Viewing context:
Staff screening – got the text about an hour before they were putting it on. Had to get changed back out of my jamas and get down there pretty sharpish.
Creators:
Directed by David O. Russel, director of I Heart Huckabees and Three Kings, both films that I thought were more interesting and had more heart than this film. Interesting that he also has writing credits for those two, which he doesn’t for The Fighter. Screenplay by Scott Silver (8 Mile), with Paul Tamsey (nothing I recognise in his work) and Eric Johnson (writing debut by the looks of it) who also worked on the screenplay as well as the story.
What Happened:
Two brothers with an overbearing (to say the least) mother (Melissa Leo) driving them to succeed, although being far more invested in the older brother Dicky (Christian Bale) than she was in Micky (Mark Wahlberg). Dicky was a boxer, a pretty good boxer, he knocked down Sugar Ray Robinson (a feat he won’t let anyone forget), but he is now a crack-head living in a delusion that he’s going to make his comeback. In the process of this alleged comeback he is training his younger brother Micky, but by training I mean being an iron anchor round Micky’s ankle dragging him down his own self destructive path. Sounds pretty clichéd and corny…. well…. because it is really (enjoyably so though). One of those ‘only in America’ stories, although I do believe it has more than the usual ‘triumph of the individual’ arc and has a stronger society based theme, but see below for this justification.
Theme/Message:
Why was he fighting? Why call it The Fighter? Alright yeah, he was boxing, but even this film - as direct and obvious as it is - isn't quite shallow enough for the word ‘fighter’ to simply mean somebody that fights. The most obvious application is to Dicky's fight against addiction rather than to Micky’s desire to achieve, as Micky, although he hits people a lot, never actually fights for anything. You never know what he actually wants; he constantly reiterates that he isn't bothered about boxing; he doesn't have some kind of insatiable need to be the greatest. If anything, all he wants to do is simply restore some pride in his family's and his neighbourhood’s soiled reputation. I got the sense that he felt an obligation or duty to his community, his family and his cultural origins. The supporting cast of characters is littered with failed or flawed individuals, or those who just didn’t take their opportunities, all of which are desperate to play these out through Micky. I couldn’t figure something out though, was his overly passive attitude in a film called ‘The Fighter’ a deliberately ironic statement; that sometimes fighting is actually doing something for the better of those around you, for society, because you can, rather than because you actually want to. If so, very good, but alternatively, it is possible that the film was supposed to convince me that he did give a shit, that he really did want to succeed for his own reasons, in which case it failed completely on me.
What it did particularly well:
Struggling with this one to be honest. There wasn’t anything 'particularly' bad about it, but I can’t say anything stood out as being ‘particularly’ good. Possibly the film’s ability to convince me that Micky was stuck in the middle; that he was constantly being torn in different directions. Also there were some great supporting performances, but see below for that.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Not so much unimpressed, it will sound as though I didn’t like the film, which isn’t the case, I did, but I think the whole film just didn’t quite reach potential. It suffered from being neither big and extravagant, nor small and personal. So it hit all the boxing film clichés in a pretty corny way, but it never managed to elevate them moments to be really emotive, in a way to sweep you up in the narrative. Like the boxing sequences for instance, were on a couple of occasions so corny I couldn’t take them seriously (the obvious commentary and the montage scene), whereas at other times it was brutal and engaging. This is the same problem I had with the family politics aspect, which at times was easily the best part of the film, yet there were parts where it got really daft and I could hardly believe that the different scenes were in the same film. One part in particular where all the sisters squeeze into a car to go and ‘sort out’ Micky’s girl fiend Charlene (Amy Adams). This should be an incredibly tense scene, but there is this over the top, almost slapstick music playing and they all squabble around into the car like they’re in a Carry On film or something; It was absolutely ridiculous. Similar to this, the crack heads were like cartoon characters; after having seen the likes of The Wire or Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever, there is no way you can take these characters seriously.
Performance of the film:
I know there is a lot of chatter about Christian Bale’s performance, which I thought was pretty goofy, until I saw the video footage of the real life Dicky, at which point it was clear that Bale had done a great job at capturing his eccentricities. Having said that, and considering that I didn’t know how accurate Bale’s depiction was and therefore it just came off looking a little wacky, I thought Amy Adams as Micky’s girlfriend Charlene was the best performance, even though her character slipped a little into insignificance as the film went into the last act.
Scene of the film:
The scene where Charlene first meets Micky’s family. Her standoff with the mother and the sisters in this scene was one of the contributing factors to me thinking that hers was the performance of the film. The acting from all in this scene was great; they all played their part, along with the way that scene was shot in order to create a claustrophobic and tense atmosphere. It was like a volcano about to erupt.
Final Word:
Sort of cannot believe that this has a best picture nomination. I know that my favourite films and academy’s interpretation of best films are not quite the same (don’t think they were ever likely to nominate Four Lions, Son of Babylon or Redline), but I see how the academy works and would have much rather seen Shutter Island or something get a look in. As for best director, controversially over Christopher Nolan... bemused is the word. Having said all that though, I quite liked it.
Monday 31 January 2011
Sunday 30 January 2011
Hereafter (2010)
Viewing Context:
Cineworld on a Saturday afternoon. Tasha and Corey had gone to the Panto and I wasn’t exactly dying to go, so had a rare Saturday afternoon to myself.
Creators:
Directed by Clint Eastwood, surely I needn’t say more. I always have time for this man’s films, despite thinking that Changeling was pretty underwhelming and I was never inspired to see Invictus. But the man that helmed The Outlaw Josey Wales, Mystic River, Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby always deserves attention.
Written by Peter Morgan, who wrote Frost/Nixon, The Damned United and The Last King of Scotland. Frost/Nixon veing the highlight there.
What Happened:
Three stories from three different parts of the world, all dealing with issues of death in their own way. Matt Damon’s George Lonegan struggles to connect with anyone due to his gift/curse of being able to see and speak to the deceased loved ones of anyone he touches. The young Marcus in London is dealing with the loss of a loved one and Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) in Paris comes to terms with - and is increasingly intrigued by - her near death experience, where she caught a glimpse of what may be to come.
Theme/Message:
As well as its obvious themes of death and mortality, which was well served by featuring the three separate plot-lines; a poignant way of showing how these issues have very different manifestations, but are quite a unifying feature between all cultures.
As well as this obvious point, the film had a pretty anti-capitalist sentiment. This never seemed clunkily wedged in, but nor did it directly relate with the issues of mortality. It is possible that it is just one of those things, when a writer and/or director has a particular world view, they cannot help but apply it to their craft.
Marie works for a left wing news company, who highlight and criticise the excesses of capitalism. e.g. the exploitation of developing world labour. That very news company exposes its own double values as it appears to be more bothered about viewing figures and its image than it is for the values it claims to uphold. Marie’s involvement in this life and subsequent separation from it is symbolised through her billboard advertisement. Then there was George’s brother, who was obsessed with monetising and creaming profit out of George’s curse. Most of these features are not rammed down your throat, but are always prominent: Background issues of industrial relations and lay-offs, clips of news reporting on record bonuses and energy companies’ profits. Even a scene at a funeral, where it is clear that the vicar is keen to get this low attended budget funeral out of the way so he can get on with the next much more extravagant, well attended - not to mention higher paying - funeral, which is already waiting at the door as the grieving family are ushered out. Examples like this, where the incentives of ‘the market’ have entered such a personal domain are what sets this film up as firmly anti-capitalist (or at least the excessive state in which it currently exists).
What it did particularly well:
I thought it juggled the three plot-lines really well, but I am already pre-disposed to be in favour of films with more characters; it is just easier to get more points of view and angles in without crow-barring them in through a limited cast of characters. Having said that it, can be done wrong but I think this did it right, as there was a distinct point for each strand and they were all needed to complete the message it was trying to convey.
It also did a good job at highlighting the fragility of mortality by including both a natural disaster and a terrorist attack, both of which taking the characters unaware and reminding the viewer - through contemporary real-life events - how quickly and suddenly life can be taken away.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Having seen so many films recently with great use of music, the music in this film always seemed a little jarring, obtrusive, or like it was forcing me to think in a certain way at times. This manipulation should be much more subtle and go unnoticed in order to be successful.
Also, as good as the boys were at acting... when they weren’t talking, there were a couple of horrifically clunky lines of dialogue.
Performance of the film:
Performance of the film was Cécile De France (I couldn’t quite place her while watching but since learned that she was the girl in Switchblade Romance). She outclassed everyone in this film, including Matt Damon, who effortlessly played his part adequately but never really had the space to excel.
Scene of the film:
The opening scene really got the film off to a good start. I didn't see what was coming straight away and it really put up the stakes early on, introducing the theme of mortality. I was already invested in the character involved at this early stage and having read nothing about the film, I had no idea what was going to happen. Obviously you are already reading something and therefore this may not have as much of an effect on you.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Having three distinct, yet related plotlines, with three sets of characters that each individually engaged me. Plus, the fact that they all dealt with the same issue but from different perspectives was a good piece of storytelling.
Cineworld on a Saturday afternoon. Tasha and Corey had gone to the Panto and I wasn’t exactly dying to go, so had a rare Saturday afternoon to myself.
Creators:
Directed by Clint Eastwood, surely I needn’t say more. I always have time for this man’s films, despite thinking that Changeling was pretty underwhelming and I was never inspired to see Invictus. But the man that helmed The Outlaw Josey Wales, Mystic River, Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby always deserves attention.
Written by Peter Morgan, who wrote Frost/Nixon, The Damned United and The Last King of Scotland. Frost/Nixon veing the highlight there.
What Happened:
Three stories from three different parts of the world, all dealing with issues of death in their own way. Matt Damon’s George Lonegan struggles to connect with anyone due to his gift/curse of being able to see and speak to the deceased loved ones of anyone he touches. The young Marcus in London is dealing with the loss of a loved one and Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) in Paris comes to terms with - and is increasingly intrigued by - her near death experience, where she caught a glimpse of what may be to come.
Theme/Message:
As well as its obvious themes of death and mortality, which was well served by featuring the three separate plot-lines; a poignant way of showing how these issues have very different manifestations, but are quite a unifying feature between all cultures.
As well as this obvious point, the film had a pretty anti-capitalist sentiment. This never seemed clunkily wedged in, but nor did it directly relate with the issues of mortality. It is possible that it is just one of those things, when a writer and/or director has a particular world view, they cannot help but apply it to their craft.
Marie works for a left wing news company, who highlight and criticise the excesses of capitalism. e.g. the exploitation of developing world labour. That very news company exposes its own double values as it appears to be more bothered about viewing figures and its image than it is for the values it claims to uphold. Marie’s involvement in this life and subsequent separation from it is symbolised through her billboard advertisement. Then there was George’s brother, who was obsessed with monetising and creaming profit out of George’s curse. Most of these features are not rammed down your throat, but are always prominent: Background issues of industrial relations and lay-offs, clips of news reporting on record bonuses and energy companies’ profits. Even a scene at a funeral, where it is clear that the vicar is keen to get this low attended budget funeral out of the way so he can get on with the next much more extravagant, well attended - not to mention higher paying - funeral, which is already waiting at the door as the grieving family are ushered out. Examples like this, where the incentives of ‘the market’ have entered such a personal domain are what sets this film up as firmly anti-capitalist (or at least the excessive state in which it currently exists).
What it did particularly well:
I thought it juggled the three plot-lines really well, but I am already pre-disposed to be in favour of films with more characters; it is just easier to get more points of view and angles in without crow-barring them in through a limited cast of characters. Having said that it, can be done wrong but I think this did it right, as there was a distinct point for each strand and they were all needed to complete the message it was trying to convey.
It also did a good job at highlighting the fragility of mortality by including both a natural disaster and a terrorist attack, both of which taking the characters unaware and reminding the viewer - through contemporary real-life events - how quickly and suddenly life can be taken away.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Having seen so many films recently with great use of music, the music in this film always seemed a little jarring, obtrusive, or like it was forcing me to think in a certain way at times. This manipulation should be much more subtle and go unnoticed in order to be successful.
Also, as good as the boys were at acting... when they weren’t talking, there were a couple of horrifically clunky lines of dialogue.
Performance of the film:
Performance of the film was Cécile De France (I couldn’t quite place her while watching but since learned that she was the girl in Switchblade Romance). She outclassed everyone in this film, including Matt Damon, who effortlessly played his part adequately but never really had the space to excel.
Scene of the film:
The opening scene really got the film off to a good start. I didn't see what was coming straight away and it really put up the stakes early on, introducing the theme of mortality. I was already invested in the character involved at this early stage and having read nothing about the film, I had no idea what was going to happen. Obviously you are already reading something and therefore this may not have as much of an effect on you.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Having three distinct, yet related plotlines, with three sets of characters that each individually engaged me. Plus, the fact that they all dealt with the same issue but from different perspectives was a good piece of storytelling.
Saturday 29 January 2011
The Mechanic (2011) - A crass American equivalent to Corbijn's European The American, if that isn't too ironic
Viewing context:
Cineworld Bradford + Jason Statham action vehicle + opening weekend + 10pm showing = big ‘gangsta’ wannabe rude-boy turnout. Who, it must be said, were all really well behaved; testament to the film’s entertainment value.
Creators:
Directed by Simon West, director of the legendary Con Air (didn’t know this before viewing; no wonder I was so pleasantly surprised)
Story and Screenplay by Lewis John Carlino, writer of the 1972 version (Ignorantly, I had previously no idea of this original’s existance). Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) also contributing to the screenplay
What Happened:
Plain and simple action/hit-man genre film. Jason Statham’s Arthur Bishop takes under his wing Steve McKenna (Ben Foster), the son of his old friend/mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) - who also happens to be his last hit. Bishop tries to bring him up to his regimented standard, but the youthful, unruly McKenna has his own eccentric style. Plenty of over-masculine shenanigans and brutal deaths ensue.
Theme/Message:
As a non-ironic display of machismo it is important to concede that most of the point of this film existing is for the spectacle of things blowing up, brains blowing out and screwdrivers rammed through faces. Reading past this a little, I thought that there was a thinly veiled idea that both ends of a spectrum are not healthy. There seemed to be an effort to promote the balance between the overly formulaic control freak (Bishop) and the chaotic, out of control degenerate (McKenna), but this theory didn’t hold up toward the end.
I don’t know if having one of the most physically intimidating and brutish displays of might come from a gay hit-man was some way of counteracting its unapologetic masculinity or not, but it was something to note.
What it did particularly well:
The brutality really was entertaining. I was expecting Transporter levels of action, but that wasn’t what the film was about. It was a little slower paced than that, but with the violence in the action sequences really ramped up and very graphic. The two leads were really crassly entertaining; never did the uber-machismo bother me, as it sometimes tends to (I’m looking at you Expendables). It was like a really unsophisticated version of Corbijn’s The American (complete with ridiculously attractive prostitute). In fact, considering The American was a very European film - itself an ironic concept - this was like an American version of The American - Irony overdrive.
The film was paced really well too; both the action and the character development (yes it did have a little) were nicely spread throughout so that there were no lulls.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Certain plot holes that were a little unforgivable, e.g. when they explained that McKenna was able to make a connection with their next mark because this is his first job. Really, the son of one of the biggest names in hit-man organisation wouldn’t ring any alarms to a professional doing some background checks?
Performance of the film:
Ben Foster was really something. Still has that slightly psychotic look in his eyes that he had back in Six Feet Under, but he really impresses as a competent and charismatic action star, with his own unique edge. (He was also my best performance of 30 Days of Night)
Scene of the film:
Steve McKenna blasting his way out of a pretty dire situation and thus convincing me of both the character’s elite status in this film and of the young actor’s potential to be a great action star (he can actually even act)
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Brutality of the action.
Cineworld Bradford + Jason Statham action vehicle + opening weekend + 10pm showing = big ‘gangsta’ wannabe rude-boy turnout. Who, it must be said, were all really well behaved; testament to the film’s entertainment value.
Creators:
Directed by Simon West, director of the legendary Con Air (didn’t know this before viewing; no wonder I was so pleasantly surprised)
Story and Screenplay by Lewis John Carlino, writer of the 1972 version (Ignorantly, I had previously no idea of this original’s existance). Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) also contributing to the screenplay
What Happened:
Plain and simple action/hit-man genre film. Jason Statham’s Arthur Bishop takes under his wing Steve McKenna (Ben Foster), the son of his old friend/mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) - who also happens to be his last hit. Bishop tries to bring him up to his regimented standard, but the youthful, unruly McKenna has his own eccentric style. Plenty of over-masculine shenanigans and brutal deaths ensue.
Theme/Message:
As a non-ironic display of machismo it is important to concede that most of the point of this film existing is for the spectacle of things blowing up, brains blowing out and screwdrivers rammed through faces. Reading past this a little, I thought that there was a thinly veiled idea that both ends of a spectrum are not healthy. There seemed to be an effort to promote the balance between the overly formulaic control freak (Bishop) and the chaotic, out of control degenerate (McKenna), but this theory didn’t hold up toward the end.
I don’t know if having one of the most physically intimidating and brutish displays of might come from a gay hit-man was some way of counteracting its unapologetic masculinity or not, but it was something to note.
What it did particularly well:
The brutality really was entertaining. I was expecting Transporter levels of action, but that wasn’t what the film was about. It was a little slower paced than that, but with the violence in the action sequences really ramped up and very graphic. The two leads were really crassly entertaining; never did the uber-machismo bother me, as it sometimes tends to (I’m looking at you Expendables). It was like a really unsophisticated version of Corbijn’s The American (complete with ridiculously attractive prostitute). In fact, considering The American was a very European film - itself an ironic concept - this was like an American version of The American - Irony overdrive.
The film was paced really well too; both the action and the character development (yes it did have a little) were nicely spread throughout so that there were no lulls.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Certain plot holes that were a little unforgivable, e.g. when they explained that McKenna was able to make a connection with their next mark because this is his first job. Really, the son of one of the biggest names in hit-man organisation wouldn’t ring any alarms to a professional doing some background checks?
Performance of the film:
Ben Foster was really something. Still has that slightly psychotic look in his eyes that he had back in Six Feet Under, but he really impresses as a competent and charismatic action star, with his own unique edge. (He was also my best performance of 30 Days of Night)
Scene of the film:
Steve McKenna blasting his way out of a pretty dire situation and thus convincing me of both the character’s elite status in this film and of the young actor’s potential to be a great action star (he can actually even act)
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Brutality of the action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)