Posts Tagged ‘war’

Taxidermia

Taxidermia

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

I didn’t really have the option to watch this one a second time before reviewing it – it’d been sitting on the Sky+ for quite a while and I watched it in the end simply to free up some space, so it was deleted right after – and though it might’ve helped, I don’t think I could’ve brought myself to watch it again so soon anyway. This is a bizarre, sprawling, ugly movie that you can’t deny is slightly fascinating, but I wouldn’t really wish upon anybody.

The movie comes in three distinct acts, three generations of one family, the taxidermy of the title really only coming into play in the final third (though I’m sure there’s some clever way in which the title applies to the whole movie – I really haven’t been able to think about it that much lol). The first segment has a soldier escaping from his drab existence into perverse fantasies which ultimately cross over to reality where he impregnates his superior’s wife, leading to his execution. In the second, we see the child of this strange beginning as a champion speed eater in what feels like an origins story for Augustus Gloop of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, lol, only again it’s repellently filmed. The third segment has this man’s child, a scrawny taxidermist reluctantly taking care of his enormous (seriously… enormous) father and feeding up equally enormous caged cats with butter until he accidentally leaves the cage open… as always, I’ll leave off the even more bizarre final turns of the story summary.

If the movie’s trying to say anything, it does so with unwavering pretension. The ending of the movie has a sort of cutting comment to make about art, the final image being (trying to avoid spoilers) a work considered as art, over-elevated as such, which through the course of the movie we have learned enough to know better. Or something. I’m not gonna pretend to have made up my mind about this one, lol. I think it’s the first Hungarian movie I’ve ever seen, it’s certainly unique, it certainly got a reaction out of me, and it’s certainly very well made technically (I don’t think I’ve ever seen such horrifyingly realistic cinematic vomit). If like me you appreciate anything different and can stomach almost anything, this is absolutely worth the time.



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.



Avatar [3D]

Avatar [3D]

Friday, December 18th, 2009

“I see you …”

I’d made the inevitable mistake of building up my hopes too high for this one and after the disappointment of (the last third, at least, of) A Christmas Carol yesterday, I feared another letdown. I don’t know where to start.

There are literally only two minor failings that this movie has in all its flawless beauty. You’ll have heard things like “Dances with Smurfs” and “Pocahontas in Space” thrown around perhaps … let’s not waste time, they are on the nose descriptions of the story underneath the sleek wrapping here. But don’t take this as a bad thing. Saying the story of Avatar is a bit like the Kevin Costner or Disney movie from 15 years ago is about as relevant as saying Star Wars is a bit like The Wizard of Oz. James Cameron himself has been telling pretty much the same story himself, about man vs machine (yes, Titanic is a machine), if you wanna get nitpicky, for the last 20 years. With Cameron’s movies, it’s more about the storytelling … and oh what means he has at his disposal for us here.

The other thing that’s preventing me (for now, at least) giving the movie top marks is the slight choppiness of the structure. A lot of people have said how the movie doesn’t feel as long as it is at almost 3 hours … I can’t deny that I thought it did in places. A lot like the last Lord of the Rings movie, this feels like it’s ending disappointingly several times before the actual climax … the good news is that this is a movie whose wonder builds, with each “false” ending being better than the last until Cameron finally releases the moment that makes this movie worthy of the accolades that will be bestowed upon it. The “wrapping”, as I called it earlier, the concept of a soldier commandeering an alien body in order to infiltrate an “enemy” culture, finally falls away, and I don’t want to spoil it but to say you’ll know it when it comes, when the lead Na’vi says to hero Jake Sully, “I see you.” I spent much of this movie perfectly absorbed, amazed by how little the technique and technology was the star, so wonderfully is it all deployed in service of the adventure at hand … but I longed for a moment like this that would wrench my heart out. It’s a stunning scene that will pull me back to the movie more than any of its other bells and whistles.

So, how are those bells and whistles? I wrote in my review of A Christmas Carol the other day how I feared we would never see that je-ne-sais-quoi of life breathed into motion/performance-captured eyes. I came out of this movie frankly confused … I’m still unsure … is all the Na’vi stuff really computer generated? Or is there some old school make-up work involved? Is James Cameron, like Jon Stewart suggested this week interviewing Sigourney Weaver, a wizard? LOL. Because I felt none of the FX wall between me and the story here as I have in all of Robert Zemeckis’ efforts in the field. If all the Na’vi stuff is motion/performance-captured and computer generated, then I almost want to knock yet another star off all my reviews of Zemeckis’ Polar Express, Beowulf and even his most recent Christmas Carol. I really can’t wait for the DVD/Blu-ray extras to see exactly how all this was done. I haven’t felt that way about a movie in a long time.

I haven’t mentioned the most human aspect of the thing. It’d all be for nothing if the acting wasn’t up to the standard of the visuals and the purity of the story. I’m relieved to say, I’m actually inclined to say this might be Cameron’s best acted movie yet. Sigourney Weaver leads the pack but I was very surprised by the performances of Sam Worthington and the entirely performance-captured Zoe Saldana in particular (as a matter of fact, unlikely though it may be due to it being technically an “animated” role, I’d love to see Saldana nominated for a Best Actress Oscar). What got under my skin even more, perhaps, were Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang as the movie’s main villains. Most movies go one way or the other with either a physically threatening bad guy or a psychologically meddling one. Here we have both, with Ribisi representing a corporate evil reminiscent of that seen in Cameron’s Aliens and of course in Skynet of the Terminator series; and Lang as an unrelenting warlord the likes of which I’ve never been so repelled by before. In one breathtaking scene, our heroes escape imprisonment to defend Pandora … as they leave in a chopper, Lang kicks down a door and follows, preferring to hold his breath than waste time on grabbing an inhaler as he enters the Pandoran atmosphere to fire upon their departure. Frightening figures, both.

I feel like there’s so much more to say. This was almost going to be one of my “first impression” splurges of a review but I decided I wanted it to be a more considered and at least slightly well-written approach. I’m sure I’ll come back to it and say more. It’s on the smaller screen without the 3D etc that the movie might show its true colours … but for the record I have the feeling after this first watch that it will only in fact improve with subsequent viewings, dimensionality and screen size be damned. We leave this decade with Avatar as we did the Nineties with The Matrix … it really does change everything as much as the hype has claimed. But most important of all, tucked away though it may be, the movie has overwhelming heart. Do see it on the largest screen you can, do see it in 3D, do see it with a large audience (something I was surprised myself to find absent from the second screening at my local multiplex) … but don’t worry … this is not just a spectacle.

Addendum: Just something about the score, I wanted to say something about the music but thought of something else just tonight as to why it bugged me a little. Jonathan Ross in his Film 2009 review had said that James Horner’s score was often too “sentimental and obvious” and my first thought was, “excellent!” lol … I’m a huge fan of a lot of Horner’s scores, my favourites being the sentimental and obvious Deep Impact and Casper. However, I do tire of most of his scores sounding the same lately, and this one certainly has plenty of recognisably Hornerian stings in it. I realised tonight, however, that that wasn’t the problem with the score. The problem is that Horner may have missed an opportunity to create a score just as unique and cutting edge as the movie it accompanies. As Cameron delved into 3D and mo-cap technologies, etc, why didn’t Horner look at the latest music technologies like physical modelling and such … it could have been a score featuring completely new instruments, a Pandoran music just as alien and absorbing as the world Cameron’s production team created … I don’t know, I’m thinking out loud here and for all I know perhaps Horner did try some of this, but the point is I guess that it doesn’t sound like it. It’s not a bad score … it’s just not a great one. I just wanted to say something about that.



Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was another incredibly pleasant (if that’s the right word) surprise. I wouldn’t say I’ve exactly gone off Quentin Tarantino as a director but my initial approach to his films has become increasingly apprehensive since Kill Bill. I thought Kill Bill was perfect in every way, but when the Grindhouse thing came along I thought at first, no that’s taking the Kill Bill “thing” too far … though, of course, Death Proof grew on me with subsequent viewings (at the very least, sitting next to Planet Terror as it does, it appears to be some kind of masterpiece …).

Inglourious Basterds seemed like it was going to have even more problems for me as a viewer. The first being – though of course Tarantino has been planning this movie for over a decade – we’ve had two of these Nazi revenge stories very recently in the form of Defiance and Valkyrie so by now the “genre” almost seems old hat. The difference with Tarantino’s version, however, is the highly fictionalised way his story of WWII turns out. That in itself, however, while others whose reviews I read seemed to revel in the delight of seeing that part of history end the way we may all wish it did, really didn’t interest me so much. Call it the first surprise, then, how “into it” I found myself as the explosive finale goes down.

Second was a similar problem to that I expected to have with Valkyrie – and I loved Valkyrie, so I should’ve have been so concerned. It’s really some of the casting that worried me here – seeing actors like Tom Cruise in Valkyrie or Brad Pitt and worse, Eli Roth, here in period costume, especially in this stylised, fictionalised version of the time, really didn’t look to me like it would work even a fraction as well as it ultimately does. There’s an almost cheeky moment in the very first scene (or “Chapter”) of Inglourious Basterds that seemed to me like a reference or jab at the way Bryan Singer segued into having all his “Germans” speak English for 95% of Valkyrie. Here, a character literally just says to another character that his knowledge of the language they are speaking (French) has been exhausted, does he mind if he switches to English? It’s a clever moment, but it’s ultimately surprising just how much of this movie’s dialogue still needs subtitles, with all dialogue being spoken in the language that makes sense for the scene, and that to me is a Good Thing. Anyway, not for one moment did I have the issues with Pitt and Roth that I expected. For Roth in particular it may in fact be his best-cast role yet. I still don’t like to see him on the screen, I’d much prefer him get behind the camera again … but for this particular character, that works. The Basterds themselves, in fact, don’t occupy as much screentime as you might expect, with as much time given over to Mélanie Laurent and Jacky Ido’s story or the brilliantly wicked Christoph Waltz as the movie’s principal villain. So even if you still find Roth and co. unpalatable, there’s plenty more in the ensemble to get excited about.

Then there’s the soundtrack. Though I’ve never had a problem with Tarantino’s use of music, it’s again an aspect of his work that I’ve worried about more with everything since Kill Bill, where it seemed to me he had pushed it as far as it would go. There was the comment he made about this movie in particular that struck me as particularly arrogant, when asked about his use of archive music, that he didn’t want another artist making a mark on his work. (“I just don’t like the idea of giving that much power to anybody on one of my movies,” LA Times) All of that said, it is hard to think about these things when the movie is in front of you and the likes of Ennio Morricone are serenading your ears. There’s little to say but that what music he uses works … even the Bowie. The only moments where I questioned the soundtrack, in fact, were two short snippets of tunes he had previously used, in Kill Bill, but they’re really too brief to mention.

This is, simply, a terrifically made movie that works almost flawlessly, and I think you’ll find that hard to deny even if you disagree with the idea of it. There are those who still think of Tarantino as some kind of manchild who makes fanboyish movies that serve no purpose than to fulfil geeky fantasies and there’s plenty in all of his recent work including this that matches that description. But there’s too much here – more than ever before in his work – that shows a real artist’s hand. It’s too technically proficient and assured to be dismissed as the B-movie wish-fulfilment it might first appear to be. To be perfectly honest, I’m almost inclined to agree with Brad Pitt’s last line which I’m sure is pretty much Tarantino speaking for himself, and he should be so proud: “This might just be my masterpiece.” On a first viewing I find it hard to disagree, for it truly blew me away.



In the Loop

In the Loop

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

I watched this after a large catch-up session watching all of the “Thick of It” episodes that had aired before the release of this spin-off movie and I’m not really sure whether it helped by setting me up with the world and style or just hindered by sheer overexposure to it in such a short time. In any case, I didn’t feel the time was entirely wasted. I found myself towards the end of the TV episodes I watched rather unfavourably comparing it to The Office in my mind and I still feel as a whole it is “good” rather than “great” … though that could be that I’m just not interested enough in politics, even if I am far more interested than I was when I first passed on watching the show.

On the “Thick of It” side of things, I have to say I preferred it in TV form. A whole other side of the story is presented in the movie in the shape of America and it’s too much of a leap, while the shooting style remains the same and I found myself thinking how I couldn’t imagine going to the cinema to see something like this. It’s entirely uncinematic, almost anti-cinematic, and I felt compelled before writing this to dig up Mark Kermode’s review and was surprised to find he liked it.

However, there was one unexpected surprise waiting for me here and again I can’t quite decide whether it helped or hindered my appreciation of the film. I had no idea Anna Chlumsky (of My Girl fame) was in this movie, and frankly she steals the movie entirely. I was pretty sure of her impressively honed acting skills in Blood Car but her performance here seals it for me, she has officially survived “the child star thing”, and the double whammy of those two movies shows just how interesting her choices an an actress are going to be. As for “The Thick of It” side of things … I look forward to getting back to the third series of the TV version.



The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

There’s very little for me to say about this movie that hasn’t been said better elsewhere but one thing that might tell you how good I think it was is by mentioning how much it made me respect those who fight for once. I’m generally entirely opposed to war, to the point I will rarely even comment on it for fear of causing offence. It bugs me, for example, when deaths of soldiers at war are reported on the news as if we should be surprised that anybody at war should somehow manage to get hurt. As long as conscription remains at bay, in my opinion only a crazy, desperate person or a sheep would sign up to the armed forces, and if they do then they should be refused entry on psychiatric grounds if they don’t understand that people die when they fire weapons at each other. (Please don’t respond to this stance in comments: I mention it only to give you some idea of why a movie like this needs to be really good for me, for want of a better word, to “like” it…)

I remember having a similar response to Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down years back, but that came so soon after 9/11 I put it down to shear shock – there was a part of me I’ll admit early in the decade that kinda did want someone to just “blow them up, all of them” etc. For the most part, for me, the great war movies have still remained firmly in the previous century. But I can’t deny this one access to that group. Some people have tried to explain how this movie somehow isn’t a war movie afterall. I’ve always hated this kind of argument. Particularly when a lot of these people are probably just surprised that it was a woman, Kathryn Bigelow, calling the shots. This is absolutely a war movie – it deals with an aspect of war … the very question that I answer with, “because they must be stupid!” above … simply, why do these people go out there? And further, why do some of them, like the central character here, go back for more?!!

Needless to say, the movie doesn’t change my total opposition to war: at nearly 30, I’m pretty much set that way. But in plain cinema terms, it does complicate the answer to that question and give me more to ponder. It presents us with a phenomenally complex character, and it puts us into his world with heartpoundingly visceral realism. The first 15 minutes of this movie are incredibly tough to watch, the tension that builds up almost unbearable. It’s that time of year when I tend to start mentioning the Oscars is every other review so here’s as good a place as any to start: I don’t know about the best picture slot, with 10 entries it doesn’t even seem worth speculating this year … but if Bigelow isn’t in the best director category I think I might be pretty angry. She’s really outdone herself here and easily joins the many great directors who have made this genre such an unlikely favourite of mine.



Che: Part One / Two

Che: Part One / Two

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

Though this certainly isn’t a movie I’ll be returning to any time soon, like a lot of Steven Soderbergh’s less mainstream efforts, I find it pretty easy to admire. When the two parts here were merged from “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla” to simply “Che”, it of course became subject to my “if you use a definitive title, you better be definitive” rule – and I also wondered how the two parts would differ … would they differ, even, in tone and substance, eg, and should I review them as separate entities?

Well, I was pleasantly surprised. The work as a whole is pretty definitive. Benicio Del Toro is Che and I can forgive the length of the whole thing because it kind of turns it into an endurance test. You’re mentally exhausted by the end of watching both parts in succession as I did, and I believe you should be. The parts do feel very much like separate films but also work perfectly well watched as a whole. Clearly the biggest difference between the two parts is that one deals in success while the other deals in failure; the latter being much more subdued and with far less dialogue than the first part.

The ending is powerful, a POV view of Che’s very last moments on this plane of existence – one feels almost like the audience itself is being put out of its misery, so much does it feel as though we’ve followed each one of the hundreds of days accounted for in title cards. I’ll admit I know little of the history involved here, and one of the failings of the movie I found was that either it plain didn’t clearly enough explain the context or it never engaged me enough for me to pick up on it. This isn’t a front to back telling of Che’s life, focusing more in the separate films on his greatest triumph and his final failure. But there are nuggets of wisdom imparted in the dialogue, and it certainly left me wanting to know more. Technically I can’t fault it, and though it’s not entirely my cup of tea it shows that Soderbergh is still a guy who makes a movie pretty much exactly what it should be.



Island of the Damned aka Who Can Kill a Child?

Island of the Damned aka Who Can Kill a Child?

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

… aka Trapped, etc etc …

Well, I’m a big fan of evil movie children, so this was immediately right up my alley, hehe. This is one of those movies that gets around the “shoulda been under 90 minutes” problem I usually have with anything so genre as it is that runs over that magic figure by using its extra 30 minutes up front to introduce its main characters. For where the movie goes in the end, the opening is fiendishly slow but it makes the real bulk of the movie, from 30 minutes in when they leave the mainland, all the more gripping than it’d likely be without the set-up.

Will He, Won't He?

The thing I find most noteworthy about this is how genuinely on edge it put me. If I’d read a review of this that drew out how scary some of the smiling children are here I wouldn’t have believed it. But there’s something about some of those smiles, let’s call it the Hannibal Lector effect – remembering that moment when Clarice Starling first happened upon the genius cannibal, that simple smile with no real explanation behind it. Even on the most beautiful adolescent girl, the first of the island’s residents that we see, even as she seems to all intents and purposes to be perfectly harmless, it’s almost downright terrifying.

The second thing that makes this movie a cut above most of the genre is that it really goes all the way. I don’t know how to elaborate on that without spoiling it, but hey it’s been out for over 30 years so consider yourself warned, lol. There’s a moment at the end here where I really didn’t know where the movie was going to turn. I didn’t know where I wanted it to turn, even. But once the moment passed, I knew that I would’ve felt betrayed if it’d gone the other way. That didn’t stop the feeling of, “OMG he did it!” in my stomach though.

It borrows from plenty of movies – of course the title itself (the one I’ll always refer to it as, at least) recalls Children and Village of the Damned – and there are just a couple of scenes towards the end that attempt to explain away the childrens’ condition in a manner akin to those older movies, when really it works better when there’s no explanation. And if you’re coming here for gory visuals you might be disappointed by how fake they are. But this has bold intentions and takes no prisoners. I found myself right on the fence between seeing it as almost black comedy and a genuinely scary social commentary and I can imagine repeat viewings taking me to either extreme entirely. Definitely worth seeking out if you’re a fan of the genre, and worth taking time out for even if you’re not.