Hi All (that may massively overestimate the number of people who ever read this... perhaps I should say 'hello you' instead. What the hell - I'm sticking with optimism!)
I've taken the step and moved over to wordpress.
I can now be found here:
http://strangerthanflicktion.wordpress.com/
Please come and join me over there. The LFF is coming up so the blog will soon be busy again.
Lack of updates this year can all be blamed on the Olympics as I took part in the Opening Ceremony. One word. Amazing!
Sunday 23 September 2012
Sunday 26 February 2012
Oscar 2012 Predictions
Best Picture
"The Artist" Thomas Langmann, Producer
Actor in a Leading Role
Jean Dujardin in "The Artist"
Actor in a Supporting Role
Christopher Plummer in "Beginners"
Actress in a Leading Role
Viola Davis in "The Help"
Actress in a Supporting Role
Octavia Spencer in "The Help"
Animated Feature Film
"Rango" Gore Verbinski
Art Direction
"Hugo" Production Design: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo
Cinematography
"The Tree of Life" Emmanuel Lubezki
Costume Design
"The Artist" Mark Bridges
Directing
"The Artist" Michel Hazanavicius
Documentary (Feature)
"Pina" Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel
Documentary (Short Subject)
"The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom" Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen
Film Editing
"The Artist" Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius
Foreign Language Film
"A Separation" Iran
Makeup
"The Iron Lady" Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland
Music (Original Score)
"The Artist" Ludovic Bource
Music (Original Song)
"Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets" Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
Short Film (Animated)
"A Morning Stroll" Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Short Film (Live Action)
"The Shore" Terry George and Oorlagh George
Sound Editing
"Drive" Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis
Sound Mixing
"Hugo" Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
Visual Effects
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White and Daniel Barrett
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
"The Descendants" Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Writing (Original Screenplay)
"Midnight in Paris" Written by Woody Allen
Thursday 26 January 2012
The Oscar nominations and a sense of disappointment
Well now, that was kind of disappointing, wasn’t it? The films are rather dull and there were no real surprises in the acting nominations (Gary Oldman aside). There is a yearly accusation that the Oscars are pretty dull but this is the first year I can recall when I have failed to be excited by so many elements of the awards. I admit that this may have something to do with the fact that I haven’t seen many of the Best Picture nominees (3 to be exact) and therefore many of the big hitters, but by this point of the year I have usually seen (or at least been excited about seeing) most of the expected nominees. They just haven’t really sparked my imagination this year. I admit that I was sorry to miss The Tree of Life and I’ve heard enough good things about Midnight in Paris to hope to catch it at some backwater cinema but few of the nominees really grabbed me in a way to make me rush to the cinema on opening night.
It disappoints me that there are no real envelope pushers in amongst the Best Picture list. I’m not naïve enough to think that Oscar has ever really been about such a thing but (although it has tried on occasion) but I wonder if the voters often look for ‘Oscar-worthy’ films rather than good films (how else can we explain the inclusion of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close?) Is this an old-fashioned vote? Is there a collection of old-timer academy members running the show and when the (currently) younger crop take over we’ll see a change in the scheme of things and braver films rewarded?
But they have been in the past; certainly the recent past. There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men were hardly hand-wringing Oscar classics and yet they lead the race and had all the form during the precursors. Oscar also has a tradition of rewarding ‘brave’ acting performances (beautiful made ugly – Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman; controversial storylines – Halle Berry, Tom Hanks; disability – Daniel Day-Lewis, Dustin Hoffman) and yet there is a distinct lack of this kind of nomination this year, Rooney Mara aside.
Perhaps, after a few years of trying to look cool and edgy (Crash, Precious, No Country for Old Men), the academy have decided it is time to reward some of the good old-fashioned pieces of work – family fare; relatively gentle and undemanding films. Could this explain the snubbing of Bridesmaids and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo when it came to Best Picture? Wasn’t the reason for extending the list to 10 to reward these ‘outsider’ films? The non-Oscary box-office and critical successes? And in a year that presents only 9 nominees for Best Picture this is particularly baffling and rather a slap in the face for films across the board. Were there really only 9 good films this year? Sorry. Were there really only 9 Oscar-worthy films this year?
It certainly does seem like there’s a theme this year – nostalgia and Hollywood glamour. This has happened before (the Western year, the Lord of the Rings year) so shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. It really feels like they wanted to reward those films that celebrated cinema and old-fashioned film making. Hugo and The Artist, the biggest successes nomination wise, both celebrate the history of film, War Horse is a back-to-basics, luscious Spielberg movie (plus a reward for doing what he does best rather than throwing in his lot with new technologies for Tintin), Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh are playing iconic Hollywood legends, Woody Allen is a former glory boy back to his best and Meryl Streep, well Meryl Streep was in a film so bound to get nominated.
Theme aside I still think it's a pity that Drive was not nominated (more on the snubs at a later date); it's sad that so many challenging and rewarding films fell by the wayside as they so often do in big ceremonies. The Oscars don't mean much to a lot of people but I've always loved them in a predictable kind of way while looking to the Independent Spirit Awards for the interesting winners.
But I've only seen 3 of the 9 'best pictures of the year' so what would I know? Come back in a week and I may be proclaiming War Horse to be the greatest thing I've ever witnessed. But I don't think so. Come on Oscar voters. Throw up a couple of surprises on the big night and you've got every chance of winning me over again.
Sunday 22 January 2012
The Help
Tate Taylor has created a bright, broad and sassy film that probably won't be bothering Oscar as was predicted given the subject matter due to a lack of hand-wringing (although Octavia Spencer is gathering well-earned steam) but it is good fun, moving and worthy of much praise.
The Help is the story of the civil rights movement boiled down to the basics. Aibileen and Minny are maids working in Jackson Mississippi - an area not exactly known for its liberalism - who come forward with their stories for a book to be written from the perspective of the coloured maids of the town. The writer is a wealthy while girl, Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan, who has been encouraged by a publisher to write about what disturbs her and hits upon this topic after her best friend writes a bill to make it a requirement for all homes with coloured help to have a separate outdoor bathroom for them to use as they carry different diseases. With the civil rights movement hotting up the publisher encourages her to complete the writing "before it all blows over".
While the tone may be a little too light for some (I'm currently reading the book and even only 72 pages in there is more depth and darkness) Taylor has succeeded in showing the lives of these women as they work in the houses of people who become enemies and those that become friends. Through Aibileen and Minny we see both sides of this experience as their work goes unappreciated and their skills belittled, at least until Minny finds a somewhat happier household to work in.
As the villain of the piece Bryce Dallas Howard brings a sickly sweet brittleness to Hilly Holbrook and makes her genuinely dangerous, smiling through her threats and slowly but surely destroying people's lives. Octavia Spencer is absolutely wonderful has the outspoken, sassy Minny - a woman who knows her place but doesn't have to be happy about it. She bubbles with attitude but is a big softy underneath as we get to witness and enjoy while her relationship with Jessica Chastain's outcast Celia Foote develops (another brilliant Chastain performance - what a year she's had!). Emma Stone is little more than the reporter of events but the friendship with the woman who raised her is an integral part of the plot and Stone convinces as the courageous girl who won't sit back and let people fob her off with half-truths and weak excuses.
But Viola Davis is the emotional centre of the film. Her middle-aged, vastly experienced Aibileen is downtrodden and heartbroken but stoic and strong. Hers are the eyes through which we see the others and hers is the courage which changes the course of the film. Viola Davis played another put-upon, sore-hearted woman in Doubt and moved me to tears in one scene so it is just wonderful to see her carrying this film with such warmth and depth of character.
Taylor's glossy adaptation is a thoroughly enjoyable watch - 3.5/5
The Help is the story of the civil rights movement boiled down to the basics. Aibileen and Minny are maids working in Jackson Mississippi - an area not exactly known for its liberalism - who come forward with their stories for a book to be written from the perspective of the coloured maids of the town. The writer is a wealthy while girl, Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan, who has been encouraged by a publisher to write about what disturbs her and hits upon this topic after her best friend writes a bill to make it a requirement for all homes with coloured help to have a separate outdoor bathroom for them to use as they carry different diseases. With the civil rights movement hotting up the publisher encourages her to complete the writing "before it all blows over".
While the tone may be a little too light for some (I'm currently reading the book and even only 72 pages in there is more depth and darkness) Taylor has succeeded in showing the lives of these women as they work in the houses of people who become enemies and those that become friends. Through Aibileen and Minny we see both sides of this experience as their work goes unappreciated and their skills belittled, at least until Minny finds a somewhat happier household to work in.
As the villain of the piece Bryce Dallas Howard brings a sickly sweet brittleness to Hilly Holbrook and makes her genuinely dangerous, smiling through her threats and slowly but surely destroying people's lives. Octavia Spencer is absolutely wonderful has the outspoken, sassy Minny - a woman who knows her place but doesn't have to be happy about it. She bubbles with attitude but is a big softy underneath as we get to witness and enjoy while her relationship with Jessica Chastain's outcast Celia Foote develops (another brilliant Chastain performance - what a year she's had!). Emma Stone is little more than the reporter of events but the friendship with the woman who raised her is an integral part of the plot and Stone convinces as the courageous girl who won't sit back and let people fob her off with half-truths and weak excuses.
But Viola Davis is the emotional centre of the film. Her middle-aged, vastly experienced Aibileen is downtrodden and heartbroken but stoic and strong. Hers are the eyes through which we see the others and hers is the courage which changes the course of the film. Viola Davis played another put-upon, sore-hearted woman in Doubt and moved me to tears in one scene so it is just wonderful to see her carrying this film with such warmth and depth of character.
Taylor's glossy adaptation is a thoroughly enjoyable watch - 3.5/5
Monday 19 September 2011
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
"I made a mark"
Tomas Alfresdon, on the back of a very strong showing with Let the Right One In, follows up with a brave imagining of John le Carré's well-loved and oft adapted novel. At least he had the blessing of the author, who told him: "Please don't do the book, it already exists". This latest work has strengths similar to those of his breakthrough outing but in the same way, a few question marks remain.
The film revolves around the world of British secret agents of the early 70s but James Bond, this ain't. Despite growing up in Sweden, Alfredson was "breastfed" on British TV (which he proved by reeling off a number of production house themes and icons in the Q&A) and spoke of memories of "damp tweed". You can certainly see where he got his inspiration for this rather grey adaptation. Writer, Peter Straughan, also got in on the act claiming that, while James Bond worked in a world of black and white, le Carré's is a world of grey. And there's a lot of it on screen: overcast skies, grey buildings and even greyer men.
The central character, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), is ousted from these dull surroundings by these dull men in rather humiliating circumstances but is soon called back to investigate them and discover that they are maybe not quite so dull after all......
Smiley is given no real back story. indeed, he is barely given an introduction, walking silently through the opening scenes of the film; presented as a loner, an observer. He spends a great deal of the film in silence, does Gary Oldman, but he is always in command of this most difficult of performances. When he finally does open up into a most wonderful monologue you can't help but sit forward in your seat, leaning in for a more private audience with a master.
Smiley's main accomplice in this spy-spying-on-spies thriller is Benedict Cumberbatch's Peter Guillam. Rather a ladies man by all accounts, Guillam is from a new generation of agents but still fits in with the suited and silent brigade of those who came before him (albeit with a rather trendier haircut). The real youth of the piece is Ricki Tarr (a brilliant performance from Tom Hardy). He is the slightly more flashy of the set - going off-mission when he spies an opportunity (even if it is work related) with a pretty girl. Tarr is the emotional heart of the film, engaging and moving as he finally gives up on trying to keep his heart out of it. As for the other suits? We barely get to know them. We see them in meetings, in varying states of stress and distress, but we spend little time with them as Smiley focuses on their activities and we are encourage to watch but not to know. Toby Jones does the best of the four but even he seems to have very little screen time. Last but not least is Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux. Straughan told me that his was the character he most connected with when reading the book but I didn't find that that transferred to the screen. The character flits in and out of the story and feels almost an afterthought on many occasions.
As with Let the Right One In, Alfredson does a good job of focusing on the human aspects rather than anything too flashy (indeed Straughan spoke of concentrating on who the real victims of this quest for information are). This is where the strength of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy lies. Absolutely, the attention to 70s detail is outstanding and the production design sticks to its brief brilliantly, but when focusing on Smiley and Tarr, this is when the film comes into its own. But there is very little pace to the piece and it lacks the one vital element for a thriller - suspense. There is only really one scene in which your palms get a little sweaty. In fact, as the film comes to its conclusion it feels rather deflating. The ending feels rushed and the film lacks the emotional punch to move it from the 'good' to the 'great' category.
Alfredson is expert at playing out a beautiful human story against a slightly inhuman backdrop and Tinker Tailor is a quiet, stately consideration of life as a loner, an observer. If only they hadn't had to squeeze the plot in. It isn't a thriller in much the same way that Let the Right One In wasn't a horror and it feels disappointing at the end not to have had more heart-racing moments. Despite being a very well put together piece, I fear I won't remember it in for long.
Too much damp tweed and not enough thrill. A rather empty thriller - 7/10
Tomas Alfresdon, on the back of a very strong showing with Let the Right One In, follows up with a brave imagining of John le Carré's well-loved and oft adapted novel. At least he had the blessing of the author, who told him: "Please don't do the book, it already exists". This latest work has strengths similar to those of his breakthrough outing but in the same way, a few question marks remain.
The film revolves around the world of British secret agents of the early 70s but James Bond, this ain't. Despite growing up in Sweden, Alfredson was "breastfed" on British TV (which he proved by reeling off a number of production house themes and icons in the Q&A) and spoke of memories of "damp tweed". You can certainly see where he got his inspiration for this rather grey adaptation. Writer, Peter Straughan, also got in on the act claiming that, while James Bond worked in a world of black and white, le Carré's is a world of grey. And there's a lot of it on screen: overcast skies, grey buildings and even greyer men.
The central character, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), is ousted from these dull surroundings by these dull men in rather humiliating circumstances but is soon called back to investigate them and discover that they are maybe not quite so dull after all......
Smiley is given no real back story. indeed, he is barely given an introduction, walking silently through the opening scenes of the film; presented as a loner, an observer. He spends a great deal of the film in silence, does Gary Oldman, but he is always in command of this most difficult of performances. When he finally does open up into a most wonderful monologue you can't help but sit forward in your seat, leaning in for a more private audience with a master.
Smiley's main accomplice in this spy-spying-on-spies thriller is Benedict Cumberbatch's Peter Guillam. Rather a ladies man by all accounts, Guillam is from a new generation of agents but still fits in with the suited and silent brigade of those who came before him (albeit with a rather trendier haircut). The real youth of the piece is Ricki Tarr (a brilliant performance from Tom Hardy). He is the slightly more flashy of the set - going off-mission when he spies an opportunity (even if it is work related) with a pretty girl. Tarr is the emotional heart of the film, engaging and moving as he finally gives up on trying to keep his heart out of it. As for the other suits? We barely get to know them. We see them in meetings, in varying states of stress and distress, but we spend little time with them as Smiley focuses on their activities and we are encourage to watch but not to know. Toby Jones does the best of the four but even he seems to have very little screen time. Last but not least is Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux. Straughan told me that his was the character he most connected with when reading the book but I didn't find that that transferred to the screen. The character flits in and out of the story and feels almost an afterthought on many occasions.
As with Let the Right One In, Alfredson does a good job of focusing on the human aspects rather than anything too flashy (indeed Straughan spoke of concentrating on who the real victims of this quest for information are). This is where the strength of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy lies. Absolutely, the attention to 70s detail is outstanding and the production design sticks to its brief brilliantly, but when focusing on Smiley and Tarr, this is when the film comes into its own. But there is very little pace to the piece and it lacks the one vital element for a thriller - suspense. There is only really one scene in which your palms get a little sweaty. In fact, as the film comes to its conclusion it feels rather deflating. The ending feels rushed and the film lacks the emotional punch to move it from the 'good' to the 'great' category.
Alfredson is expert at playing out a beautiful human story against a slightly inhuman backdrop and Tinker Tailor is a quiet, stately consideration of life as a loner, an observer. If only they hadn't had to squeeze the plot in. It isn't a thriller in much the same way that Let the Right One In wasn't a horror and it feels disappointing at the end not to have had more heart-racing moments. Despite being a very well put together piece, I fear I won't remember it in for long.
Too much damp tweed and not enough thrill. A rather empty thriller - 7/10
Thursday 8 September 2011
Let's all get excited about the London Film Festival
With the announcement of the full programme for this year's London Film Festival I have found myself wondering what I was thinking booking a holiday for the final week (this may very well scupper my chances of seeing the Surprise Film), taking a part in a musical with evening and weekend rehearsals in October, and moving house - therefore seriously depleting my LFF fund. The consequences of these decisions are even more disappointing as this is my first year of BFI membership and I was looking forward to putting it to good use.
However, these are the confines in which I work so, having scoured the programme online, the films I am planning to rush to buy tickets for are as follows:
50/50
Darwin
the Exchange
Hara Kiri
King Curling
Martha May Marcy Marlene
Mourning
Shame
(Surprise Film (if at all physically possible!)
Take Shelter
I will not be trying to see We Need to Talk About Kevin despite all of the brilliant things I've been hearing about it as it has a release date of October 21st anyway and despite the exceptional limitations I'm working with this year I'll be trying to see the same kind of selection of international and independent films that are unlikely to get a wide release post-festival. I'd love to see The Ides of March but I just don't think I can fit it in.
I was surprised to see that The Help is not listed and my immediate suspicion was that it might be the Surprise Film but as it is due to hit UK screens on 28th October I reckon that's less than likely.
Anybody else going and think I'm potentially missing something spectacular? And what are people's thoughts for the Surprise Film?
However, these are the confines in which I work so, having scoured the programme online, the films I am planning to rush to buy tickets for are as follows:
50/50
Darwin
the Exchange
Hara Kiri
King Curling
Martha May Marcy Marlene
Mourning
Shame
(Surprise Film (if at all physically possible!)
Take Shelter
I will not be trying to see We Need to Talk About Kevin despite all of the brilliant things I've been hearing about it as it has a release date of October 21st anyway and despite the exceptional limitations I'm working with this year I'll be trying to see the same kind of selection of international and independent films that are unlikely to get a wide release post-festival. I'd love to see The Ides of March but I just don't think I can fit it in.
I was surprised to see that The Help is not listed and my immediate suspicion was that it might be the Surprise Film but as it is due to hit UK screens on 28th October I reckon that's less than likely.
Anybody else going and think I'm potentially missing something spectacular? And what are people's thoughts for the Surprise Film?
Sunday 5 June 2011
Win Win
"Whatever the fuck it takes"
With Win Win Tom McCarthy, he of outsider films The Station Agent and The Visitor, shifts his attention to a family man at the centre of his community. However, much like Finbar McBride and Walter, Paul Giamatti's Mike Flaherty is forced to reassess after a new person enters his life. This person is Kyle, a 16-year-old runaway attempting an escape from life with his drug-addicted mother and Kyle, it turns out, has a talent which Mike may be able to put to use to better his own life. For Mike is the local High School wrestling coach and a community lawyer and equally successful at both - that is to say, not very. His family seem blissfully oblivious to his law firm's troubles despite the constantly dropped hints like his unhappiness at the idea of hiring professionals to carry out work he feels he can do himself (lavatory fixing, tree felling).
Win Win is the story of an everyday guy making bad decision after bad decision but even while you hold your head in your hands and pray for him to stop, you revel in the comedy of the situation. But when Kyle's mother arrives on the scene Mike's life is once again turned on its head as he finds that his bad decisions can't be ignored forever. Melanie Lynskey brings a brittle presence to this rather gentle comedy and in forcing Mike's hand delivers the dramatic element of the script, yet McCarthy manages to avoid the cloying cliches of the genre, bringing the story to a satisfactory feel-good ending without the sense of disappointment which follows when a witty film sinks into sentiment.
Paul Giamatti is excellent as the good guy gone surprisingly (and rather pathetically) bad. He underplays everything allowing the more colourful characters to grab the attention and none do this better than his friends Stephen (Jeffrey Tambor) and Terry (Bobby Cannavale), an hilarious duo of best intentions and ego. Cannavale gets most of the big laughs as the overgrown spoilt man-child dealing badly with the breakdown of his relationship and suffering from some overly nostalgic form of midlife crisis.
But special mention must go to debutante Alex Shaffer. His Kyle is subdued and gentle whist hiding a lot of pain and great strength underneath. The impact that he has on and the relationship he builds with his adoptive family is genuine and moving.
A gentle character-driven comedy that ticks all of the best McCarthy boxes.
- 8/10
With Win Win Tom McCarthy, he of outsider films The Station Agent and The Visitor, shifts his attention to a family man at the centre of his community. However, much like Finbar McBride and Walter, Paul Giamatti's Mike Flaherty is forced to reassess after a new person enters his life. This person is Kyle, a 16-year-old runaway attempting an escape from life with his drug-addicted mother and Kyle, it turns out, has a talent which Mike may be able to put to use to better his own life. For Mike is the local High School wrestling coach and a community lawyer and equally successful at both - that is to say, not very. His family seem blissfully oblivious to his law firm's troubles despite the constantly dropped hints like his unhappiness at the idea of hiring professionals to carry out work he feels he can do himself (lavatory fixing, tree felling).
Win Win is the story of an everyday guy making bad decision after bad decision but even while you hold your head in your hands and pray for him to stop, you revel in the comedy of the situation. But when Kyle's mother arrives on the scene Mike's life is once again turned on its head as he finds that his bad decisions can't be ignored forever. Melanie Lynskey brings a brittle presence to this rather gentle comedy and in forcing Mike's hand delivers the dramatic element of the script, yet McCarthy manages to avoid the cloying cliches of the genre, bringing the story to a satisfactory feel-good ending without the sense of disappointment which follows when a witty film sinks into sentiment.
Paul Giamatti is excellent as the good guy gone surprisingly (and rather pathetically) bad. He underplays everything allowing the more colourful characters to grab the attention and none do this better than his friends Stephen (Jeffrey Tambor) and Terry (Bobby Cannavale), an hilarious duo of best intentions and ego. Cannavale gets most of the big laughs as the overgrown spoilt man-child dealing badly with the breakdown of his relationship and suffering from some overly nostalgic form of midlife crisis.
But special mention must go to debutante Alex Shaffer. His Kyle is subdued and gentle whist hiding a lot of pain and great strength underneath. The impact that he has on and the relationship he builds with his adoptive family is genuine and moving.
A gentle character-driven comedy that ticks all of the best McCarthy boxes.
- 8/10
Sunday 29 May 2011
Hanna
"Run little piggy"
Joe Wright's endlessly stylish cat-and-mouse film is a wonderful move away from the period dramas people may associate him with (how many people actually saw The Soloist after all?). His visually appealing take does justice to Seth Lochhead and David Farr's location-packed script, the emphasis always falling on where Hanna is which greatly influences who she is.
Hanna is an assassin - and a young one at that. Her whole life has been a training camp in which her father instills the rules she must follow to stay alive, "You must always be ready. Even when you're sleeping", but not the skills she needs when she finally comes up against that unknown quantity - other people.
Saoirse Ronan handles the difficult leading role of the youthful assassin with aplomb. It is a very physical role without much scripted opportunity to show the inner workings of the child, yet she brings real heart to the character and her new, confusing, experiences with civilisation are played with just the right amount of awkwardness and curiosity.
The plot is drip-fed to the audience. We're kept in the dark about the reason for the hunt for quite some time and even then new information hijacks us along the way. In fact it appears that we are discovering things at about the same rate as Hanna herself, who remains in the dark about important plot points almost until the bitter end.
Eric Bana is very good as the father who has chosen to raise his daughter very much to his own design; in such a way as to make it impossible for her to make an informed decision about her life's direction. It may seem strange and would make his character difficult to sympathise with were it not for the warmth with which he plays it. Cate Blanchett is rather a weak link with a drifting accent and a slightly-too-driven character to get to grips with when we are told so little about her (what is her obsession with her teeth all about?). However, I do wonder if the accent shifts are a character decision as she appears to get more Southern as she tries to come across as warm and caring.
The real star of the show is Tom Hollander's wearer of short-shorts extraordinaire, Isaacs. Equal parts camp and creepy he edges ever closer to his prey with ever more well-contained joy. It is yet another utterly brilliant performance to add to Hollander's seemingly never-ending list of extraordinary characters. Yep, I love that guy.
Really though, Hanna is a film in which the style, production design and score (a brilliant piece of work by the Chemical Brothers consisting of pounding beats and haunting nursery rhymes) carry much of the weight. Wright uses locations brilliantly, moving from snow to desert, populated urban areas to abandoned, overgrown sites with ease. And this movement allows us to see the characters at their most comfortable and completely out of their depth which only allows us to understand them better. As Hannah graduates from life with her father to the harsh landscapes of the compound and the desert, and then to the (much more dangerous) locales of urban life, we see that Wright is even more adept at pulling together different visual styles than his heroine is at adapting to the new constraints and information in her life.
Stylish with some very interesting performances - all underscored excellently by The Chemical Brothers - 8/10
Joe Wright's endlessly stylish cat-and-mouse film is a wonderful move away from the period dramas people may associate him with (how many people actually saw The Soloist after all?). His visually appealing take does justice to Seth Lochhead and David Farr's location-packed script, the emphasis always falling on where Hanna is which greatly influences who she is.
Hanna is an assassin - and a young one at that. Her whole life has been a training camp in which her father instills the rules she must follow to stay alive, "You must always be ready. Even when you're sleeping", but not the skills she needs when she finally comes up against that unknown quantity - other people.
Saoirse Ronan handles the difficult leading role of the youthful assassin with aplomb. It is a very physical role without much scripted opportunity to show the inner workings of the child, yet she brings real heart to the character and her new, confusing, experiences with civilisation are played with just the right amount of awkwardness and curiosity.
The plot is drip-fed to the audience. We're kept in the dark about the reason for the hunt for quite some time and even then new information hijacks us along the way. In fact it appears that we are discovering things at about the same rate as Hanna herself, who remains in the dark about important plot points almost until the bitter end.
Eric Bana is very good as the father who has chosen to raise his daughter very much to his own design; in such a way as to make it impossible for her to make an informed decision about her life's direction. It may seem strange and would make his character difficult to sympathise with were it not for the warmth with which he plays it. Cate Blanchett is rather a weak link with a drifting accent and a slightly-too-driven character to get to grips with when we are told so little about her (what is her obsession with her teeth all about?). However, I do wonder if the accent shifts are a character decision as she appears to get more Southern as she tries to come across as warm and caring.
The real star of the show is Tom Hollander's wearer of short-shorts extraordinaire, Isaacs. Equal parts camp and creepy he edges ever closer to his prey with ever more well-contained joy. It is yet another utterly brilliant performance to add to Hollander's seemingly never-ending list of extraordinary characters. Yep, I love that guy.
Really though, Hanna is a film in which the style, production design and score (a brilliant piece of work by the Chemical Brothers consisting of pounding beats and haunting nursery rhymes) carry much of the weight. Wright uses locations brilliantly, moving from snow to desert, populated urban areas to abandoned, overgrown sites with ease. And this movement allows us to see the characters at their most comfortable and completely out of their depth which only allows us to understand them better. As Hannah graduates from life with her father to the harsh landscapes of the compound and the desert, and then to the (much more dangerous) locales of urban life, we see that Wright is even more adept at pulling together different visual styles than his heroine is at adapting to the new constraints and information in her life.
Stylish with some very interesting performances - all underscored excellently by The Chemical Brothers - 8/10
Saturday 28 May 2011
Meek's Cutoff
"I think this was written long before we got here"
Kelly Reichardt has created a creeping trawl of a film in which we watch three families traipsing across the Omaha Trail in search of riches and a new life. This search is clearly not going well as we join them far enough into the journey for them to be questioning their guide, Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood). In fact, as the film lingers on it becomes less about a search for the gold-filled promised land than a quietly desperate endeavour to find water, trust and humanity in these less than humane conditions.
There are many interesting elements to this film which can be taken as either praise-worthy or criticisms depending on the mood that takes you while watching. For instance, the static camera-work, the lack of dialogue, any real drama, character development. I think a lot of these are praise-worthy but unfortunately the coming together of these elements did not meld to form an engaging enough film for me.
The idea that I really got the most out of was that this wasn't a story put to screen but part of one. That these characters are fully formed and without need of explanation thrilled me. That they continue to travel without needing to 'grow' in front of our eyes excited me greatly. This film is not so much a drama as a dip into the reality of the character's lives; very much warts and all.
This is where the lack of dialogue comes into play. These people are trekking, they aren't chatting. When they do, it is something that needs to be said. Seeing the women walking alongside the wagons, their dresses blowing violently about them in the desert wind, working their fingers to the bone to clean and cook on the road and staying out of the 'men's business' is a slice of reality that seems hard to watch. These people aren't here for our entertainment. They're here to survive and they are going to try to do that the best way they can - by getting on with things.
The look of the film is striking. A great deal of the footage focuses on the movement of the caravan; the camera remaining still as they walk slowly across the horizon. The lengthy silences mean that you have to rely on the visuals for character information and plot details to emerge. There are moments where you almost want to look away because the camera has been still with so little happening for so long. Inevitably this is when the important things happen. There is excellent use of real lighting and indeed utter darkness. I think I saw William Patton's face clearly only once during the film. His whispered, tense conversations with his wife (Michelle Williams) take place in such deep darkness that the dialogue was really brought to the fore.
Unfortunately not all of the characters are completely convincing which the film clearly relies upon due to dropping us into this episode of their lives. Zoe Kazan's hysterical Millie and her husband (an unusually disappointing Paul Dano) seem slightly over the top.
A fine piece of art but not engaging enough as a film. However, if I see a better, more fitting ending this year I will be very, very surprised (and very excited) - 7/10.
Kelly Reichardt has created a creeping trawl of a film in which we watch three families traipsing across the Omaha Trail in search of riches and a new life. This search is clearly not going well as we join them far enough into the journey for them to be questioning their guide, Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood). In fact, as the film lingers on it becomes less about a search for the gold-filled promised land than a quietly desperate endeavour to find water, trust and humanity in these less than humane conditions.
There are many interesting elements to this film which can be taken as either praise-worthy or criticisms depending on the mood that takes you while watching. For instance, the static camera-work, the lack of dialogue, any real drama, character development. I think a lot of these are praise-worthy but unfortunately the coming together of these elements did not meld to form an engaging enough film for me.
The idea that I really got the most out of was that this wasn't a story put to screen but part of one. That these characters are fully formed and without need of explanation thrilled me. That they continue to travel without needing to 'grow' in front of our eyes excited me greatly. This film is not so much a drama as a dip into the reality of the character's lives; very much warts and all.
This is where the lack of dialogue comes into play. These people are trekking, they aren't chatting. When they do, it is something that needs to be said. Seeing the women walking alongside the wagons, their dresses blowing violently about them in the desert wind, working their fingers to the bone to clean and cook on the road and staying out of the 'men's business' is a slice of reality that seems hard to watch. These people aren't here for our entertainment. They're here to survive and they are going to try to do that the best way they can - by getting on with things.
The look of the film is striking. A great deal of the footage focuses on the movement of the caravan; the camera remaining still as they walk slowly across the horizon. The lengthy silences mean that you have to rely on the visuals for character information and plot details to emerge. There are moments where you almost want to look away because the camera has been still with so little happening for so long. Inevitably this is when the important things happen. There is excellent use of real lighting and indeed utter darkness. I think I saw William Patton's face clearly only once during the film. His whispered, tense conversations with his wife (Michelle Williams) take place in such deep darkness that the dialogue was really brought to the fore.
Unfortunately not all of the characters are completely convincing which the film clearly relies upon due to dropping us into this episode of their lives. Zoe Kazan's hysterical Millie and her husband (an unusually disappointing Paul Dano) seem slightly over the top.
A fine piece of art but not engaging enough as a film. However, if I see a better, more fitting ending this year I will be very, very surprised (and very excited) - 7/10.
Thursday 26 May 2011
13 Assassins
"Total massacre"
Before seeing 13 Assassins my only experience of a Takashi Miike film was watching the first half of Audition - you know, the boring half - and turning it off because it was, well, boring. So when it was suggested to me that I watch 13 Assassins I was concerned not only by the 2+ hours (ok, only +6 minutes) running time, but the information coming my way that almost half of that, if not more, was given over to a battle sequence. An hour? Of Samurai fighting? I must admit, I was not under the impression that this was going to be my thing....
How wrong I was. How very wrong.
13 Assassins is an epic of Shakespearean proportions. All stilted, polite conversation - even when debating how to go about taking out the enemy - dark rooms and darker deeds, good vs. evil, all on the most humanistic of levels.
Admittedly the film takes a while to really get going but, as with Audition if I'd stuck with it, the slow build leads to an immense climax. But even before the battle Miike has you on the edge of your seat. He walks the line between the gruesome and the subtle very well; there is evidence of torture in a scene which shifts the film into 'horror' terrain and a brief but brilliant moment later in which it rains blood. But even in the battle scenes are not all about the gore. The sequences are choreographed and shot with great invention (did I mention the raining blood?) with each of the assassins featured in their own fights against seemingly undiminishing numbers of aggressors yet without it feeling episodic.
Miike also focuses on the characters enough for each personality to come through, especially during the trek through the mountain forest, lightening the mood brilliantly through Yûsuke Iseya's joyously wild-eyed performance. Masataka Kubota (Ogura) is also one of the highlights as an inexperienced Samurai.
So it turns out this was indeed my thing. I'll be looking up more of Miike's work in the future and preparing for one hell of a ride.
Epic in the most glorious of ways. So full of detail it's probably worth another 10 watches - 9/10
Before seeing 13 Assassins my only experience of a Takashi Miike film was watching the first half of Audition - you know, the boring half - and turning it off because it was, well, boring. So when it was suggested to me that I watch 13 Assassins I was concerned not only by the 2+ hours (ok, only +6 minutes) running time, but the information coming my way that almost half of that, if not more, was given over to a battle sequence. An hour? Of Samurai fighting? I must admit, I was not under the impression that this was going to be my thing....
How wrong I was. How very wrong.
13 Assassins is an epic of Shakespearean proportions. All stilted, polite conversation - even when debating how to go about taking out the enemy - dark rooms and darker deeds, good vs. evil, all on the most humanistic of levels.
Admittedly the film takes a while to really get going but, as with Audition if I'd stuck with it, the slow build leads to an immense climax. But even before the battle Miike has you on the edge of your seat. He walks the line between the gruesome and the subtle very well; there is evidence of torture in a scene which shifts the film into 'horror' terrain and a brief but brilliant moment later in which it rains blood. But even in the battle scenes are not all about the gore. The sequences are choreographed and shot with great invention (did I mention the raining blood?) with each of the assassins featured in their own fights against seemingly undiminishing numbers of aggressors yet without it feeling episodic.
Miike also focuses on the characters enough for each personality to come through, especially during the trek through the mountain forest, lightening the mood brilliantly through Yûsuke Iseya's joyously wild-eyed performance. Masataka Kubota (Ogura) is also one of the highlights as an inexperienced Samurai.
So it turns out this was indeed my thing. I'll be looking up more of Miike's work in the future and preparing for one hell of a ride.
Epic in the most glorious of ways. So full of detail it's probably worth another 10 watches - 9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)