I'm undecided over Tarantino. Some of his work is mesmerising, with quirky dialogue and a well thought out story-line. At other times however he just seems to throw in some extreme violence and a massive amount of blood and hope for the best.
In part I think Reservoir Dogs is closer to the latter than the former.
The premise of the movie is great, a bungled burglary and a question of who ratted them out. Along with that the cast is phenomenal - a who's who of who you would want to have as a series of bad-guys if you were ever to be making a heist movie. The problem is that it doesn't seem to go much beyond that.
There are a couple of brilliant scenes in the movie. The argument over Buscemi's character being called Mr Pink is well-placed and not over egged as it might be in some films. SImilarly the torture scene is disgustingly well done, and for once I admire Tarantino for holding the camera away from the actual gruesome task - something that I doubt he would do in a more recent film.
For me though I struggle beyond that - how do I identify with any of these characters? Who are they and why should I care? I want some character development. I want some depth beyond Michael Marsden is a psycho and Steve Buscemi is Steve Buscemi. This movie could have been one of the greatest movies ever made if Tarantino had given it some depth.
All in all, it is a typical Tarantino movie. Some smart dialogue, some great actors, a clever idea and a whole bag-load of violence... but it is by no means his best.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
American Beauty
I remember a few years ago coming across a song called "waiting for my real life to begin" and at the time it struck a chord with me. I had finished university, was living with my then girlfriend and was embarking on my career as a teacher, but I still had that nagging doubt that something was missing; I was waiting for something.
Four or five years on that feeling hasn't really disappeared, except now I own my own flat and I no longer have that (or any) girlfriend. On top of that my job isn't exactly the most enjoyable (although I have taken steps to remedy that) and I am still trying to figure out what I want to do with the rest of my life. In essence I am struggling with who exactly I am and who I want to be seen as.
Which for me is everything that American Beauty is all about. A mid-life crisis for Lester Burnham is waking up one day with the realisation that you have no idea who you are, and all of those childhood hopes and dreams have not come to fruition. Perhaps the most telling line in the film is when his daughter informs him that they haven't spoken for weeks and he hasn't realised. He is sleep-walking his way through life.
I think the film resonates with me because that is what I am petrified of happening - that one day I will wake up and be middle-aged without ever having done anything with my life.
American Beauty is a fantastically well made movie, with possibly some of the best acting in any of the films I have seen so far in this challenge. From Kevin Spacey down to Allison Janney, I don't think a single person plays their part anything but superbly.
Every single one of them to me outlines a different part of that struggle of who they want to be and how they want to be seen as - from Suvari as the teenager who wants to be anything but ordinary to Bening who wants the outwardly respectable marriage. Every single character in this film is struggling with the same thing, the lack of identity or at least the struggle with being the person you want to be.
This is a must-see movie, and is without a doubt one of my all time favourites.
Four or five years on that feeling hasn't really disappeared, except now I own my own flat and I no longer have that (or any) girlfriend. On top of that my job isn't exactly the most enjoyable (although I have taken steps to remedy that) and I am still trying to figure out what I want to do with the rest of my life. In essence I am struggling with who exactly I am and who I want to be seen as.
Which for me is everything that American Beauty is all about. A mid-life crisis for Lester Burnham is waking up one day with the realisation that you have no idea who you are, and all of those childhood hopes and dreams have not come to fruition. Perhaps the most telling line in the film is when his daughter informs him that they haven't spoken for weeks and he hasn't realised. He is sleep-walking his way through life.
I think the film resonates with me because that is what I am petrified of happening - that one day I will wake up and be middle-aged without ever having done anything with my life.
American Beauty is a fantastically well made movie, with possibly some of the best acting in any of the films I have seen so far in this challenge. From Kevin Spacey down to Allison Janney, I don't think a single person plays their part anything but superbly.
Every single one of them to me outlines a different part of that struggle of who they want to be and how they want to be seen as - from Suvari as the teenager who wants to be anything but ordinary to Bening who wants the outwardly respectable marriage. Every single character in this film is struggling with the same thing, the lack of identity or at least the struggle with being the person you want to be.
This is a must-see movie, and is without a doubt one of my all time favourites.
Lord of the Rings trilogy
I've tried quite a few times to sit down and read one of Tolkien's novels, and every time I have failed. This is largely because it was in the pre-movie days, when I had simply no idea what this strange halfling actually was, thinking that I had stumbled into a stranger version of Watership Down. Since watching the films I keep meaning to go back, but there is something missing that makes me actually follow through with it.
One of my targets for this holiday was to watch all three films back-to-back, because truthfully I think that is the only way in which it is acceptable to watch them. Which in a sense is part of the problem, the films can only really be admired as part of the overall story (unless of course you are a huge fan that knows the story inside-out and back-to-front).
For me I really enjoy the second film, but it requires me to re-watch the first in order for it to make complete sense, to remind myself who everyone is (although I do treat Pip and Merry as the equivalent of Ant and Dec - who cares which one is which...) and what each one is doing or has done. Which means that whenever I want to watch Lord of the Rings I have to set myself a good ten hour window in which to watch them, or at the very least three consecutive evenings.
Part of what I like about the second movie is that it is the one where it has the most potential to stand on its own (bar the scene with Gandalf and the Balrog), with the best battle of the trilogy coming at the end of the movie. With the first it is just setting things up for the rest of the story, while the third has the rather cumbersome task of tying up lots of lose ends in a very extracted final 30mins (and yes I know it is longer in the book).
I think my problem is that I am just not a big enough fan of Fantasy, or Tolkien to admire these films as much as many people do. I don't think they are bad movies, but they aren't the sort of movie that I would just throw on of an evening; you really do have to take the time, pay attention throughout and probably watch all three in order to get the most out of them.
All in all, definitely all three deserve to be in this list, but for me they are perhaps slightly higher than the deserve to be, and are definitely in the wrong order!!
One of my targets for this holiday was to watch all three films back-to-back, because truthfully I think that is the only way in which it is acceptable to watch them. Which in a sense is part of the problem, the films can only really be admired as part of the overall story (unless of course you are a huge fan that knows the story inside-out and back-to-front).
For me I really enjoy the second film, but it requires me to re-watch the first in order for it to make complete sense, to remind myself who everyone is (although I do treat Pip and Merry as the equivalent of Ant and Dec - who cares which one is which...) and what each one is doing or has done. Which means that whenever I want to watch Lord of the Rings I have to set myself a good ten hour window in which to watch them, or at the very least three consecutive evenings.
Part of what I like about the second movie is that it is the one where it has the most potential to stand on its own (bar the scene with Gandalf and the Balrog), with the best battle of the trilogy coming at the end of the movie. With the first it is just setting things up for the rest of the story, while the third has the rather cumbersome task of tying up lots of lose ends in a very extracted final 30mins (and yes I know it is longer in the book).
I think my problem is that I am just not a big enough fan of Fantasy, or Tolkien to admire these films as much as many people do. I don't think they are bad movies, but they aren't the sort of movie that I would just throw on of an evening; you really do have to take the time, pay attention throughout and probably watch all three in order to get the most out of them.
All in all, definitely all three deserve to be in this list, but for me they are perhaps slightly higher than the deserve to be, and are definitely in the wrong order!!
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Shawshank Redemption
This is without a doubt one of my all time favourite movies, and I cannot find any fault with its placing at the top of the list. Everything about it is sublime.
What I am most annoyed about is that I don't remember my emotions or reactions when I first saw the movie over ten years ago. I don't remember what I was thinking as Red was sitting in his cell worrying about Andy, while Andy in turn sat in his holding a length of rope. I don't remember the feelings as the whole plot unravelled in the following scenes. This is a film that is sure to be magical when you first watch it - if only I could remember!!
Having said that I have now watched it about a dozen times, and each time I get that same warm fuzzy feeling inside. This is a film about hope, and is the perfect movie for when you are feeling in need of being cheered up.
The relationship between Andy and Red is wonderful to watch develop, and Freeman in particular should have won an Oscar for it (had this film not come out in the same year as Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction). There is nothing flashy or showy in the acting, there are no theatrics or prima-donnas it is all about the story and how normal people cope with extra-ordinary difficulties.
If you haven't seen this movie before then there is something wrong with you. Similarly if you can claim not to enjoy this then you must be dead inside. Without a doubt a Top100 film, and my picking for number 1.
What I am most annoyed about is that I don't remember my emotions or reactions when I first saw the movie over ten years ago. I don't remember what I was thinking as Red was sitting in his cell worrying about Andy, while Andy in turn sat in his holding a length of rope. I don't remember the feelings as the whole plot unravelled in the following scenes. This is a film that is sure to be magical when you first watch it - if only I could remember!!
Having said that I have now watched it about a dozen times, and each time I get that same warm fuzzy feeling inside. This is a film about hope, and is the perfect movie for when you are feeling in need of being cheered up.
The relationship between Andy and Red is wonderful to watch develop, and Freeman in particular should have won an Oscar for it (had this film not come out in the same year as Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction). There is nothing flashy or showy in the acting, there are no theatrics or prima-donnas it is all about the story and how normal people cope with extra-ordinary difficulties.
If you haven't seen this movie before then there is something wrong with you. Similarly if you can claim not to enjoy this then you must be dead inside. Without a doubt a Top100 film, and my picking for number 1.
Saturday, 24 December 2011
Amelie
I'm not sure whether or not it was my mood last night, or whether following up City of God with Amelie was a bad decision, but I really didn't enjoy Amelie. I thought maybe after some rest today I would be able to write a more productive (and nice) review but it is still beyond me right now.
I don't hate the film, I just feel that there are better rom-com movies out there that I would prefer to watch. Yes it is different, and there are some very touching moments, but I think it was just a bit too surreal for me.
I don't hate the film, I just feel that there are better rom-com movies out there that I would prefer to watch. Yes it is different, and there are some very touching moments, but I think it was just a bit too surreal for me.
Friday, 23 December 2011
City of God
I wasn't really sure what to expect with City of God. I wasn't sure whether to expect a Hollywood-ised version of slum life, like Danny Boyle did with Slumdog Millionaire (read Q&A by Swarup to get the actual story). I wasn't sure whether we were going to get a Quentin Tarantino style shoot-em up, with some smart dialogue. I wasn't sure whether or not this would turn into a Brazilian version of Gran Torino.
What I got instead was a simply brilliant and beautiful tale.
The premise of City of God is very simple - young people growing up in slums (or ghettos) across the world have few options to escape their dreadful existence. They can stay on at school, ignore all temptations and with a bit of luck find a job that will lead on to a better one, or they can get involved in gang culture. In City of God we see the difficulties of the former and the ease in which young people can fall into the latter.
The film is incredibly well shot, using a voice-over to narrate the overall story and to link individual smaller stories that contribute to the whole. Alongside that is a rather sparing use of violence to tell what is an incredibly violent tale - which all contributes to a very compelling story.
That is perhaps the best thing about the movie, it is compelling without being violent; it is moving without being overly saccharine; it is a genuine film about a very serious problem. After watching this I am going to be buying my own copy of the movie - definitely one to watch again.
What I got instead was a simply brilliant and beautiful tale.
The premise of City of God is very simple - young people growing up in slums (or ghettos) across the world have few options to escape their dreadful existence. They can stay on at school, ignore all temptations and with a bit of luck find a job that will lead on to a better one, or they can get involved in gang culture. In City of God we see the difficulties of the former and the ease in which young people can fall into the latter.
The film is incredibly well shot, using a voice-over to narrate the overall story and to link individual smaller stories that contribute to the whole. Alongside that is a rather sparing use of violence to tell what is an incredibly violent tale - which all contributes to a very compelling story.
That is perhaps the best thing about the movie, it is compelling without being violent; it is moving without being overly saccharine; it is a genuine film about a very serious problem. After watching this I am going to be buying my own copy of the movie - definitely one to watch again.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Gladiator
For the first time I made the dangerous choice of not writing this review immediately after I watched the movie. Which if last year is anything to go by then you are lucky to be getting a review at all! It is a bit like that phenomenon when the first cup or plate is not washed you can guarantee that it will be days before you wash any of your dishes... thank god for having a dishwasher!!
I love Rome. It is without a doubt one of my favourite cities in the world. The place is just magical. What I love most about it, is that unlike many other cities in the world, the history is incredibly important to it. Monuments to all the different eras that have had an impact on Rome's development are still in existence. In the UK you can pretty much guarantee that if these monuments were in a large city they would have been knocked down and some disgusting 1960s monstrosity would have been built over the top of it.
The Roman world is a fascinating era in history, particularly because there are so few accurate sources to say what actually happened. Most of the characters in Gladiator actually existed, with the exception of Maximus himself who is an amalgamation of several people. Yet what they do in the movie is merely a script-writers invention. Yes Commodus is regarded to be a weak leader, who had a love for gladiatorial battles - yet he was much more bloodthirsty than regarded. His sister Lucilla was involved in the period and made an attempt on Commodus' life which failed and resulted in her deportation to Capri where she was assassinated within a year.
So Gladiator the movie has some element of fact within it. But even if it didn't I still think it would be an awesome movie.
I couldn't disagree with Ebert more when he said the characterisation was vacant. Yes the actors could have done more with the characters than they did, but the subtlety actually works really well in this movie - a Heath Ledger Joker type villain would have detracted from the story-line. In fact from my perspective I think Joaquin Phoenix did a brilliant job as the weak and feeble Commodus, suffering constantly from paranoia and reacting accordingly. Russell Crowe plays a typical Russell Crowe character and there is sort of charisma surrounding him, which is exactly what the character needs.
Gladiator combines pretty much everything I love in a movie, a great setting, good acting, a story-line that sees someone lead a group to victory against a baddie... if only there was a place for Drew Barrymore in the film and it would be perfect!
I love Rome. It is without a doubt one of my favourite cities in the world. The place is just magical. What I love most about it, is that unlike many other cities in the world, the history is incredibly important to it. Monuments to all the different eras that have had an impact on Rome's development are still in existence. In the UK you can pretty much guarantee that if these monuments were in a large city they would have been knocked down and some disgusting 1960s monstrosity would have been built over the top of it.
The Roman world is a fascinating era in history, particularly because there are so few accurate sources to say what actually happened. Most of the characters in Gladiator actually existed, with the exception of Maximus himself who is an amalgamation of several people. Yet what they do in the movie is merely a script-writers invention. Yes Commodus is regarded to be a weak leader, who had a love for gladiatorial battles - yet he was much more bloodthirsty than regarded. His sister Lucilla was involved in the period and made an attempt on Commodus' life which failed and resulted in her deportation to Capri where she was assassinated within a year.
So Gladiator the movie has some element of fact within it. But even if it didn't I still think it would be an awesome movie.
I couldn't disagree with Ebert more when he said the characterisation was vacant. Yes the actors could have done more with the characters than they did, but the subtlety actually works really well in this movie - a Heath Ledger Joker type villain would have detracted from the story-line. In fact from my perspective I think Joaquin Phoenix did a brilliant job as the weak and feeble Commodus, suffering constantly from paranoia and reacting accordingly. Russell Crowe plays a typical Russell Crowe character and there is sort of charisma surrounding him, which is exactly what the character needs.
Gladiator combines pretty much everything I love in a movie, a great setting, good acting, a story-line that sees someone lead a group to victory against a baddie... if only there was a place for Drew Barrymore in the film and it would be perfect!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)