Viewing context:
Third film from my Hitchcock boxset, but not watched at my friend's house this time as he had already seen this one.
Creators:
Hitchcock directed, with the screenplay coming from Arthur Laurents. It is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton
What Happened:
The film opens with two men, Brendan (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), murdering another. They hide the body in the apartment and prepare for a dinner party that had previously been arranged; a dinner party that the murdered individual was invited to. The guests include the victim's fiancee, her ex (also an old college friend of the two murderers and the victim), the victim’s parents, along with the victim's and murderers' college housekeeper; the intellectual, calculating teacher Rupert (James Stewart) who unwittingly sewed the seeds of the boys' idea of killing.
What it did particularly well:
Mise-en-scéne, scripting, pacing, choreography on and off screen were all breathtakingly brilliant. The fact that these things were almost flawless anyway is amplified by the fact that they were all completed in ten minute chunks, as the film only cut to another shot when the camera had ran out of film. Had the technology permitted, I am sure it could have been achieved for the film's duration (That really would blow my mind). Not only was this sheer spectacle in its most impressive form, due to its sophisticated setup and captivating cat and mouse routines, but it constantly commented on wider issues; on morality, art, the nature of mankind and other such philosophical quandaries.
What could have been improved:
The way the camera zoomed right in on somebody’s back when the cuts occurred was jarring, but I understand why it had to be done that way. Also, considering the whole thing took place in real time, the prospect of such a great party - or any party for that matter - lasting less than an hour whilst never seeming unduly rushed is a little far fetched.
Themes:
well it was as subtle as a brick in it's interrogation of certain philosophical principles of morality, rolled up particularly in Nietzsche's concept of the superman, or the superior being. This concept was then combined with a bourgeoisie concept of art and of the idiotic lower classes, or lower beings, just not understanding it. The way that this belief can manifest itself in complete disregard for the humanity of others and can therefore lead to this sort of amoral killing; this cold, calculating 'death as art' that was seen through the character of Brendan. This was reinforced through his complete disregard for the maid, in contrast to Rupert's concession that he would ‘talk to her all night if he could’, which symbolised the difference between the two. Rupert could know all the same things that Brendan does, and share many similar thoughts, yet still has his humanity intact enough to understand where the boundaries lie.
The reference didn't stop at Nietzsche; there was much reference to Freudian psychoanalysis, which is to be expected considering the themes of the unconscious and the death drive, wrapped up in Brendan’s almost sexualised admiration of Rupert.
The theme and emphasis of art and perfection are reinforced by the film itself; the spectacle of the choreography and the meticulous construction of the screen on every single shot was breathtaking and embedded you firmly in Brendan's perfection obsessed, artistic consciousness.
Finally, this idea that Brendan took the knowledge that Rupert imparted within him (perfect murder, or murder as art) and took it to the extreme, following through with it, seems reminiscent of the fact that it has been widely documented that Nietzsche was Hitler’s inspiration for the ideal race and his justification for ethnic cleansing. Again, taking some well thought out, balanced theory and twisting it, taking it out of context and driving it through with blind conviction.
Performance:
For this one I’d rather just say that it was an all round collective performance. Every single cog in the wheel made it go, including every single performance. But having said that, at a push, I guess I would say that I was most impressed by Stewart. this might be mainly due to the fact that from my limited experience of James Stewart, this role was against type. I have seen him this charismatic, but never quite so wise, in control and infallible.
Scene:
The scene where Brendan loses it about inferiors is very revealing. It reveals his feeling on the matter; it reveals why he has committed this murder and it reveals that he has done it in a desperate attempt to impress Rupert.
Final Word:
If this was done the whole way through with no cut at all, it would be the most perfect piece of film ever made.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
127 hours (2010) - This premise should not be able to be so engaging, well executed and easy to watch, but it is
Viewing context:
Cineworld on a weekday evening. Wasn’t going to bother (despite my Danny Boyle love) until I watched a few bits at work and felt it really deserved a look-in.
Creators:
Directed by Danny Boyle; as diverse as ever, going from Slumdog to this is quite a leap. Screenplay also by Boyle, which is new for him, but supported by Yorkshireman Simon Beaufoy who has history with Boyle from Slumdog.
What Happened:
Cocky fella goes off to refine his climbing skills, completely alone without informing anyone where he’s off to. Miles away from the vaguest form of civilisation, he dislodges a boulder as he falls down a fissure, only to find his arm crushed and trapped by the rock. With only a backpack full of supplies, tools and materials, how long until he has to do the inevitable - or die.
What it did particularly well:
Very personal. Thought it would be an issue that it lacked buried's contemporary socio-political commentary, but it really didn't. 1. Because the character was so much more engaging than Reynold's in Buried and 2. because it did have plenty of cultural commentary, but less focused on one aspect like post invasion Iraq and more generally on western individualism.
The sound was great; it built up everything that the visuals couldn't or that the visuals would have let down.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
If I have any gripes, I would have liked it to be more obvious that he had to break his arm. I got that he knew that the knife couldn't go through the bone so had to break it out of the way to cut around it.
I also thought that it suffered from the fact that i knew he got out and was ok. I thought that the film would have done enough in just showing me that journey and to an extent it did, but it just lacked a little suspense and therefore did drag on a little about two thirds in.
The really trippy bits I bought, but the gameshow just seemed like a pretty convenient way for getting some exposition in and to give him a reason to talk about how he was feeling. Same goes for talking into the camera.
Theme/Message:
It was a critique of the solo, individualistic lifestyle that erodes the soul. This man is one of the most individualistic, hedonistic, 21st century, western archetypes, though without being crude, horrible or too unlikeable. He can therefore quite easily represent that prevalent individualism throughout society without being an over-the-top greedy banker type that shits on everyone below them. This way he can represent all that is wrong with individualism, whilst still being real and so the viewer can find it easier to identify with him; to project themselves onto him. It is his individualism and his complete disregard for anybody else in the world that has him stuck there, slowly dying - alone. By beginning and ending with the scenes of busy crowded places, there was a real contrast created against his self-imposed isolation. The thing that just tops this off is the fact that he literally has to shout for help; he has to break down and fully admits that he needs other people; he needs to be part of society.
Performance of the film:
Not only because he was pretty much the only person in the film (don’t think that you could give it to the inflatable Scooby Doo), but Franco really does put in a mature performance to hold up the whole film. I would much rather a performance such as this garner the Academy’s attention rather than the inevitable Colin Firth win.
Scene of the film:
The end, as he has to actually shout and concede that he needs help. This was the moment that convinced me he had learned what he needed to. Had it not been for this scene, or that if it wasn't executed the way that it was, I think it may have lost a little of its point.
Final Word:
This premise should not have been able to be so engaging, well executed and easy to watch. It took great scripting, directing and acting to even make it possible.
Cineworld on a weekday evening. Wasn’t going to bother (despite my Danny Boyle love) until I watched a few bits at work and felt it really deserved a look-in.
Creators:
Directed by Danny Boyle; as diverse as ever, going from Slumdog to this is quite a leap. Screenplay also by Boyle, which is new for him, but supported by Yorkshireman Simon Beaufoy who has history with Boyle from Slumdog.
What Happened:
Cocky fella goes off to refine his climbing skills, completely alone without informing anyone where he’s off to. Miles away from the vaguest form of civilisation, he dislodges a boulder as he falls down a fissure, only to find his arm crushed and trapped by the rock. With only a backpack full of supplies, tools and materials, how long until he has to do the inevitable - or die.
What it did particularly well:
Very personal. Thought it would be an issue that it lacked buried's contemporary socio-political commentary, but it really didn't. 1. Because the character was so much more engaging than Reynold's in Buried and 2. because it did have plenty of cultural commentary, but less focused on one aspect like post invasion Iraq and more generally on western individualism.
The sound was great; it built up everything that the visuals couldn't or that the visuals would have let down.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
If I have any gripes, I would have liked it to be more obvious that he had to break his arm. I got that he knew that the knife couldn't go through the bone so had to break it out of the way to cut around it.
I also thought that it suffered from the fact that i knew he got out and was ok. I thought that the film would have done enough in just showing me that journey and to an extent it did, but it just lacked a little suspense and therefore did drag on a little about two thirds in.
The really trippy bits I bought, but the gameshow just seemed like a pretty convenient way for getting some exposition in and to give him a reason to talk about how he was feeling. Same goes for talking into the camera.
Theme/Message:
It was a critique of the solo, individualistic lifestyle that erodes the soul. This man is one of the most individualistic, hedonistic, 21st century, western archetypes, though without being crude, horrible or too unlikeable. He can therefore quite easily represent that prevalent individualism throughout society without being an over-the-top greedy banker type that shits on everyone below them. This way he can represent all that is wrong with individualism, whilst still being real and so the viewer can find it easier to identify with him; to project themselves onto him. It is his individualism and his complete disregard for anybody else in the world that has him stuck there, slowly dying - alone. By beginning and ending with the scenes of busy crowded places, there was a real contrast created against his self-imposed isolation. The thing that just tops this off is the fact that he literally has to shout for help; he has to break down and fully admits that he needs other people; he needs to be part of society.
Performance of the film:
Not only because he was pretty much the only person in the film (don’t think that you could give it to the inflatable Scooby Doo), but Franco really does put in a mature performance to hold up the whole film. I would much rather a performance such as this garner the Academy’s attention rather than the inevitable Colin Firth win.
Scene of the film:
The end, as he has to actually shout and concede that he needs help. This was the moment that convinced me he had learned what he needed to. Had it not been for this scene, or that if it wasn't executed the way that it was, I think it may have lost a little of its point.
Final Word:
This premise should not have been able to be so engaging, well executed and easy to watch. It took great scripting, directing and acting to even make it possible.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
The Seven Year Itch (1955) - Not the best Monroe vehicle, but some interesting commentary on consumerism
Viewing context:
The third film in Tasha’s picks’ Marylin Monroe season.
Creators:
Directed by Billy Wilder (Seen Double Indemnity and Some Like it Hot, not seen - but want to - The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard. Screenplay also by Wilder, along with George Axelrod (Manchurian Candidate and Breakfast at Tiffany’s) who also wrote the play on which the film is based.
What Happened:
The film opens to the native people of Manhattan, shipping the women and children up river to where it is cool, in order for the men to stay and work (well... get distracted). Fast forward to 1950s and same ritual is going on. Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell), an individual with the wildest imagination, is left to torment himself, trying to resist smoking, drinking and most of all, the ditsy but beautiful Marilyn Monroe (whose character remains nameless) who has moved into the apartment above for the summer.
What it did particularly well:
The initially unassuming Sherman, who seemed a far cry from the charming, smooth talking, wise cracking lead of the usual Monroe vehicles turned out to be the main crux of the whole thing. His rants; the explanations and justifications he came up with in order to carry on attempting to lure Monroe to his apartment, and then the lengths to which his imagination stretched, foreseeing what trouble he would be in if anybody so much as suspected this was going on, worked as great entertainment.
Unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It seemed better suited to the stage. Not that this made it less watchable, but it seemed a little uncinematic at times. It also took me a little while to warm to Sherman, although, as I lay out above, once I did he was great.
Message/themes:
It was pretty blatant in its explanation of being about a combination of middle aged suppression, psychoanalysis/the unconscious, and then how this ties in to marketing and branding. One humerous (yet true enough) statement mentions how 'this soda' - reads long list of ingredients - 'can be better for me than some simple scotch, water and fresh lemon'. Another example is how Monroe's character herself was used to advertise tooth paste. Yet another example was that something as ludicrous as calories can be a unique selling point; this was highlighted as something a little pedantic that was obsessed over. Add to this, the metanarrative function of Monroe herself; a brand, intentionally used to sell the actual film, which can be read as a self acknowledging feature ratifying the film's principles. Note that we never even know the characters name; another indicator that the film intentionally acknowledges Monroe as a brand.
Performance of the film:
Once I came round to him it was Tom Ewell. Monroe was simply playing ditsy here, whereas I have much preffered her in those roles where she appears ditsy, or plays up the fact that she is, whereas she is actually scheming about something.
Scene of the film:
The scene in which he is trying to be sophisticated and speaking to her about psychoanalysis, yet she is paying no attention whatsoever and simply musing on how she can replace or improve the performance of her ineffective fan. It was really funny and spoke volumes about the characters; his belief that he neeeded to appear sophisticated and worldly, and the fact that she was so vacant minded that all she could do was concentrate on the most immediate problem at hand.
Final Word:
The dialogue, and the ability to create a fascinating character and put him in a situation that heightens everything that is enjoyable about his eccentricities made the whole performance aspect of the film really enjoyable.
The third film in Tasha’s picks’ Marylin Monroe season.
Creators:
Directed by Billy Wilder (Seen Double Indemnity and Some Like it Hot, not seen - but want to - The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard. Screenplay also by Wilder, along with George Axelrod (Manchurian Candidate and Breakfast at Tiffany’s) who also wrote the play on which the film is based.
What Happened:
The film opens to the native people of Manhattan, shipping the women and children up river to where it is cool, in order for the men to stay and work (well... get distracted). Fast forward to 1950s and same ritual is going on. Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell), an individual with the wildest imagination, is left to torment himself, trying to resist smoking, drinking and most of all, the ditsy but beautiful Marilyn Monroe (whose character remains nameless) who has moved into the apartment above for the summer.
What it did particularly well:
The initially unassuming Sherman, who seemed a far cry from the charming, smooth talking, wise cracking lead of the usual Monroe vehicles turned out to be the main crux of the whole thing. His rants; the explanations and justifications he came up with in order to carry on attempting to lure Monroe to his apartment, and then the lengths to which his imagination stretched, foreseeing what trouble he would be in if anybody so much as suspected this was going on, worked as great entertainment.
Unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It seemed better suited to the stage. Not that this made it less watchable, but it seemed a little uncinematic at times. It also took me a little while to warm to Sherman, although, as I lay out above, once I did he was great.
Message/themes:
It was pretty blatant in its explanation of being about a combination of middle aged suppression, psychoanalysis/the unconscious, and then how this ties in to marketing and branding. One humerous (yet true enough) statement mentions how 'this soda' - reads long list of ingredients - 'can be better for me than some simple scotch, water and fresh lemon'. Another example is how Monroe's character herself was used to advertise tooth paste. Yet another example was that something as ludicrous as calories can be a unique selling point; this was highlighted as something a little pedantic that was obsessed over. Add to this, the metanarrative function of Monroe herself; a brand, intentionally used to sell the actual film, which can be read as a self acknowledging feature ratifying the film's principles. Note that we never even know the characters name; another indicator that the film intentionally acknowledges Monroe as a brand.
Performance of the film:
Once I came round to him it was Tom Ewell. Monroe was simply playing ditsy here, whereas I have much preffered her in those roles where she appears ditsy, or plays up the fact that she is, whereas she is actually scheming about something.
Scene of the film:
The scene in which he is trying to be sophisticated and speaking to her about psychoanalysis, yet she is paying no attention whatsoever and simply musing on how she can replace or improve the performance of her ineffective fan. It was really funny and spoke volumes about the characters; his belief that he neeeded to appear sophisticated and worldly, and the fact that she was so vacant minded that all she could do was concentrate on the most immediate problem at hand.
Final Word:
The dialogue, and the ability to create a fascinating character and put him in a situation that heightens everything that is enjoyable about his eccentricities made the whole performance aspect of the film really enjoyable.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Heartless (2009) - Once it stopped trying to take itself so seriously, it really grew into itself
Viewing context:
LoveFilm; Heard about it during a very limited release. Sounded intriguing, low key and genuinely indipendent.
Creators:
Written and directed by Philip Ridley (always happy to see something written and directed by the same person), who also wrote and directed the star studded, yet seemingly underwhelming The Passion of Darkly Noon from 1995.
What Happened:
Young adult Jamie Morgan (Jim Sturgess) has a severely diminished self confidence due to the birthmark taking up half of his face. When offered to make a deal with the devil in order to remove the mark, he has a renewed self confidence and appreciation of life, but was it worth the cost - dum-dum-duuum.
What it did particularly well:
Attracted some relatively big names for such a small indie Brit flick, particularly Eddie Marsan, who has been in some right crackers recently. The characters of Daddy P and the Weapons Man were both over the top touches that the film needed to give it the weight it required as such a high concept film.
The film also looked great (Cinematographer was Matt Gray). It was no accident that the lead character was a photographer; the director clearly empathises with the character and shares his photographer's eye.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Seemed reluctant at first to cross a 'twilight zone' threshold, but when it eventually did, it became much more interesting. Up until that point the acting was a little wooden and the characters were quite two dimensional. It needed an extra dimensiona and when Jamie made a deal with the devil and saw the imaginary indian girl, it became much more interesting.
Theme/Message:
The blatant, 'be careful what you wish for' and 'if something seems too good to be true, it usually is' tropes exercised here. Although there was more to it, especially the backdrop of Jamie dealing with losing his dad at such a young age and what a vacuum this can leave in a young boy’s life; thus, justifying why the character would be motivated to accept such a simple route to a different life, without considering the consequences.
Performance of the film:
The Weapon Man by Eddie Marsan (was superb in Happy Go Lucky). After Daddy P had already been quite strong, he just came in and give it that stamp of class.
Scene of the film:
The scene when he first met Daddy P is what really kickstarted the film.
Final Word
It really seemed like a labour of love for somebody with a good photographer’s eye and a decent twilight zone feel to it.
LoveFilm; Heard about it during a very limited release. Sounded intriguing, low key and genuinely indipendent.
Creators:
Written and directed by Philip Ridley (always happy to see something written and directed by the same person), who also wrote and directed the star studded, yet seemingly underwhelming The Passion of Darkly Noon from 1995.
What Happened:
Young adult Jamie Morgan (Jim Sturgess) has a severely diminished self confidence due to the birthmark taking up half of his face. When offered to make a deal with the devil in order to remove the mark, he has a renewed self confidence and appreciation of life, but was it worth the cost - dum-dum-duuum.
What it did particularly well:
Attracted some relatively big names for such a small indie Brit flick, particularly Eddie Marsan, who has been in some right crackers recently. The characters of Daddy P and the Weapons Man were both over the top touches that the film needed to give it the weight it required as such a high concept film.
The film also looked great (Cinematographer was Matt Gray). It was no accident that the lead character was a photographer; the director clearly empathises with the character and shares his photographer's eye.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Seemed reluctant at first to cross a 'twilight zone' threshold, but when it eventually did, it became much more interesting. Up until that point the acting was a little wooden and the characters were quite two dimensional. It needed an extra dimensiona and when Jamie made a deal with the devil and saw the imaginary indian girl, it became much more interesting.
Theme/Message:
The blatant, 'be careful what you wish for' and 'if something seems too good to be true, it usually is' tropes exercised here. Although there was more to it, especially the backdrop of Jamie dealing with losing his dad at such a young age and what a vacuum this can leave in a young boy’s life; thus, justifying why the character would be motivated to accept such a simple route to a different life, without considering the consequences.
Performance of the film:
The Weapon Man by Eddie Marsan (was superb in Happy Go Lucky). After Daddy P had already been quite strong, he just came in and give it that stamp of class.
Scene of the film:
The scene when he first met Daddy P is what really kickstarted the film.
Final Word
It really seemed like a labour of love for somebody with a good photographer’s eye and a decent twilight zone feel to it.
The Man Who Knew too Much (1956) - Alfred Hitchcock, there's a reason the man has a reputation for excellence
Viewing context:
Second film into my Hitchcock box-set and first one to watch with an old friend; a Hitchcock evening that we are going to make a regular occurrence. The main thing about seeing these films at said friend's house is that there is a certain amount of herbal wisdom added to the viewing.
Creators:
Directed by Hitchcock. Screenplay by John Michael Hayes, who also worked with Hitchcock and Stewart on Rear Window. Written originally for Hitchcock’s own 1934 version by Charles Bennett.
What Happened:
Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) is on holiday with his family in Marakesh when he is told about an imminent assassination attempt due to take place in London. He cannot relieve any of his intel to the authorities mind, as the assassins-to-be have kidnapped his son and are pulling his strings. Stewart and his wife Josephine (Doris Day) go to London to find a way to foil this assassination and retrieve their (really annoying) son.
What it did particularly well:
Intrigue all the way through. Vertigo was a little different, as there was a reveal followed by a different kind of intrigue; this was much more straight forward, as the first half was all intrigue and build up, whereas the final section was pure suspense as we knew what was coming but had to sit through it all (in a good way).
The masterful way that Hitchcock speaks to the audience through the characters is so clever; it is obvious yet not jarring. The scene where the kidnapper is explaining the point in the performance where the hired gunman can shoot, is done in such a way that is practically speaking straight at us, so our suspense is built to maximum throughout the final scene as we constantly listen out for the musical cue.
The framing of characters (and objects) throughout the whole film is always clear; there are so many times that the camera leaves about four things layered in importance on screen, and has just a little pause to show exactly how the power structure is being constructed; it is again, obvious without being jarring. The same can be said for the harrumping score; it is really hammered home, and though it does not go unnoticed, it doesn't seem out of place at all, nor does it detract from the immersion; rather, it does the exact opposite and locks you right in.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
The kid was really fucking annoying.
Theme/Message:
There was a great deal of exoticism, as the very American family traverse the foreign lands of Marakesh and London. Both places are alien to this settled unit; the unfamiliarity with certain customs can be used for humour, yet more importantly to build a sense of unease or lack of protection for the central characters. The second foreign area, London is a little more unsettling as it is somewhere that should feel more homely, especially as Josephine used to sing here, yet the authorities still treat them with some trepidation and frustrate with their unhelpfulness. It therefore evoked a sort of uneasiness in international relations; it made the world small and easier to traverse, but showed how this can cause a certain amount of tension or misunderstanding.
Performance of the film:
Big Jimmy of course - what a legend
Scene of the film:
The scene described above, when the assassin (and the audience) are told precisely when in the performance he should shoot. Excellently obvious exposition, and just cheekily, cockily even, nodding at that fourth wall, without actually breaking it down.
Final word:
Masterful display of first, pure intrigue, then having everything revealed in order to see and feel the suspense of the last act play out.
Second film into my Hitchcock box-set and first one to watch with an old friend; a Hitchcock evening that we are going to make a regular occurrence. The main thing about seeing these films at said friend's house is that there is a certain amount of herbal wisdom added to the viewing.
Creators:
Directed by Hitchcock. Screenplay by John Michael Hayes, who also worked with Hitchcock and Stewart on Rear Window. Written originally for Hitchcock’s own 1934 version by Charles Bennett.
What Happened:
Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) is on holiday with his family in Marakesh when he is told about an imminent assassination attempt due to take place in London. He cannot relieve any of his intel to the authorities mind, as the assassins-to-be have kidnapped his son and are pulling his strings. Stewart and his wife Josephine (Doris Day) go to London to find a way to foil this assassination and retrieve their (really annoying) son.
What it did particularly well:
Intrigue all the way through. Vertigo was a little different, as there was a reveal followed by a different kind of intrigue; this was much more straight forward, as the first half was all intrigue and build up, whereas the final section was pure suspense as we knew what was coming but had to sit through it all (in a good way).
The masterful way that Hitchcock speaks to the audience through the characters is so clever; it is obvious yet not jarring. The scene where the kidnapper is explaining the point in the performance where the hired gunman can shoot, is done in such a way that is practically speaking straight at us, so our suspense is built to maximum throughout the final scene as we constantly listen out for the musical cue.
The framing of characters (and objects) throughout the whole film is always clear; there are so many times that the camera leaves about four things layered in importance on screen, and has just a little pause to show exactly how the power structure is being constructed; it is again, obvious without being jarring. The same can be said for the harrumping score; it is really hammered home, and though it does not go unnoticed, it doesn't seem out of place at all, nor does it detract from the immersion; rather, it does the exact opposite and locks you right in.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
The kid was really fucking annoying.
Theme/Message:
There was a great deal of exoticism, as the very American family traverse the foreign lands of Marakesh and London. Both places are alien to this settled unit; the unfamiliarity with certain customs can be used for humour, yet more importantly to build a sense of unease or lack of protection for the central characters. The second foreign area, London is a little more unsettling as it is somewhere that should feel more homely, especially as Josephine used to sing here, yet the authorities still treat them with some trepidation and frustrate with their unhelpfulness. It therefore evoked a sort of uneasiness in international relations; it made the world small and easier to traverse, but showed how this can cause a certain amount of tension or misunderstanding.
Performance of the film:
Big Jimmy of course - what a legend
Scene of the film:
The scene described above, when the assassin (and the audience) are told precisely when in the performance he should shoot. Excellently obvious exposition, and just cheekily, cockily even, nodding at that fourth wall, without actually breaking it down.
Final word:
Masterful display of first, pure intrigue, then having everything revealed in order to see and feel the suspense of the last act play out.
The Producers (2005) - was shallow and a bit dull for the most of it, but did feature some enjoyable set-pieces
Viewing context:
Tasha’s pick from LoveFilm. Would have been one that I’d have not been bothered about, but it was one of those nights where i didn’t have the physical or mental ability to do anything; so just enjoyed veging out on the couch with the missus.
Creators:
Important to note that it was a film adaptation of the theatre production, itself an adaptation of the 1968 film of the same name. This version was directed by Susan Stroman, the director of the stage production. screenplay by Mel Brooks, writer of comedies such as Dracula: Dead and Loving it and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
What Happened:
Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), an accountant with dreams of becoming a Broadway producer, is going over the books of an eccentric, financially challenged Broadway musical producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) and makes a funny quip about how much money you could make out of a flop, as the tax man wouldn’t have much incentive to look into it. The next thing you know, the producer takes advantage of Bloom’s Broadway dream, roping him into going ahead with this hair-brain scheme.
What it did particularly well:
The most fun and enjoyable feature, was that the film can be experienced in bitesize chunks. It lacks the sophistication to be an entire narrative, but taken as many small events or set pieces it can be quite enjoyable.
Max, the original producer was hilarious and really seemed as though he stepped straight out of a 1940s Hollywood comedy, fitting the setting perfectly. Will Ferrel was jarring at first as I didn't know he was in it, but managed to force a few chuckles out of me.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was nothing about the characters, the interplay between them, or any sort of grand message that really mattered at all. although the individual song and dance numbers were at times thoroughly entertaining, they were also at times dul and lifeless.
Similarly, some characters completely failed to make any kind of impression, including Matthew (Ferris Bueller) Broderick and Uma Thurman's Swedish character Ulla.
Theme/Message:
I don’t think there was a great deal of sub-text to be read here, just its blatant message of greed, leading to downfall. If there was anything deeper in there, the film certainly didn’t rouse me to dig into what it might be. I was content to just watch the funny bitesize song and dance numbers.
Performance of the film:
The best performances and characters were without a doubt the camp director and his assistant. Roger Bart played the assistant and he stole every scene he was in; the pair of them lit the film up just as it was becoming a bit stale.
Scene of the film:
Make it Gay - The song and dance piece that introduced the above mentioned Camp duo.
Final Word:
Shallow, yet perfectly enjoyable (if you like a song and dance).
Tasha’s pick from LoveFilm. Would have been one that I’d have not been bothered about, but it was one of those nights where i didn’t have the physical or mental ability to do anything; so just enjoyed veging out on the couch with the missus.
Creators:
Important to note that it was a film adaptation of the theatre production, itself an adaptation of the 1968 film of the same name. This version was directed by Susan Stroman, the director of the stage production. screenplay by Mel Brooks, writer of comedies such as Dracula: Dead and Loving it and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
What Happened:
Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), an accountant with dreams of becoming a Broadway producer, is going over the books of an eccentric, financially challenged Broadway musical producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) and makes a funny quip about how much money you could make out of a flop, as the tax man wouldn’t have much incentive to look into it. The next thing you know, the producer takes advantage of Bloom’s Broadway dream, roping him into going ahead with this hair-brain scheme.
What it did particularly well:
The most fun and enjoyable feature, was that the film can be experienced in bitesize chunks. It lacks the sophistication to be an entire narrative, but taken as many small events or set pieces it can be quite enjoyable.
Max, the original producer was hilarious and really seemed as though he stepped straight out of a 1940s Hollywood comedy, fitting the setting perfectly. Will Ferrel was jarring at first as I didn't know he was in it, but managed to force a few chuckles out of me.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was nothing about the characters, the interplay between them, or any sort of grand message that really mattered at all. although the individual song and dance numbers were at times thoroughly entertaining, they were also at times dul and lifeless.
Similarly, some characters completely failed to make any kind of impression, including Matthew (Ferris Bueller) Broderick and Uma Thurman's Swedish character Ulla.
Theme/Message:
I don’t think there was a great deal of sub-text to be read here, just its blatant message of greed, leading to downfall. If there was anything deeper in there, the film certainly didn’t rouse me to dig into what it might be. I was content to just watch the funny bitesize song and dance numbers.
Performance of the film:
The best performances and characters were without a doubt the camp director and his assistant. Roger Bart played the assistant and he stole every scene he was in; the pair of them lit the film up just as it was becoming a bit stale.
Scene of the film:
Make it Gay - The song and dance piece that introduced the above mentioned Camp duo.
Final Word:
Shallow, yet perfectly enjoyable (if you like a song and dance).
Monday, 21 February 2011
Observe and Report (2009) - Darkly comic, but just not comical enough
Viewing context:
Was recommended by a friend after having watched, and really enjoyed, The Other Guys. This was nowhere near as good, so not happy with the recommendation. Friend fails.
Creators:
Written and Directed by Jody Hill, who was behind a film called Foot Fist Forward, which looks like something similar, but featuring a Karate instructor -hmmm, intriguing.
What Happened:
Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogan) is a shopping mall security guard who takes his job very seriously (vicious understatement). His pledge to catch a flasher takes up most of his concentration as the police force's arrogant detective Harrison (Ray Liota) antagonises Barnhardt regarding his insignificance as a mere security guard.
What it did particularly well:
Seth Rogan's character was surprisingly complex and was convincingly sympathetic as the depressed and deluded bi-polar sufferer.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Considering you couldn't take any of the supporting characters seriously, it really could have done with being funnier. There were a few flashes of being really funny, but on the whole didn't make me laugh much. Yet, despite having a little connection with the lead character, there wasn't enough substance to justify it not being funny enough.
Theme/Message:
Underneath its silliness, the film had a pretty grim point on the fact that some people are a little unhinged, or that they don’t really have the mental aptitude to achieve what contemporary society leads them to believe they can achieve. He never wanted to be a cop, he just thought that he should want to; that he should aspire for the greatest. This insatiable need for the individual to rise, to be all that he can be is born of the same American dream sentiment as western consumerism, which as a defender of a mall (the temple of western consumption), he has been surrounded by his entire working life.
Performance of the film:
Ray Liota comes close, as it is his character's interjections that elevate Seth Rogan's performance, but ultimately it is Rogan that carries the film, and as mentioned above, he was the only thing to form a genuine connection with here.
Scene of the film:
Got to be the one where he kicks the shit out of the guys on the street corner; cracked me up and showed a more competent side to a character that you were led to believe was completely inept, thus giving him that bit more depth than just the lovable cluts.
Final Word:
Considering I was recommended this after having seen The Other Guys, I was a little disappointed that it came nowhere near the quality of Ferrel and Wahlberg's shinanigans.
Was recommended by a friend after having watched, and really enjoyed, The Other Guys. This was nowhere near as good, so not happy with the recommendation. Friend fails.
Creators:
Written and Directed by Jody Hill, who was behind a film called Foot Fist Forward, which looks like something similar, but featuring a Karate instructor -hmmm, intriguing.
What Happened:
Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogan) is a shopping mall security guard who takes his job very seriously (vicious understatement). His pledge to catch a flasher takes up most of his concentration as the police force's arrogant detective Harrison (Ray Liota) antagonises Barnhardt regarding his insignificance as a mere security guard.
What it did particularly well:
Seth Rogan's character was surprisingly complex and was convincingly sympathetic as the depressed and deluded bi-polar sufferer.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Considering you couldn't take any of the supporting characters seriously, it really could have done with being funnier. There were a few flashes of being really funny, but on the whole didn't make me laugh much. Yet, despite having a little connection with the lead character, there wasn't enough substance to justify it not being funny enough.
Theme/Message:
Underneath its silliness, the film had a pretty grim point on the fact that some people are a little unhinged, or that they don’t really have the mental aptitude to achieve what contemporary society leads them to believe they can achieve. He never wanted to be a cop, he just thought that he should want to; that he should aspire for the greatest. This insatiable need for the individual to rise, to be all that he can be is born of the same American dream sentiment as western consumerism, which as a defender of a mall (the temple of western consumption), he has been surrounded by his entire working life.
Performance of the film:
Ray Liota comes close, as it is his character's interjections that elevate Seth Rogan's performance, but ultimately it is Rogan that carries the film, and as mentioned above, he was the only thing to form a genuine connection with here.
Scene of the film:
Got to be the one where he kicks the shit out of the guys on the street corner; cracked me up and showed a more competent side to a character that you were led to believe was completely inept, thus giving him that bit more depth than just the lovable cluts.
Final Word:
Considering I was recommended this after having seen The Other Guys, I was a little disappointed that it came nowhere near the quality of Ferrel and Wahlberg's shinanigans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)