglasses that allows him to see the aliens that live among us. I mean you can’t get much more 80s than that lol.

What I really loved about this segment of the movie was the surprising touch that not only can Piper see aliens around him but it also “translates” various pieces of advertising. A typical billboard suddenly, through the glasses, reads “OBEY” in bold black and white, etc. I’m not sure if this was the first time anything like this had been done, but it’s about as succinct as it gets in damning our media-driven culture and it’s ridiculously bold to find in a movie like this. I don’t know if it stretches well over a feature running time, I kind of got over the wow factor quickly following that absurd line I quoted above, lol… but it’s certainly worth a look.



Green Zone

Green Zone

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Let’s just get this out of the way… ahem, Bourne in Iraq cough lol.

I write what I feel on this site, I wouldn’t even bother if I didn’t, so if you know me you’ll know my apprehension about Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon; even if both have done good work on their own, their most popular efforts have been far from their best and sue me if I call it out when great people pander to the crowd. But to my joy this is one of those rare movies that kinda had me at hello. I’m on something of a “calling bullshit” kick lately, goodness knows why, and after a strong opening with way over-the-top incidental score and less nauseating shaky-cam than usual from Paul Greengrass, comes a scene with Matt Damon’s simply calling such bullshit on the search for WMDs that basically made everything that followed fine by me.

The plot’s more complicated in the end than I’d dare to summarise, and I’m often not good with overcomplicated plots where they’re not needed, but it kinda didn’t matter to me here. I did lose interest and it did outstay its welcome, but I felt perfectly able to dip back into the aspect of the movie that initially hooked me quite easily. It’s one of Matt Damon’s more tolerable performances (and for the record I’d limit those previous of his that fully come into this category to the Kevin Smith stuff and The Talented Mr. Ripley) and being Paul Greengrass the tech side is flawless. It’s clearly no Hurt Locker and clearly doesn’t aspire to be. Some will say it oversimplifies what it’s trying to say about this war. I say, relative to most stuff gracing the multiplexes nowadays, at least it has something that needs to be simplified.



Edge of Darkness

Edge of Darkness

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

It’s odd that I didn’t realise just how much I wanted to see this movie until long after its initial release.

I watched this following that second underwhelming viewing Shutter Island pretty certain I would enjoy it more, and it hooked me fast. This is a movie that launches quickly, with a gutwrenching moment between Mel Gibson and his screen daughter that made me jump out of my skin in such a way I’m not sure I’ve done since the car crash in The Forgotten. Let me say now, I’m increasingly easy pleased when a movie can still do this to me, and this one managed to do it twice in its duration.

Because of how powerful these moments of the movie were for me, it’s hard for me to talk about the story because I’d hate to spoil a similar experience that might be waiting for others. In short, this is mostly a conspiracy thriller, concentrated mainly on a kind of revenge story for Gibson’s character. If you liked him in Ransom or Payback, you will love him here, because it’s that Mel Gibson and in light of his own well documented real life personal problems (to say nothing of his latest tirade: I watched this a while before all that came out), it’s even more intense than ever in this movie. At one stage he seethes at someone, “I’m the guy who’s got nothing to lose and I don’t give a sh*t!” and boy, do you believe it. Fortunately, if being so raw onscreen again was any kind of gamble for Gibson at this stage, I feel confident in saying it pays off hugely. I personally loved (if that’s the right word) every minute of this movie – it goes as far as I believe all movies of this kind need to, with a broad corporate conspiracy line and a deeply personal cause, with Martin Campbell giving equal weight to the emotional side as he does the action – but what I’m sure no one will deny is the power of Gibson’s performance.

It was only midway through the movie that I remembered reading/hearing/being told that it was based on a 1985 BBC series which intriguingly was also directed by Campbell. I loved the idea of the story, and the idea of a director remaking his own work, so much that I got hold of and watched the entire 1985 production immediately (over a couple of days) after the credits rolled on the Gibson movie. The thing to note by comparison is that they’re really very different productions, and I find myself now I’ve seen both loving each in starkly contrasting, but equally passionate, ways. The TV series runs to nearly 6 hours. The story is very slightly different, and the flow simultaneously calmer, more procedural, but (in the last episode particularly) actually ultimately that bit crazy and surreal. I would definitely recommend the TV series to anybody who liked the movie, but I imagine it’s even more pertinent to recommend it to those who don’t like the movie at all… the TV version might be exactly what you’re looking for. Me, if I had to choose… I would have to pick the streamline plot and sheer rage of the movie… I’m not a hateful person, but when it’s so pointed and heightened as this, I can really go for it, and this one really had me rooting for the vigilante.



Shutter Island

Shutter Island

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.



Zeitgeist / Zeitgeist Addendum

Zeitgeist / Zeitgeist Addendum

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti, just one of the many great quotes these two documentaries are packed with.

This might not be a favourable comparison to some but – trust me I mean it well, I think – these reminded me a lot of What the Bleep do We Know? and its sequel Down the Rabbit Hole. I don’t have a lot to say about either, so I’m combining them into the one review.

Don’t let the lack of wordage here make you think I thought as little of them – there’s information in these four hours that make them certainly worth watching at least once by every man, woman and child on the planet. Many, as I did, will find a lot information they already had from other sources – for me personally, I’m a total liberal anyway so I gobble up information like this, I watch Colbert, the Daily Show, South Park, I listen to This American Life and Radio Lab, so a lot of what’s said here has already been “revealed” to me either in pure fact as here or just as part of a joke.

What has to be said about these documentaries, as often happens with these kinds of things, kind of hangs around that very word “documentary”. Like the What the Bleep films, the whole thing is just so one-sided and utopian (ahem … “weapons of mass creation,” I mean, come on …) you’d be a fool not to take them with a very large and healthy scoop of salt and skepticism. When, as here, they use footage of and quotes from Carl Sagan, the requirement for a baloney detection kit should be even more of a no-brainer. For if you watch movies like this, that basically tell you exactly what you want to hear – that your life sucks merely because of the failings of others and an evil superpower – and lap it up without question, you’re kind of playing into the core problem they’re addressing. I say this because I’ve read a lot of reviews that took the one-sided argument exactly that way.

One thing I found wrong with the first movie, which is perfectly – even exhaustively – methodical in putting forth its 9/11 argument, is that it gave no real thoughts regarding what exactly we’re supposed to do with all this information. Luckily, this is fixed in the Addendum which closes with a shopping list of ideas, kinda like those at the end of “The 11th Hour” or “An Inconvenient Truth,” or ways in which we might fix this. Many have pointed out that none of these ideas have really been thought much beyond the idea(l) stage. The fact remains though that however one-sided or idealistic these docs may be, if you’re gonna be one-sided and idealistic, there are worse things to be one-sided and idealistic about than what these movies are suggesting. They do manage to convince you that it’s possible. They’re more visually interesting than the average documentary to boot – the second one vastly improving on the first. And anything that includes footage from Network and lines from Carl Sagan – even if, as was the case in Frost/Nixon you may as well just watch the interview, you may as well just watch Network and read Sagan, LOL – really, I just can’t argue with.



Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Okay, let’s try and get through all of these before Christmas and the New Year proceedings begin proper, hehe …

This is one of those movies where I only realised just how conflicted I was approaching it as the opening credits rolled. On the one hand, the movie looked plain hideous to me and the reviews only confirmed it. Though Ocean’s Thirteen won me over to these kinds of ensemble comedies it wasn’t to the greatest extent, and with the Coens at the helm it seemed like however good it could be, it’d still be a monumental waste of time and talent. On the other hand, I too quickly forget how it’s often been their wackier projects, like Hudsucker and The Big Lebowski, that I’ve loved the most (I even quicker forget how much I liked Intolerable Cruelty).

Ultimately it’s neither here nor there. I’m not going to be one of those who says, “following No Country for Old Men, what do you expect?” because frankly, I’ve yet to give that movie the second viewing that will or won’t make it the masterpiece to me that it is to everyone else. Much as I appreciated the quality of No Country and loved it winning Best Picture, etc, I’d sooner watch Lebowski or Fargo yet again. This movie isn’t up there with any of those movies, I’m quick to add … but it made me laugh a hell of a lot more than expected and at no point even threatened to annoy me; which, given the way I feel about Brad Pitt lately, is kind of amazing.



Redbelt

Redbelt

Friday, July 18th, 2008

“There’s no one here but the fighters.”

I was pretty damn loathe to watch this without any prior knowledge of what it was about etc after Spartan completely failed to ignite me. That I’ve been terrible at keeping up the movie-watching habit lately (I’ll get better soon, I promise) made me even more apprehensive: I thought a stupid comedy might’ve been an easier option to get me writing again.

But dammit, it’s Mamet. I decided that if this movie couldn’t hold my attention then there must clearly be something wrong with me or it, lol, and I dove in. The opening credits didn’t let me down – all the names you want in a Mamet movie, Rebecca Pidgeon, Ricky Jay, a couple of surprises in Tim Allen and Jennifer Grey, the brilliant Robert Elswitt on photography duties. And then the madness begins.

The movie is pretty convoluted for the first 40 minutes. Speaking of Elswitt, the quirkiness of the plot points actually kind of reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson. A strange and frazzled girl walks out of the rain into a martial arts place and almost shoots a police officer and we’re just expected to accept that “these crazy things happen all the time” as the Magnolia narrator might say. The moment is “forgotten” and we move onto something else. I think the one reason none of this bugged me because it was scored – yes, scored, I think that’s the only word for it – at all times by Mamet’s unmistakably perfect dialogue (something else that’s familiar in Anderson movies, in fact – I don’t think I’d ever entirely made the connection). It’s like Brian De Palma’s Snake Eyes plus the old world meets new world ways of Ronin meets Rocky and Mamet’s edge.

But fear not, because it all comes together in the end, in more astonishingly powerful ways than I’d ever have seen coming. The strange girl turns out to be an attorney who has issues with physical contact after being attacked before the story begins. There’s a scene where a trainer from the martial arts place at the start, our hero Chiwetal Ejiofor, who must surely be headed for an Oscar some day if not today, breaks through the wall and holds her in exactly the way she doesn’t want in order to help her. It’s an outstanding scene ending in the line above that speaks volumes about how the good guys, the honest guys, maybe avoid such confrontations too much. The movie is ultimately about having enough of the bullsh*t and speaking the truth and it’s done in such an overwhelmingly brisk and unique fashion … one should expect no less from David Mamet, but like I said, after Spartan … it’s practically phenomenal. Double bill it with In Bruges. Even I’m inclined to dub it a “man movie” despite it’s leanings towards very womanly issues in that attorney subplot that really made the movie for me – those two times Ejiofor and the attorney touch are cinema at its best to me.



National Treasure: Book of Secrets

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

As with the first movie, this is clearly “Meh-” material: as Mark Kermode put it I think, it passes the time until Indy 4 well enough. But as with the first movie, it must be said that it’s mostly a good “meh-”. It’s bookended by a build-up and finale that are almost identikit copies of their original counterparts (“it’s a little gold man …” anyone?) but it has its moments like a chase down the tiny backstreets of London, a foray into Buckingham Palace, a nice scene around Paris’ Statue of Liberty (which reminded me I really must remember to see that next time I go).

It’s a Bruckheimer movie, so you should expect plausibility to go entirely out of the window, and that it certainly does around the point where Nicolas Cage manages to kidnap a President who seems almost willing to be kidnapped – even that’s a fun sequence, though, I’ve gotta admit. Likewise the stuff with Helen Mirren and Jon Voight as “mom and dad” feel often hideously like pandering to the older audience, but, y’know, it’s Mirren and Voight, it’s hard to complain. If you don’t watch movies often then it’s the last thing you want to waste your time on; otherwise, knock yourself out.