Sling Blade – 1994, Billy Bob Thornton
Forest Gump is a film about a cute ‘disabled’ man. It’s a happy film, and the protagonist is a happy guy who makes all those around him happy. And it won Forest an Oscar, probably for that bit at the end where he cries over his mothers grave.
Sling Blade is a film about a cute ‘disabled’ man. But he’s not really disabled or retarded, he’s just incredibly socially maladjusted having spent his whole adult life in a psychiatric hospital for murdering two people. This bit is explained quite well at the very beginning.
So Lead Actor-writer-director Billy Bob is judged to be safe to be released from the ward and into society. Luckily the hospital is just a short bus ride away from the small town where he grew up. B-Bob wanders around looking a bit too much like a comedy mong, talking to good honest southern folk, even befriending some of them. After a shaky start for old Bill, it looks like things might just turn out alright...but, he killed two people, remember?
The good thing about Sling Blade is the feeling of unease hanging over the whole story. To describe it as predictable is unfair as the audience is clearly meant to know what’s coming. We know more about Billy Bob’s past than any of the other characters, so we know what’s going to happen. The only question is, just how horrific will it be?
Sling Blade reminded me a bit of Precious. There’s a heavy sense of foreboding throughout, but there are some light-hearted and genuinely funny moments that aren’t at all out of place. This is the best film I’ve watched in a while.
Thursday 27 May 2010
Bigger Than Life
Bigger Than Life – 1956, Nicholas Ray
Imagine if Requiem For a Dream had been made in the fifties. What would be the drug of choice, who would take it, and just how would it end up satirising contemporary social convention and unravel the truth behind The American Dream?
In ‘Requiem’ the drugs are heroin and television. The kids take Horse for fun, they just want to be chill. They don’t want to get caught up in all the bullshit that all the conformists take so seriously. They can see past all that man. But they are of course deluded themselves, and end up in junkie hell. The kid’s momma is addicted to her TV game shows, and the though of appearing on one of them. The amphetamines she takes to prepare for her appearance reinforce her delusion till she goes nuts and is sectioned. The drugs act as a catalyst to the dismantling of the dreams the characters (and the audience?) have, revealing how false they are.
And all of this goes down in a little James Mason film from 1956.
They don’t make trailers like this no more (yes that is the bad guy from North By North-West).
Bigger Than Life is about addiction to cortisone, and the setting is of course a thousand miles away from that of Requiem, but both films portray what was, at the time, a kind of norm.
James Mason’s stereotypical 50’s family life may not have been as common in reality as we may believe it was, looking back from Space Year 2010. But the reason we have a ‘vision’ of the fifties is because the fifties had the same vision. There were so many fifties films and TV shows depicting an idealised fifties America, that it was accepted as an accurate refection of people’s lives at the time (obviously I wasn’t there, and I’m no historian, and so I accept that my view on this may be complete bollocks but...meh).
By the time Requiem was made, we were all Post Modern and accustomed to seeing grim reality on screen for all it was. The collective delusion was over, but individual delusion still remains. Whereas fifties group delusion was perpetuated by ideology, contemporary individual delusion is driven by the whole MTV/media/advertising/internet-celebrity-worship thing.
Anyway, Bigger Than Life is worth a watch, I’m very keen on James Mason, so is Jim Jarmusch.
Imagine if Requiem For a Dream had been made in the fifties. What would be the drug of choice, who would take it, and just how would it end up satirising contemporary social convention and unravel the truth behind The American Dream?
In ‘Requiem’ the drugs are heroin and television. The kids take Horse for fun, they just want to be chill. They don’t want to get caught up in all the bullshit that all the conformists take so seriously. They can see past all that man. But they are of course deluded themselves, and end up in junkie hell. The kid’s momma is addicted to her TV game shows, and the though of appearing on one of them. The amphetamines she takes to prepare for her appearance reinforce her delusion till she goes nuts and is sectioned. The drugs act as a catalyst to the dismantling of the dreams the characters (and the audience?) have, revealing how false they are.
And all of this goes down in a little James Mason film from 1956.
They don’t make trailers like this no more (yes that is the bad guy from North By North-West).
Bigger Than Life is about addiction to cortisone, and the setting is of course a thousand miles away from that of Requiem, but both films portray what was, at the time, a kind of norm.
James Mason’s stereotypical 50’s family life may not have been as common in reality as we may believe it was, looking back from Space Year 2010. But the reason we have a ‘vision’ of the fifties is because the fifties had the same vision. There were so many fifties films and TV shows depicting an idealised fifties America, that it was accepted as an accurate refection of people’s lives at the time (obviously I wasn’t there, and I’m no historian, and so I accept that my view on this may be complete bollocks but...meh).
By the time Requiem was made, we were all Post Modern and accustomed to seeing grim reality on screen for all it was. The collective delusion was over, but individual delusion still remains. Whereas fifties group delusion was perpetuated by ideology, contemporary individual delusion is driven by the whole MTV/media/advertising/internet-celebrity-worship thing.
Anyway, Bigger Than Life is worth a watch, I’m very keen on James Mason, so is Jim Jarmusch.
Thursday 20 May 2010
Amélie
Amélie – 2001, Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Would I have liked Amélie more if I had seen it at the cinema in 2001? Probably.
It’s a lovely, lovely film, but it’s not perfect. I wonder if any of the critics who at the time described it as ‘Breathtaking’ and ‘...everything that’s wonderful about cinema.’ have changed their minds.
Watching it for the first time in 2010 I don’t think it has aged so well. Amélie has the same distinctive look of other films by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, but I think JP is too keen on the yellow/green/sepia look he always employs. Yeah it’s a visual style, his trademark in fact, but I think it’s overdone in Amélie. In the digital age, it’s very easy to apply a filtered colour to a film in post production. So there’s no excuse for being uneven. Though to be fair, Amélie was only released one year after O Brother, Where Art Thou, so at the time it was the ‘in thing’.
I suppose ten years is a strange age for a film. It’s long enough for those who saw it on release to say ‘my god, it’s ten years old’, old enough for it to feel dated, but not old enough for anyone to know what its’ legacy will be. Maybe Amélie will have as much influence as Jules et Jim. Maybe Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the next Francois Truffaut.
Most people who watch Amélie become completely lost in it JP’s dream like vision. If you don’t get drawn all the way in, it’s easy to think that the film begins to drag after the first 80 minutes or so, and that there are a few loose ends that could be cut away entirely without compromising the plot. A shorter, more focused draft of the story may have made for a better film.
But these are all minor issues about what is a very good film. I just can’t forgive Jean-Pierre for what he did with Alien Resurrection.
Would I have liked Amélie more if I had seen it at the cinema in 2001? Probably.
It’s a lovely, lovely film, but it’s not perfect. I wonder if any of the critics who at the time described it as ‘Breathtaking’ and ‘...everything that’s wonderful about cinema.’ have changed their minds.
Watching it for the first time in 2010 I don’t think it has aged so well. Amélie has the same distinctive look of other films by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, but I think JP is too keen on the yellow/green/sepia look he always employs. Yeah it’s a visual style, his trademark in fact, but I think it’s overdone in Amélie. In the digital age, it’s very easy to apply a filtered colour to a film in post production. So there’s no excuse for being uneven. Though to be fair, Amélie was only released one year after O Brother, Where Art Thou, so at the time it was the ‘in thing’.
I suppose ten years is a strange age for a film. It’s long enough for those who saw it on release to say ‘my god, it’s ten years old’, old enough for it to feel dated, but not old enough for anyone to know what its’ legacy will be. Maybe Amélie will have as much influence as Jules et Jim. Maybe Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the next Francois Truffaut.
Most people who watch Amélie become completely lost in it JP’s dream like vision. If you don’t get drawn all the way in, it’s easy to think that the film begins to drag after the first 80 minutes or so, and that there are a few loose ends that could be cut away entirely without compromising the plot. A shorter, more focused draft of the story may have made for a better film.
But these are all minor issues about what is a very good film. I just can’t forgive Jean-Pierre for what he did with Alien Resurrection.
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Steven Seagal vs Gerard Butler
Kill Switch, 2008 - Jeff King
Law Abiding Citizen, 2009 - F. Gary Gray
It seems like a tenuous comparison, and it’s one that Mr Butler wouldn’t be too pleased about, but I recently watched the Seagal vehicle Kill Switch, shortly followed by the Gerard Butler / Jamie Foxx film Law Abiding Citizen. In this particular case Law Abiding Citizen is in a different league to Kill Switch in terms of quality, but both films are basically about a morally ambiguous badass getting revenge.
I have an unjustified soft spot for Seagal, due entirely to Under Siege. I really want to like every one of his straight to video efforts, and occasionally they aren’t complete shit (Belly of The Beast springs to mind) but sometimes they’re beyond awful, like Kill Switch. What upsets me most about Kill Switch is that they were trying harder than usual to make a ‘Steven Seagal’ film, so it’s shitiness seems deliberate.
But the fact still remains that because of Under Siege, Seagal will always be able to make movies.
Is it fair to say that because of 300, Gerard Butler will always be able to make movies? He’s been in wider range of films that Steve, all those romantic comedies and even the upcoming Shakespeare adaptation, but ultimately, will Gerard always fall back on playing the Angry Wronged Man?
Gerard Butler is Gerard Butler in Gerard Butler Film.
Law Abiding Citizen is a bit like The Life of David Gale, only more people blow up.
...
Is anyone else as obsessed with Jamie Foxx’s hairline as I am?
Law Abiding Citizen, 2009 - F. Gary Gray
It seems like a tenuous comparison, and it’s one that Mr Butler wouldn’t be too pleased about, but I recently watched the Seagal vehicle Kill Switch, shortly followed by the Gerard Butler / Jamie Foxx film Law Abiding Citizen. In this particular case Law Abiding Citizen is in a different league to Kill Switch in terms of quality, but both films are basically about a morally ambiguous badass getting revenge.
I have an unjustified soft spot for Seagal, due entirely to Under Siege. I really want to like every one of his straight to video efforts, and occasionally they aren’t complete shit (Belly of The Beast springs to mind) but sometimes they’re beyond awful, like Kill Switch. What upsets me most about Kill Switch is that they were trying harder than usual to make a ‘Steven Seagal’ film, so it’s shitiness seems deliberate.
But the fact still remains that because of Under Siege, Seagal will always be able to make movies.
Is it fair to say that because of 300, Gerard Butler will always be able to make movies? He’s been in wider range of films that Steve, all those romantic comedies and even the upcoming Shakespeare adaptation, but ultimately, will Gerard always fall back on playing the Angry Wronged Man?
Gerard Butler is Gerard Butler in Gerard Butler Film.
Law Abiding Citizen is a bit like The Life of David Gale, only more people blow up.
...
Is anyone else as obsessed with Jamie Foxx’s hairline as I am?
Sunday 16 May 2010
Hot Tub Time Machine
Hot Tub Time Machine – 2010, Steve Pink
Cheve Chase got old!
But when you can’t get any real 80’s comedy legends to appear in your film, he’s always available.
Something else which is in danger of getting old is the Yearning For Lost Youth Bromance Comedy genre...for now at least. Porkies gets remade for every generation. When I was 16 it was American Pie, which at the time was hilarious, but the sequels and knock offs it spawned soon petered out until a new group of kids reached the age where they were old enough to go and see ‘adult’ comedies and Superbad was made.
Superbad is a lot better than American Pie because as well as all the hilarious gross out stuff, it placed an emphasis on the friendship shared by the main characters. At the end of Superbad we care more about those crazy kids going off to collage, we appreciate our own friendships more, the film makes the audience feel good and they tell their friends how much they like it. This whole ‘loving your bros’ vibe has been used in comedies ever since; Role Models, The Hangover, most blatantly in I Love You Man, and now Hot Tub Time Machine.
As well as the ‘these guys love each other just like you guys love each other’ angle, HTTM taps the comedy well of 80’s nostalgia. This film must have written itself; Poison, Motley Crue, Red Dawn, large mobile phones, Regan and AIDS. All the obvious gags appear, and there’s very little else. This film is inevitably funny, but it’s not as good as the more forgettable modern comedies. It’s still better than Harold and Kumar though.
At least HTTM has been released early enough to get ahead of the game as far as 80’s nostalgia goes, and at least it doesn’t take itself seriously, unlike the upcoming remake of Red Dawn and the probable Motly Crue biopic will.
I hope WASP aren’t feeling too left out.
Cheve Chase got old!
But when you can’t get any real 80’s comedy legends to appear in your film, he’s always available.
Something else which is in danger of getting old is the Yearning For Lost Youth Bromance Comedy genre...for now at least. Porkies gets remade for every generation. When I was 16 it was American Pie, which at the time was hilarious, but the sequels and knock offs it spawned soon petered out until a new group of kids reached the age where they were old enough to go and see ‘adult’ comedies and Superbad was made.
Superbad is a lot better than American Pie because as well as all the hilarious gross out stuff, it placed an emphasis on the friendship shared by the main characters. At the end of Superbad we care more about those crazy kids going off to collage, we appreciate our own friendships more, the film makes the audience feel good and they tell their friends how much they like it. This whole ‘loving your bros’ vibe has been used in comedies ever since; Role Models, The Hangover, most blatantly in I Love You Man, and now Hot Tub Time Machine.
As well as the ‘these guys love each other just like you guys love each other’ angle, HTTM taps the comedy well of 80’s nostalgia. This film must have written itself; Poison, Motley Crue, Red Dawn, large mobile phones, Regan and AIDS. All the obvious gags appear, and there’s very little else. This film is inevitably funny, but it’s not as good as the more forgettable modern comedies. It’s still better than Harold and Kumar though.
At least HTTM has been released early enough to get ahead of the game as far as 80’s nostalgia goes, and at least it doesn’t take itself seriously, unlike the upcoming remake of Red Dawn and the probable Motly Crue biopic will.
I hope WASP aren’t feeling too left out.
Thursday 13 May 2010
Ten Short Film Reviews 2
Taken – 2008, Pierre Morel
Have you seen any of the films Steven Segal has made in the last five years? They tend to be shot in Europe and Segal plays an ex cop/special forces type who’s daughter is kidnapped and he has to kill a lot of bad guys to get her back. The problem with Steven Segal is that once principal photography has wrapped, he tends to refuse to take part in any post production or re-shoots no matter how necessary. This is why some Segal films end up with a narration by Segal’s character provided by someone doing a bad Segal impression, then the poor director has to edit together an incomplete film, knowing that if it wasn’t going straight to video before, it is now.
But back to Taken. It’s basically has a plot as described above but instead of Segal, we have Liam Neeson, doing his best Jason Bourne impression. The result is a good action flick set in Paris (que top notch car chases). One little thing annoyed me though; the whole reason his daughter is in Paris in the first place is to follow a U2 tour around Europe. Yeah right.
K-Pax – 2001, Iain Softley
This film has its fans, but I’m not on of them. Spacey is playing that same character he always plays but slightly crazier and Bridges is trying to out subtle Spacey. The whole ‘guy who thinks he’s an alien’ storey sounds a bit like a Robin Williams film.
Kung Pow: Enter The Fist – 2002, Steve Oedekerk
Steve’s labour of love is very hit and miss, but when it hits it hits the funny bone hard. He basically took couple of old Kung Fu films that featured many of the same cast and edited them into one film(which was a common practice among distributors in the 70s) and then digitally pasted himself into some of the scenes along with shooting a few new ones. The humour comes from the dialogue which he dubbed himself. Well worth a watch. A sequel is in the works apparently.
Outland – 1981, Peter Hyams
After the success of Alien, realistic space films were all the rage, and Peter Hyams was well heeled in such films. Sean Connery plays some kind of Space Sheriff posted to a mining colony where some suspicious shit is going down. The premise and the production are good but the film is let down by an awful third act.
Outlander – 2008, Howard McCain
Not to be confused with Outland. Lazily but accurately described as Lord of The Rings meets Alien, this Viking Sci-Fi Monster romp is quite good in my opinion. Given the quality of the cast and the creature effects it’s a shame that this film wasn’t given the distribution it deserved.
The White Ribbon – 2009, Mickael Haneke
I watched this German film at the Cornerhouse cinema in Manchester. I watched it with a German who was studying for a PhD in Social Sciences. The film was introduced by another German who was some kind of expert on German cinema and the films of Mickael Haneke. In her intro she said that the director had said that this film, set in rural Germany just before the outbreak of the First World Wall, was an attempt to explain the mindset of the German people that would eventuality lead to the rise of Hitler and Nazism. After the film, the German student said the stuff in the intro was a load of bollocks.
Anyway...This film is ok I guess...I’d like to see it again to make my mind up as at first viewing it is a bit slow and seems to hammer home the whole ‘weren’t people oppressed in Germany/Prussia before the wars’ point a bit much.
The Thin Red Line – 1998, Terrence Malick
An excellent film every bit as good as any other highly praised war film. Nick Nolte should have had an Oscar nod, but he already had a nomination that year for ‘Affliction’. That said, everyone is good, and every lingering shot of blades of grass or trees blowing in the wind is justified.
Rather than repeat it all here I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry on this film. I will mention that the original cut was 9 hours long and Billy Bob Thornton was completely cut from the final version after recording 6 hours of narration.
A Serious Man – 2009, Ethan and Joel Coen
A Coen brothers that does not include blackmail or kidnap or murder. Although it’s still very much a Coen brothers black comedy exactly as you would expect. It’s still good though, light hearted rather than dark.
I’m not sure how much of it is based in the Coens childhood; was one of them stoned at his Bar Mitzvah? Annoyingly it has an ambiguous ‘make your own conclusion’ ending like ‘No Country For Old Men’
North By Northwest – 1959, Alfred Hitchcock
Saw this for the first time on the big screen as part of a small re-release of a new print. It was one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had. Apparently this film has been projected at Mount Rushmore and in the corn fields where they shot the sequence with the bi-plane. It is excellent and I want to be Carey Grant. I also really hope that it was Cary Grants actual handwriting on the book of matches near the end.
Awesome opening titles ahoy.
Nineteen Eighty-Four – 1984, Michael Radford
Doesn’t really do the book justice, John Hurt is good though.
Have you seen any of the films Steven Segal has made in the last five years? They tend to be shot in Europe and Segal plays an ex cop/special forces type who’s daughter is kidnapped and he has to kill a lot of bad guys to get her back. The problem with Steven Segal is that once principal photography has wrapped, he tends to refuse to take part in any post production or re-shoots no matter how necessary. This is why some Segal films end up with a narration by Segal’s character provided by someone doing a bad Segal impression, then the poor director has to edit together an incomplete film, knowing that if it wasn’t going straight to video before, it is now.
But back to Taken. It’s basically has a plot as described above but instead of Segal, we have Liam Neeson, doing his best Jason Bourne impression. The result is a good action flick set in Paris (que top notch car chases). One little thing annoyed me though; the whole reason his daughter is in Paris in the first place is to follow a U2 tour around Europe. Yeah right.
K-Pax – 2001, Iain Softley
This film has its fans, but I’m not on of them. Spacey is playing that same character he always plays but slightly crazier and Bridges is trying to out subtle Spacey. The whole ‘guy who thinks he’s an alien’ storey sounds a bit like a Robin Williams film.
Kung Pow: Enter The Fist – 2002, Steve Oedekerk
Steve’s labour of love is very hit and miss, but when it hits it hits the funny bone hard. He basically took couple of old Kung Fu films that featured many of the same cast and edited them into one film(which was a common practice among distributors in the 70s) and then digitally pasted himself into some of the scenes along with shooting a few new ones. The humour comes from the dialogue which he dubbed himself. Well worth a watch. A sequel is in the works apparently.
Outland – 1981, Peter Hyams
After the success of Alien, realistic space films were all the rage, and Peter Hyams was well heeled in such films. Sean Connery plays some kind of Space Sheriff posted to a mining colony where some suspicious shit is going down. The premise and the production are good but the film is let down by an awful third act.
Outlander – 2008, Howard McCain
Not to be confused with Outland. Lazily but accurately described as Lord of The Rings meets Alien, this Viking Sci-Fi Monster romp is quite good in my opinion. Given the quality of the cast and the creature effects it’s a shame that this film wasn’t given the distribution it deserved.
The White Ribbon – 2009, Mickael Haneke
I watched this German film at the Cornerhouse cinema in Manchester. I watched it with a German who was studying for a PhD in Social Sciences. The film was introduced by another German who was some kind of expert on German cinema and the films of Mickael Haneke. In her intro she said that the director had said that this film, set in rural Germany just before the outbreak of the First World Wall, was an attempt to explain the mindset of the German people that would eventuality lead to the rise of Hitler and Nazism. After the film, the German student said the stuff in the intro was a load of bollocks.
Anyway...This film is ok I guess...I’d like to see it again to make my mind up as at first viewing it is a bit slow and seems to hammer home the whole ‘weren’t people oppressed in Germany/Prussia before the wars’ point a bit much.
The Thin Red Line – 1998, Terrence Malick
An excellent film every bit as good as any other highly praised war film. Nick Nolte should have had an Oscar nod, but he already had a nomination that year for ‘Affliction’. That said, everyone is good, and every lingering shot of blades of grass or trees blowing in the wind is justified.
Rather than repeat it all here I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry on this film. I will mention that the original cut was 9 hours long and Billy Bob Thornton was completely cut from the final version after recording 6 hours of narration.
A Serious Man – 2009, Ethan and Joel Coen
A Coen brothers that does not include blackmail or kidnap or murder. Although it’s still very much a Coen brothers black comedy exactly as you would expect. It’s still good though, light hearted rather than dark.
I’m not sure how much of it is based in the Coens childhood; was one of them stoned at his Bar Mitzvah? Annoyingly it has an ambiguous ‘make your own conclusion’ ending like ‘No Country For Old Men’
North By Northwest – 1959, Alfred Hitchcock
Saw this for the first time on the big screen as part of a small re-release of a new print. It was one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had. Apparently this film has been projected at Mount Rushmore and in the corn fields where they shot the sequence with the bi-plane. It is excellent and I want to be Carey Grant. I also really hope that it was Cary Grants actual handwriting on the book of matches near the end.
Awesome opening titles ahoy.
Nineteen Eighty-Four – 1984, Michael Radford
Doesn’t really do the book justice, John Hurt is good though.
Monday 10 May 2010
Ten Short Film Reviews 1
Casino – 1995, Martin Scorsese
Maybe not Marty’s most artistic achievement, but easily his most watchable. Casino is well over two hours long, but given that the whole film is just one long mafia montage, it flies by.
Shooter – 2007, Antoine Fuqua
Well produced ‘framed man on the run’ action film staring Mark Wahlberg and Danny Glover. Takes itself a bit seriously in the post Iraq climate but it’s entertaining enough.
Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas – 1998, Terry Gilliam
I feel like I should know more about Hunter S Thompson to really understand this film. I suppose this is the best representation of tripping on acid ever filmed, not that I know anything about that either. Benicio Del Toro proves himself the better actor than Jonny Depp (as if we didn’t know it already).
Man on Fire – 2004, Tony Scott
Denzel Washington ends up playing the same thinking man’s badass in most of his films. In this one he’s an alcoholic ex military type who has to resort to working as a bodyguard to an eight year old Dakota Fanning. The film is set in Mexico and was only made a couple of years after City OF God. At that time it may not have been such a cliché to film central America in the grimy over-saturated colours that feature in these films and almost every film set south of the border since COG.
The plot is an original take on the ‘little girl wins over the big tough guy’ story that is normally the domain of Vin Deisel and Dwayne Johnson.
The Name Of The Rose – 1986, Jean-Jacques Annaud
Top quality medieval murder mystery with Sean Connery at his post bond sexiest. Also an excellent performance by Ron Pearlman, who continues to shock me with his ability to star in films that ‘just fall below the radar’ Hellboy aside of course.
The Name Of The Rose has production value to rival any contemporary blockbuster. It really looks like it was filmed in medieval Europe, due in no small part to the excellent work done by the casting director. Every incidental character and extra looks like they belong in the year 1327.
District 9 – 2009, Neill Blomkamp
Sci Fi Aparti Commentri.
One of my top three films of 2009. It’s basically the same idea as Alien Nation but with a far better story. It’s the kind of film that gives us hope that the big studios will put a little faith in original stories rather that sequels. (Que District 9 Part II). I wonder if it would have been the success it was without Peter Jackson’s backing.
Thirst – 2009, Chan-woo Park
An interesting and original take on the vampire genre. Every inch the Chan-woo Park film. Maybe he made a film about vampires as an excuse to have every scene take place at night time. Overall it’s good but it does feature some boringly long sex scenes. Call me a prude but I think graphic humping has no place in serious cinema, ‘never show what you can imply’ etc.
The Last Temptation of Christ – 1988, Martin Scorsese
Very controversial upon release, but obviously less so in the post ‘Passion’ world. This film is based upon a book of the same name which was effectively a novelisation of the life of Jesus with a lot of ‘what ifs’ thrown in. I like and recommend it, but Harvey Keitel is miscast as Judas Iscariot. Imagine ‘Sport’ Matthew (the pimp from Taxi Driver) or Mr White trying to counsel Jesus; ‘Fuck you Jesus, you Jew fuck!’
Hot Fuzz – 2007, Edgar Wright
Maybe not quite as good as Shaun Of The Dead, but only because everyone likes the undead so much. The one with the zombies is probably slightly more believable than this one. After the success of the first film Shaun and Edgar were able to take their pick of British acting talent, including the late Edward Woodward, who we should all take the time to become more familiar with, myself included. This film arrived at just the right time, being released in the same year as Tarentino’s Grindhoue i.e. when films self consciously made up of references to other films were still interesting. Although both films are treading the ground paved by 2001’s Fulltime Killer.
Downfall – 2007, Oliver Hirchbiegel
It’s really good. Better than The Pianist. As good as Schindler’s List.
How long before the definitive film on Stalin?
I share a birthday with Albert Speer.
Jacob’s Ladder – 1990, Adrian Lyne
Another overrated ‘classic’. Just when you think it’s going to get good, Macaulay Culkin appears and brings the anticlimax.
Overnight – 2003, Tony Montana and Mark Brian Smith
An excellent documentary about a man who had Hollywood handed to him on a plate, and then his massive ego threw it all away. That man was Troy Duffy, who wrote the script to ‘The Boondock Saints’ and sold it to Miramax for $300,000, but then it all went wrong. Recommended.
Maybe not Marty’s most artistic achievement, but easily his most watchable. Casino is well over two hours long, but given that the whole film is just one long mafia montage, it flies by.
Shooter – 2007, Antoine Fuqua
Well produced ‘framed man on the run’ action film staring Mark Wahlberg and Danny Glover. Takes itself a bit seriously in the post Iraq climate but it’s entertaining enough.
Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas – 1998, Terry Gilliam
I feel like I should know more about Hunter S Thompson to really understand this film. I suppose this is the best representation of tripping on acid ever filmed, not that I know anything about that either. Benicio Del Toro proves himself the better actor than Jonny Depp (as if we didn’t know it already).
Man on Fire – 2004, Tony Scott
Denzel Washington ends up playing the same thinking man’s badass in most of his films. In this one he’s an alcoholic ex military type who has to resort to working as a bodyguard to an eight year old Dakota Fanning. The film is set in Mexico and was only made a couple of years after City OF God. At that time it may not have been such a cliché to film central America in the grimy over-saturated colours that feature in these films and almost every film set south of the border since COG.
The plot is an original take on the ‘little girl wins over the big tough guy’ story that is normally the domain of Vin Deisel and Dwayne Johnson.
The Name Of The Rose – 1986, Jean-Jacques Annaud
Top quality medieval murder mystery with Sean Connery at his post bond sexiest. Also an excellent performance by Ron Pearlman, who continues to shock me with his ability to star in films that ‘just fall below the radar’ Hellboy aside of course.
The Name Of The Rose has production value to rival any contemporary blockbuster. It really looks like it was filmed in medieval Europe, due in no small part to the excellent work done by the casting director. Every incidental character and extra looks like they belong in the year 1327.
District 9 – 2009, Neill Blomkamp
Sci Fi Aparti Commentri.
One of my top three films of 2009. It’s basically the same idea as Alien Nation but with a far better story. It’s the kind of film that gives us hope that the big studios will put a little faith in original stories rather that sequels. (Que District 9 Part II). I wonder if it would have been the success it was without Peter Jackson’s backing.
Thirst – 2009, Chan-woo Park
An interesting and original take on the vampire genre. Every inch the Chan-woo Park film. Maybe he made a film about vampires as an excuse to have every scene take place at night time. Overall it’s good but it does feature some boringly long sex scenes. Call me a prude but I think graphic humping has no place in serious cinema, ‘never show what you can imply’ etc.
The Last Temptation of Christ – 1988, Martin Scorsese
Very controversial upon release, but obviously less so in the post ‘Passion’ world. This film is based upon a book of the same name which was effectively a novelisation of the life of Jesus with a lot of ‘what ifs’ thrown in. I like and recommend it, but Harvey Keitel is miscast as Judas Iscariot. Imagine ‘Sport’ Matthew (the pimp from Taxi Driver) or Mr White trying to counsel Jesus; ‘Fuck you Jesus, you Jew fuck!’
Hot Fuzz – 2007, Edgar Wright
Maybe not quite as good as Shaun Of The Dead, but only because everyone likes the undead so much. The one with the zombies is probably slightly more believable than this one. After the success of the first film Shaun and Edgar were able to take their pick of British acting talent, including the late Edward Woodward, who we should all take the time to become more familiar with, myself included. This film arrived at just the right time, being released in the same year as Tarentino’s Grindhoue i.e. when films self consciously made up of references to other films were still interesting. Although both films are treading the ground paved by 2001’s Fulltime Killer.
Downfall – 2007, Oliver Hirchbiegel
It’s really good. Better than The Pianist. As good as Schindler’s List.
How long before the definitive film on Stalin?
I share a birthday with Albert Speer.
Jacob’s Ladder – 1990, Adrian Lyne
Another overrated ‘classic’. Just when you think it’s going to get good, Macaulay Culkin appears and brings the anticlimax.
Overnight – 2003, Tony Montana and Mark Brian Smith
An excellent documentary about a man who had Hollywood handed to him on a plate, and then his massive ego threw it all away. That man was Troy Duffy, who wrote the script to ‘The Boondock Saints’ and sold it to Miramax for $300,000, but then it all went wrong. Recommended.
Friday 7 May 2010
Films about World War II
Between them, The Pianist, Schindler’s List, and Downfall have printed an image of what Europe was like during the war onto the minds of the cinema going public. They all show the personal suffering and trauma endured by both sides at all levels of society. Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan show us the awe and horror of the battle, but they are less human because of it. The other three films show us what it was like to live through the war rather than fight in it. Is there any life left in the genre. Will we still get a big WWII flick every couple of years? Is our appetite for World War drama insatiable? Most of the population of the world were born long after the war, yet we have been raised in front of ever improving war films.
Now that WWII has been so well realised dramatically, it seems that Inglorious Basterds was the obvious direction to take, although there are other untold war stories being made into films, particularly the stories of the resistances in the occupied countries. I suppose the years between 1935 and 1950 will provide endless stories ‘set against a backdrop of (insert pre/post/war era) (insert country)’
Are the generation that experienced the war culturally aware enough to appreciate the great films that have been made about it? How do Normandy Veterans feel about Saving Private Ryan? Would you buy your grandfather the Band of Brothers boxed set for Christmas?
Is there a more important genre of film? Are Schindler’s List and The Pianist required viewing in schools? ‘6 Million screaming souls.’ Can we pride ourselves on committing the holocaust to film so accurately and harrowingly?
“I will never commit racial genocide because I have seen The Piano.”
Was Hotel Rwanda shown in cinemas in sub Saharan Africa?
How long till a dramatic portrayal of mob rule in post earthquake Haiti? When ‘third world’ people kill and steal and rape en mass, we wait a couple of years then recreate it. We glow in the warmth of how well we can understand and interpret and condone it. Have we been desensitised to mass-suffering as well as violence? ‘Drink it away, every tear is false.’
Now that WWII has been so well realised dramatically, it seems that Inglorious Basterds was the obvious direction to take, although there are other untold war stories being made into films, particularly the stories of the resistances in the occupied countries. I suppose the years between 1935 and 1950 will provide endless stories ‘set against a backdrop of (insert pre/post/war era) (insert country)’
Are the generation that experienced the war culturally aware enough to appreciate the great films that have been made about it? How do Normandy Veterans feel about Saving Private Ryan? Would you buy your grandfather the Band of Brothers boxed set for Christmas?
Is there a more important genre of film? Are Schindler’s List and The Pianist required viewing in schools? ‘6 Million screaming souls.’ Can we pride ourselves on committing the holocaust to film so accurately and harrowingly?
“I will never commit racial genocide because I have seen The Piano.”
Was Hotel Rwanda shown in cinemas in sub Saharan Africa?
How long till a dramatic portrayal of mob rule in post earthquake Haiti? When ‘third world’ people kill and steal and rape en mass, we wait a couple of years then recreate it. We glow in the warmth of how well we can understand and interpret and condone it. Have we been desensitised to mass-suffering as well as violence? ‘Drink it away, every tear is false.’
Tuesday 4 May 2010
The Prophecy Trilogy
The Prophecy – 1995, Gregory Widen
A film that most people have never seen or even heard of, but that spawned four sequels (two were straight to DVD). The film that started it all off is one I highly recommend. Christopher Walken does his best Christopher Walken impression and gets all the best lines playing the Angel Gabriel, who is the villain of the piece. It’s a bit like the Keanu Reeves film Constantine with its Heaven vs Hell stuff, only with a better story and a better cast and lots of good ideas. Because it’s pre-digital it is far less reliant on special effects than similar films are nowadays. Well worth a watch.
The Prophecy 2 – 1998, Greg Spence
One of the reasons The Prophecy was so g, ood was that it had a conclusive, non-ambiguous ending that in no way paved the way for a sequel. The success of the original film was probably a bit of a surprise, and I suspect Christopher Walken had such a good time making the original that he was happy come back for more. This film takes all the good bits from the first film and re-does them with a painfully obvious continuation of the story. That said, I liked the first one so much that I was happy to see it all again. Brittany Murphy stars, doing her turn as a kooky supporting character that she did so well in a lot of films (Mark Dacascus vehicle ‘Drive’ springs to mind).
The Prophecy 3: The Ascent – 2000, Patrick Lussier
This one follows on from part II better than part II followed on from the original. The story is weaker than the others but it is much more light hearted. Only for Prophecy die-hards really.
It was between 1995 and 2000 that special effects went digital and filmmakers were able to get passable results with a limited budget, but I feel that early digital effects have dated worse than the last generation of non digital effects.
A film that most people have never seen or even heard of, but that spawned four sequels (two were straight to DVD). The film that started it all off is one I highly recommend. Christopher Walken does his best Christopher Walken impression and gets all the best lines playing the Angel Gabriel, who is the villain of the piece. It’s a bit like the Keanu Reeves film Constantine with its Heaven vs Hell stuff, only with a better story and a better cast and lots of good ideas. Because it’s pre-digital it is far less reliant on special effects than similar films are nowadays. Well worth a watch.
The Prophecy 2 – 1998, Greg Spence
One of the reasons The Prophecy was so g, ood was that it had a conclusive, non-ambiguous ending that in no way paved the way for a sequel. The success of the original film was probably a bit of a surprise, and I suspect Christopher Walken had such a good time making the original that he was happy come back for more. This film takes all the good bits from the first film and re-does them with a painfully obvious continuation of the story. That said, I liked the first one so much that I was happy to see it all again. Brittany Murphy stars, doing her turn as a kooky supporting character that she did so well in a lot of films (Mark Dacascus vehicle ‘Drive’ springs to mind).
The Prophecy 3: The Ascent – 2000, Patrick Lussier
This one follows on from part II better than part II followed on from the original. The story is weaker than the others but it is much more light hearted. Only for Prophecy die-hards really.
It was between 1995 and 2000 that special effects went digital and filmmakers were able to get passable results with a limited budget, but I feel that early digital effects have dated worse than the last generation of non digital effects.
Sunday 2 May 2010
Kick-Ass
Kick-Ass - 2010, Matthew Vaughn
How do you like your comic book movie adaptations?
Do you like them to play it straight like The Dark Night? Or do you prefer the more tongue in cheek; don’t take themselves too seriously style of Iron Man.
Kick-Ass occupies a new territory of comic book movie (I don’t consider it an adaptation as the comic and the film were conceived together, even if the comic appeared first).
Kick-Ass is the most honest comic book movie yet. Teenagers read comic books and Kick-Ass is full of two of the biggest parts of every teenage boy’s life: foul language and jokes about wanking (that’s a massive generalisation, I know).
Previous comic book films pick a style and stick to it. Either they are too serious to be fun, or they are too much fun to include the ‘inappropriate’ adult material that inhabits all the best written comic books. Kick Ass is fun and very much in the style of a comic book film, it looks a lot like Raimi’s Spiderman films, perhaps intentionally. It is the natural next step in the evolution of comic book films; a combination of extreme ‘comic book’ violence not suitable for kids, funny foul language (which is the language spoken by teenagers and adults who should know better), and a bright, colourful aesthetic reminiscent of the old Marvel comics.
So does this new style of comic book film work? Maybe, but not as far as Kick Ass is concerned. The good news is that the failings are directorial, not conceptual. Pop-culture reference has been old hat in films since the Star Trek reboot, where they were perfected. Pop-culture reference only really works if it is subtle and truly relevant to the film it appears in. The first half of Kick-Ass is packed with distracting comic book reference, and one glaring and shameful reference to the director’s previous work (maybe it was symbolic...?). By the second half it seems that the film makers were satisfied with the number of ‘look at this wink wink’ moments to forget about them and concentrate on ensuring the climax to the film didn’t disappoint (which it doesn’t).
If you’ve seem the film yourself, you’re probably screaming ‘But the whole film is one big reference to comic books, that’s the point you idiot!’ But that’s also my point. Achieving the right tone and ‘feel’ of a film is difficult enough, and with something like Kick-Ass it’s even more difficult. I think that Kick-Ass should have been played slightly straighter, that way the audience would have the affinity for the characters the director obviously wanted us to have by the time the tension racks up. And the best films feature believable characters reacting in a way you can believe even in unrealistic circumstances.
I don’t dislike Kick-Ass. The ‘Superbad meets Spiderman’ analogy is lazy, but somehow accurate.
How do you like your comic book movie adaptations?
Do you like them to play it straight like The Dark Night? Or do you prefer the more tongue in cheek; don’t take themselves too seriously style of Iron Man.
Kick-Ass occupies a new territory of comic book movie (I don’t consider it an adaptation as the comic and the film were conceived together, even if the comic appeared first).
Kick-Ass is the most honest comic book movie yet. Teenagers read comic books and Kick-Ass is full of two of the biggest parts of every teenage boy’s life: foul language and jokes about wanking (that’s a massive generalisation, I know).
Previous comic book films pick a style and stick to it. Either they are too serious to be fun, or they are too much fun to include the ‘inappropriate’ adult material that inhabits all the best written comic books. Kick Ass is fun and very much in the style of a comic book film, it looks a lot like Raimi’s Spiderman films, perhaps intentionally. It is the natural next step in the evolution of comic book films; a combination of extreme ‘comic book’ violence not suitable for kids, funny foul language (which is the language spoken by teenagers and adults who should know better), and a bright, colourful aesthetic reminiscent of the old Marvel comics.
So does this new style of comic book film work? Maybe, but not as far as Kick Ass is concerned. The good news is that the failings are directorial, not conceptual. Pop-culture reference has been old hat in films since the Star Trek reboot, where they were perfected. Pop-culture reference only really works if it is subtle and truly relevant to the film it appears in. The first half of Kick-Ass is packed with distracting comic book reference, and one glaring and shameful reference to the director’s previous work (maybe it was symbolic...?). By the second half it seems that the film makers were satisfied with the number of ‘look at this wink wink’ moments to forget about them and concentrate on ensuring the climax to the film didn’t disappoint (which it doesn’t).
If you’ve seem the film yourself, you’re probably screaming ‘But the whole film is one big reference to comic books, that’s the point you idiot!’ But that’s also my point. Achieving the right tone and ‘feel’ of a film is difficult enough, and with something like Kick-Ass it’s even more difficult. I think that Kick-Ass should have been played slightly straighter, that way the audience would have the affinity for the characters the director obviously wanted us to have by the time the tension racks up. And the best films feature believable characters reacting in a way you can believe even in unrealistic circumstances.
I don’t dislike Kick-Ass. The ‘Superbad meets Spiderman’ analogy is lazy, but somehow accurate.
Ed Wood / The Brave
Ed Wood – 1994, Tim Burton
The Brave – 1997, Johnny Depp
When I first read about the film Johnny Depp directed I immediately though ‘That’ll probably just be a poor man’s Tim Burton film’. Depp has played so many strange characters in so many strange Burton films (seven in total) that anyone would think he enjoyed it so much that he’d inevitably end up making a Tim Burton film when he came to direct his own.
But by the time he directed The Brave, Johnny Depp had played the lead in only two films directed by Tim Burton; Edwards Scissorhands and Wood. So in The Brave, in which Depp also plays the lead, he ends up playing a character closer to the real Johnny Depp than any other he has portrayed.
I don’t mean to accuse Depp of not having range as an actor, but he does play one of two characters in most of his films; brooding introvert or charismatic extrovert, both with appropriate levels of zaniness to suit the film (Donnie Brasco being the one exception that springs to mind). It’s as though Johnny Depp has a dial that goes from 1 (Edward Scissorhands) to 11 (Jack Sparrow).
Tim Burton turns the Depp Dial up to about 5.6 for Ed Wood in which Johnny plays the titular character who in real life directed some of the best worst films ever made, most famously ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space’. The film tells the story of how struggling film maker and heterosexual transvestite Ed Wood attempts to realise his artistic vision on a shoestring budget. Depp’s Wood is an eternal optimist who sees the best in everyone and is far too easily pleased, resulting in comically bad movies that flop completely. He doesn’t come across as a complete idiot, just deluded. Depp is always surrounded by a strong supporting cast and this is no exeption, particularly Bill Murray, but when isn’t Bill Murray good? (roll on Gohstbusters 3). Martin Landau excels as washed up, morphine addict, 1930s Dracula Béla Lugosi
The Burton/Depp collaborations are all of such a high quality that choosing one over the others is difficult. Ed Wood Stands out as it is the only one that is not a fantasy. The characters all seem ludicrous but that’s because apparently they were all weirdoes in real life.
At one point, I thought that Ed Wood was going to transcend being a ‘Tim Burton film’ and lead down a path that revealed the extent of Béla Lugosi’s drug addiction and showed the true horror of 1950’s addiction treatment. There’s an excellent shot that pans down a hospital corridor to the sound of screaming that is reminiscent of the horror films that Béla starred in and Ed Wood adored. The screams turn out to belong to Béla as he lies tied to a bed, left alone to go cold turkey. For all the spooky moments in his many creepy films, this is as edgy as Burton has ever been, but just as soon as he truly shocks us, he retreats back to the Wonderful World of Tim and Johnny.
It’s a good film, but I can’t help but feel that it is too generous to the real Ed Wood.
Improving on the original?
In The Brave, Johnny playes a guy who looks a lot like we’d expect Johnny to look like if we saw him in the street. Like the world’s most fashionable gypsy (and this film was 6 years before ‘Pirates’).
The Brave screams ‘first time director’ from the opening 5 minute tracking shot, after which we wait another five minutes before anyone says anything. The next twenty minutes are the best bit of the film, and from then on it fails to live up to the premise it sets. After an exchange with under used character actor Marshall Bell, Johnny is taken to see Marlon ‘I’ll be in your movie, but only for one scene and I’m not standing up’ Brando. Big Marl talks bollocks (which he may well have improvised) and then offers Johnny fifty grand in exchange for his life. You see, Marlon’s character likes to make snuff films. Johnny casually accepts a five grand advance and agrees to return in a weeks time.
Why would Johnny do this? Because he lives in a small caravan in a rubbish dump with his wife and two kids, and $50,000 will provide a better life for his family. The massive flaw in The Brave is that Johnny’s family don’t seem to be too unhappy about their lot in life, and no one would believe for a second that Johnny would selflessly allow himself to be tortured to death. Maybe it works better in the book it’s based on.
Johnny hasn’t directed since.
For all you Johnny Depp die hards; Part 2 (Part 1 is just credits/lingering shots of the desert)
and Part 3. Imagine what Marlon would be like if he gave a shit.
The Brave – 1997, Johnny Depp
When I first read about the film Johnny Depp directed I immediately though ‘That’ll probably just be a poor man’s Tim Burton film’. Depp has played so many strange characters in so many strange Burton films (seven in total) that anyone would think he enjoyed it so much that he’d inevitably end up making a Tim Burton film when he came to direct his own.
But by the time he directed The Brave, Johnny Depp had played the lead in only two films directed by Tim Burton; Edwards Scissorhands and Wood. So in The Brave, in which Depp also plays the lead, he ends up playing a character closer to the real Johnny Depp than any other he has portrayed.
I don’t mean to accuse Depp of not having range as an actor, but he does play one of two characters in most of his films; brooding introvert or charismatic extrovert, both with appropriate levels of zaniness to suit the film (Donnie Brasco being the one exception that springs to mind). It’s as though Johnny Depp has a dial that goes from 1 (Edward Scissorhands) to 11 (Jack Sparrow).
Tim Burton turns the Depp Dial up to about 5.6 for Ed Wood in which Johnny plays the titular character who in real life directed some of the best worst films ever made, most famously ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space’. The film tells the story of how struggling film maker and heterosexual transvestite Ed Wood attempts to realise his artistic vision on a shoestring budget. Depp’s Wood is an eternal optimist who sees the best in everyone and is far too easily pleased, resulting in comically bad movies that flop completely. He doesn’t come across as a complete idiot, just deluded. Depp is always surrounded by a strong supporting cast and this is no exeption, particularly Bill Murray, but when isn’t Bill Murray good? (roll on Gohstbusters 3). Martin Landau excels as washed up, morphine addict, 1930s Dracula Béla Lugosi
The Burton/Depp collaborations are all of such a high quality that choosing one over the others is difficult. Ed Wood Stands out as it is the only one that is not a fantasy. The characters all seem ludicrous but that’s because apparently they were all weirdoes in real life.
At one point, I thought that Ed Wood was going to transcend being a ‘Tim Burton film’ and lead down a path that revealed the extent of Béla Lugosi’s drug addiction and showed the true horror of 1950’s addiction treatment. There’s an excellent shot that pans down a hospital corridor to the sound of screaming that is reminiscent of the horror films that Béla starred in and Ed Wood adored. The screams turn out to belong to Béla as he lies tied to a bed, left alone to go cold turkey. For all the spooky moments in his many creepy films, this is as edgy as Burton has ever been, but just as soon as he truly shocks us, he retreats back to the Wonderful World of Tim and Johnny.
It’s a good film, but I can’t help but feel that it is too generous to the real Ed Wood.
Improving on the original?
In The Brave, Johnny playes a guy who looks a lot like we’d expect Johnny to look like if we saw him in the street. Like the world’s most fashionable gypsy (and this film was 6 years before ‘Pirates’).
The Brave screams ‘first time director’ from the opening 5 minute tracking shot, after which we wait another five minutes before anyone says anything. The next twenty minutes are the best bit of the film, and from then on it fails to live up to the premise it sets. After an exchange with under used character actor Marshall Bell, Johnny is taken to see Marlon ‘I’ll be in your movie, but only for one scene and I’m not standing up’ Brando. Big Marl talks bollocks (which he may well have improvised) and then offers Johnny fifty grand in exchange for his life. You see, Marlon’s character likes to make snuff films. Johnny casually accepts a five grand advance and agrees to return in a weeks time.
Why would Johnny do this? Because he lives in a small caravan in a rubbish dump with his wife and two kids, and $50,000 will provide a better life for his family. The massive flaw in The Brave is that Johnny’s family don’t seem to be too unhappy about their lot in life, and no one would believe for a second that Johnny would selflessly allow himself to be tortured to death. Maybe it works better in the book it’s based on.
Johnny hasn’t directed since.
For all you Johnny Depp die hards; Part 2 (Part 1 is just credits/lingering shots of the desert)
and Part 3. Imagine what Marlon would be like if he gave a shit.
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song / Baadassss!
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song – 1971, Melvin Van Peebles
Baadassss! - 2004, Mario Van Peebles
Melvin Van Peebles is a despicable pervert. He has always been overrated as a director. He deserves some credit for having had the guts to pour every penny he had into ‘Sweetback’. In SSBS a black guy (Sweetback, played by Melvin) kills a couple of white cops and gets away with by fucking his way to freedom. He made it knowing it was a film ‘his people’ wanted to see. That SSBS kicked off the Blaxploitation genre (along with Shaft) often overshadows the even more impressive fact it was the most successful independent film made in 1971. ‘Sweetback’ is the result of one mans vision and his incredible effort to have it made. A better director would have been less ambitious with the limited budget Melvin had (and made a less sloppy film) and may have squeezed better performances out of the actors however amateurish they were.
Of course the film should be taken into context. As an independent film made by a black director in 1971, it’s an incredible, audacious achievement. But I couldn’t recommend it to anyone unless they were very interested.
The story behind the making of ‘Sweetback’ and the legacy it left is far more interesting than the film itself. Baadasss! was made by Melvin’s son Mario Van Peebles. Mario actually appears in SSBS playing the young Sweetback in the scene where he loses his virginity to a prostitute. In the UK version, these scenes are removed and replaced by a message "In order to comply with UK law (the Protection of Children Act 1978), a number of images in the opening sequence of this film have been obscured." Melvin made his 13 year old son simulate graphic sex in front of the camera.
Mario obviously wasn’t too scarred by the whole thing though as he went on to be a successful film maker too. Baadassss! uses an unusual ‘fictional-documentary’ style to tell the story of how SSBS was made and all the ‘crazy’ people who were involved. What I like most about it is that even though it is a low budget independent film about the making of a low budget independent film, it doesn’t have the self conscious ‘this is a sophisticated independent film’ attitude that, by 2004 had become the norm for films of this type. SSBS isn’t trying to be clever and impress anyone, and nether is Baadasss! It also features Adam West in a nice little post Family Guy role.
*******!!!!
Baadassss! - 2004, Mario Van Peebles
Melvin Van Peebles is a despicable pervert. He has always been overrated as a director. He deserves some credit for having had the guts to pour every penny he had into ‘Sweetback’. In SSBS a black guy (Sweetback, played by Melvin) kills a couple of white cops and gets away with by fucking his way to freedom. He made it knowing it was a film ‘his people’ wanted to see. That SSBS kicked off the Blaxploitation genre (along with Shaft) often overshadows the even more impressive fact it was the most successful independent film made in 1971. ‘Sweetback’ is the result of one mans vision and his incredible effort to have it made. A better director would have been less ambitious with the limited budget Melvin had (and made a less sloppy film) and may have squeezed better performances out of the actors however amateurish they were.
Of course the film should be taken into context. As an independent film made by a black director in 1971, it’s an incredible, audacious achievement. But I couldn’t recommend it to anyone unless they were very interested.
The story behind the making of ‘Sweetback’ and the legacy it left is far more interesting than the film itself. Baadasss! was made by Melvin’s son Mario Van Peebles. Mario actually appears in SSBS playing the young Sweetback in the scene where he loses his virginity to a prostitute. In the UK version, these scenes are removed and replaced by a message "In order to comply with UK law (the Protection of Children Act 1978), a number of images in the opening sequence of this film have been obscured." Melvin made his 13 year old son simulate graphic sex in front of the camera.
Mario obviously wasn’t too scarred by the whole thing though as he went on to be a successful film maker too. Baadassss! uses an unusual ‘fictional-documentary’ style to tell the story of how SSBS was made and all the ‘crazy’ people who were involved. What I like most about it is that even though it is a low budget independent film about the making of a low budget independent film, it doesn’t have the self conscious ‘this is a sophisticated independent film’ attitude that, by 2004 had become the norm for films of this type. SSBS isn’t trying to be clever and impress anyone, and nether is Baadasss! It also features Adam West in a nice little post Family Guy role.
*******!!!!
Precious
Precious – 2009, Lee Daniels
Precious is a film that comes with a lot of baggage. Once American critics had raved over it so much, British film critics were predictably muted in their praise, and willing to knock it for frivolous reasons. I’ve read broadsheet reviews that say parts of the film play out like a sitcom, or that question why the characters who are trying to save Precious don’t encourage her to loose weight. I think the reason the UK press aren’t all that enthusiastic about Precious is that they are too worried about overstating the social implications of the film. No white British middle class critic can claim to truly understand or relate to impoverished life in black ghettos, and none would, nor would I. But it seems that they fear to speak too highly of Precious in case people mistake praise as a claim that they relate to the situation. The fact that the film is produced and championed by Oprah Winfrey was never going to help.
The film tells the story of Claireece Precious Jones, an illiterate teenage girl living with her abusive mother in Harlem. Precious’ life is hell, and the film follows her as she tries to improve her predicament. It can be very simplistically be described as a ‘victory in the face of adversity feel good film’, and is so by its detractors, but what adversity.
I’d heard that Precious was harrowing, and it is. I can’t recall the last time I sat in a cinema where everyone gasped in shock together. Mo'Nique's performance as Precious’ mother is every bit as good as everyone says and she deserves all the awards she is nominated for. What I hadn’t expected was for the film to be so funny. Some scenes featuring Precious friends are intentionally humorous, some are even laugh out loud funny. There are parts that made me laugh that are not meant to be funny, but that’s because listening to African American’s say ‘motherfucker’ makes me giggle. Lee Daniels has achieved just the right balance of humour and horror. The film has the happy ending you’d expect and it works well. A grim ending would have been too much. The upbeat ending is necessary, even if it tempts critics to say it undermines the rest of the film.
The one common criticism of the film I would go along with is that some of Daniel’s direction is heavy handed. The montages and fantasy sequences are a bit clunky and they expose that the film was made with a relatively small budget. Precious’ fantasies are a necessary device. She is so withdrawn that, to her, they are a real part of her life. She lives within herself to escape the abuse.
No frivolous link this time y’all.
Precious is a film that comes with a lot of baggage. Once American critics had raved over it so much, British film critics were predictably muted in their praise, and willing to knock it for frivolous reasons. I’ve read broadsheet reviews that say parts of the film play out like a sitcom, or that question why the characters who are trying to save Precious don’t encourage her to loose weight. I think the reason the UK press aren’t all that enthusiastic about Precious is that they are too worried about overstating the social implications of the film. No white British middle class critic can claim to truly understand or relate to impoverished life in black ghettos, and none would, nor would I. But it seems that they fear to speak too highly of Precious in case people mistake praise as a claim that they relate to the situation. The fact that the film is produced and championed by Oprah Winfrey was never going to help.
The film tells the story of Claireece Precious Jones, an illiterate teenage girl living with her abusive mother in Harlem. Precious’ life is hell, and the film follows her as she tries to improve her predicament. It can be very simplistically be described as a ‘victory in the face of adversity feel good film’, and is so by its detractors, but what adversity.
I’d heard that Precious was harrowing, and it is. I can’t recall the last time I sat in a cinema where everyone gasped in shock together. Mo'Nique's performance as Precious’ mother is every bit as good as everyone says and she deserves all the awards she is nominated for. What I hadn’t expected was for the film to be so funny. Some scenes featuring Precious friends are intentionally humorous, some are even laugh out loud funny. There are parts that made me laugh that are not meant to be funny, but that’s because listening to African American’s say ‘motherfucker’ makes me giggle. Lee Daniels has achieved just the right balance of humour and horror. The film has the happy ending you’d expect and it works well. A grim ending would have been too much. The upbeat ending is necessary, even if it tempts critics to say it undermines the rest of the film.
The one common criticism of the film I would go along with is that some of Daniel’s direction is heavy handed. The montages and fantasy sequences are a bit clunky and they expose that the film was made with a relatively small budget. Precious’ fantasies are a necessary device. She is so withdrawn that, to her, they are a real part of her life. She lives within herself to escape the abuse.
No frivolous link this time y’all.
Wings Of Desire
Wings Of Desire – 1987, Wim Wenders
Can you say ‘Arthaus’?
Wings Of Desire is good, but it will try the patience of even the most seasoned watcher of independent film. About a quarter of the two hour length is given over to progressing what little plot there is. The rest of the film is an exploration of the main idea behind the film and a kind of love letter to Cold War era Berlin.
The German title of the film ‘Der Himmel über Berlin’ translates more accurately to ’Heaven over Berlin’. The film presents the concept that angles watch over the human race, observing all that we do. They are invisible and completely passive. They can be seen by children but they cannot interact with anyone.
The loose plot follows two of these angels (one of whom is played by Bruno Ganz who played Hitler in ‘Downfall’) as they sit next to various citizens of Berlin and listen in on their thoughts. We hear what the people are thinking. The thoughts of the various minor characters make up a kind of narrative that runs through the whole film. Unfortunately, not a lot of what these people have to say is very interesting. It could be that it’s all lost in translation, but I doubt it. Listening to the trite ramblings of a few ‘interesting’ characters borders on boring.
Fortunately the film is very well shot. Pre-reunification East Berlin was a grim place, but it is made very compelling by the excellent cinematography. Parts of the film have a real 1940’s pre colour vibe to them. It’s hard to tell if it was intentional but it looks good. The scene shot in Berlin State Library House 2 stands out in particular. Not just the building itself, but the incredible tracking shots. It makes me want to visit the place.
Knowing this film has got to go somewhere kept me just interested enough. When the story picks up in the last half hour (Bruno’s character is tired of having spent thousands of years watching, he wants to get involved) the film suddenly becomes interesting.
Wim’s great achievement is reaching the limit of where a film can go without a clear direction or purpose, and doing just enough not to lose his audience. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds have a musical cameo, and Peter Faulk (aka Columbo) plays himself, which is pretty cool.
Pretentious guff?
Can you say ‘Arthaus’?
Wings Of Desire is good, but it will try the patience of even the most seasoned watcher of independent film. About a quarter of the two hour length is given over to progressing what little plot there is. The rest of the film is an exploration of the main idea behind the film and a kind of love letter to Cold War era Berlin.
The German title of the film ‘Der Himmel über Berlin’ translates more accurately to ’Heaven over Berlin’. The film presents the concept that angles watch over the human race, observing all that we do. They are invisible and completely passive. They can be seen by children but they cannot interact with anyone.
The loose plot follows two of these angels (one of whom is played by Bruno Ganz who played Hitler in ‘Downfall’) as they sit next to various citizens of Berlin and listen in on their thoughts. We hear what the people are thinking. The thoughts of the various minor characters make up a kind of narrative that runs through the whole film. Unfortunately, not a lot of what these people have to say is very interesting. It could be that it’s all lost in translation, but I doubt it. Listening to the trite ramblings of a few ‘interesting’ characters borders on boring.
Fortunately the film is very well shot. Pre-reunification East Berlin was a grim place, but it is made very compelling by the excellent cinematography. Parts of the film have a real 1940’s pre colour vibe to them. It’s hard to tell if it was intentional but it looks good. The scene shot in Berlin State Library House 2 stands out in particular. Not just the building itself, but the incredible tracking shots. It makes me want to visit the place.
Knowing this film has got to go somewhere kept me just interested enough. When the story picks up in the last half hour (Bruno’s character is tired of having spent thousands of years watching, he wants to get involved) the film suddenly becomes interesting.
Wim’s great achievement is reaching the limit of where a film can go without a clear direction or purpose, and doing just enough not to lose his audience. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds have a musical cameo, and Peter Faulk (aka Columbo) plays himself, which is pretty cool.
Pretentious guff?
Big Man Japan / Audition
Big Man Japan – 2007(JPN), 2009(UK), Hitoshi Matsumoto
Sometimes I see a trailer for a film and I think ‘I gotta watch that shit’
And afterwards I realise it could never have lived up to expectations.
Big Man Japan plays out a lot more slowly than I expected.
But the climax was completely unexpected and absolutely hilarious.
This film was written and directed by a Japanese comedian who plays the lead. For a reason I can’t explain, I really want to like Japanese comedy, but it just doesn’t translate. The funniest thing to come out of Japan is Takeshi’s Castle, and that’s not scripted. Why do Japanese horror films travel better than Japanese comedy? Because being scared shitless is universal.
Audition – 1999(JPN), 2001(UK), Takashi Miike
Sometimes I hear so much about a film that I think ‘I gotta watch that shit’
And afterwards I realise it could never have lived up to expectations.
Audition played out just as slowly as I expected.
But I expected more from the climax, only because I’d heard so much about it.
Why was Ringu remade in Hollywood and not Audition? Because Ringu is about a scary little girl, something we are familiar with (The Exorcist) and Audition is about a woman who tortures men to death.
Ringu started the whole ‘Scary little Japanese Girl/Young Woman’ craze, and is the reason the genre exists, but Takashi Miike’s Audition was only released a year later.
But why Ringu? Because Ringu does what Audition does, only better; slowly, slowly lures you in, revealing that you might be in store for something...preparing you...but no matter how prepared you are you still won’t be ready.
Horror films are a ‘love them or hate them’ thing, but I think being terrified by a film is underrated. Fear is uncomfortable, and discomfort reminds us we are alive. Horror films provide fear in a controlled environment. The most recent horror film I saw was the Spanish film [REC], which is also very good.
Sometimes I see a trailer for a film and I think ‘I gotta watch that shit’
And afterwards I realise it could never have lived up to expectations.
Big Man Japan plays out a lot more slowly than I expected.
But the climax was completely unexpected and absolutely hilarious.
This film was written and directed by a Japanese comedian who plays the lead. For a reason I can’t explain, I really want to like Japanese comedy, but it just doesn’t translate. The funniest thing to come out of Japan is Takeshi’s Castle, and that’s not scripted. Why do Japanese horror films travel better than Japanese comedy? Because being scared shitless is universal.
Audition – 1999(JPN), 2001(UK), Takashi Miike
Sometimes I hear so much about a film that I think ‘I gotta watch that shit’
And afterwards I realise it could never have lived up to expectations.
Audition played out just as slowly as I expected.
But I expected more from the climax, only because I’d heard so much about it.
Why was Ringu remade in Hollywood and not Audition? Because Ringu is about a scary little girl, something we are familiar with (The Exorcist) and Audition is about a woman who tortures men to death.
Ringu started the whole ‘Scary little Japanese Girl/Young Woman’ craze, and is the reason the genre exists, but Takashi Miike’s Audition was only released a year later.
But why Ringu? Because Ringu does what Audition does, only better; slowly, slowly lures you in, revealing that you might be in store for something...preparing you...but no matter how prepared you are you still won’t be ready.
Horror films are a ‘love them or hate them’ thing, but I think being terrified by a film is underrated. Fear is uncomfortable, and discomfort reminds us we are alive. Horror films provide fear in a controlled environment. The most recent horror film I saw was the Spanish film [REC], which is also very good.
Bronson / Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll
Bronson – 2009, Nicolas Winding Refn
Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll – 2010, Mat Whitecross
Considering how different Michael Peterson (latterly know as Charles Bronson) and Ian Dury are, it’s surprising how similar their respective biographical films are...or maybe it isn’t?
A convention of biographical film has been recently establishing itself whereby the subject narrates and tells the story of his own life, breaking the fourth wall. Abstract and fantasy sequences are employed to help portray the character of the subject so the audience might better understand them. The feel of the time and place where the person lived are brought across using music and animation.
Most biographies still play it straight, as is fitting for the subject, like the Ian Curtis bio ‘Control’. But increasingly, when the subject is artistic/creative/notorious, accuracy has given way to presenting the subject as their persona. A direct line of biographies can be traced which have slowly become increasingly conceptual;
The Doors (1991)
Ed Wood (1994)
Chopper (2000)
24 Hour Party People (2002)
American Splendour (2003)
I’m Not There (2007)
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly (2007)
And they’re just the ones I’ve seen. The three italicised films from early in the new millennium are the particular examples of the modern biography; take a famous persons public persona and use it to show who the real person was. We use the public image to understand the private life.
This may all seem painfully obvious, but here’s the interesting bit. Bronson and S&D&R&R share an almost identical structure and method of narration.
In ‘Bronson’, the film opens with Charles Bronson standing on a stage in a theatre. He begins to tell his life story to the both the theatre and cinema audiences. Throughout the film we come back to Charlie Bronson ‘the entertainer’ for his take on the events of his life. S&D&R&R opens in exactly the same way and uses the same method of cutting back to Ian Dury as narrator of his own story.
This may be pure coincidence, but these are two British made biographies of British men, set during roughly the same period and released within months of each other.
Does the fact that they are so similar prove an inevitability of influence? Both of these films are quite original, but they have both hit upon the same idea at the same time.
As hard as the writers and directors have tried to be different, they’ve ended up doing the same thing as the other guy. Is this because the other guy has seen the same films he has?
Anyway.
The similarities end there. The films both works well, but ‘Bronson’ works better. Bronson is funny and brutal, like the Mark Read bio ‘Chopper’ performed in a circus. The Dury film is more conventional. After all the abstract sequences it boils down to the familiar ‘he was a bit of a bastard but he loved his kids’.
Je m’appelle Charles Bronson
What bearing does this have on the upcoming Iggy Pop biography featuring...Elijah Wood?
Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll – 2010, Mat Whitecross
Considering how different Michael Peterson (latterly know as Charles Bronson) and Ian Dury are, it’s surprising how similar their respective biographical films are...or maybe it isn’t?
A convention of biographical film has been recently establishing itself whereby the subject narrates and tells the story of his own life, breaking the fourth wall. Abstract and fantasy sequences are employed to help portray the character of the subject so the audience might better understand them. The feel of the time and place where the person lived are brought across using music and animation.
Most biographies still play it straight, as is fitting for the subject, like the Ian Curtis bio ‘Control’. But increasingly, when the subject is artistic/creative/notorious, accuracy has given way to presenting the subject as their persona. A direct line of biographies can be traced which have slowly become increasingly conceptual;
The Doors (1991)
Ed Wood (1994)
Chopper (2000)
24 Hour Party People (2002)
American Splendour (2003)
I’m Not There (2007)
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly (2007)
And they’re just the ones I’ve seen. The three italicised films from early in the new millennium are the particular examples of the modern biography; take a famous persons public persona and use it to show who the real person was. We use the public image to understand the private life.
This may all seem painfully obvious, but here’s the interesting bit. Bronson and S&D&R&R share an almost identical structure and method of narration.
In ‘Bronson’, the film opens with Charles Bronson standing on a stage in a theatre. He begins to tell his life story to the both the theatre and cinema audiences. Throughout the film we come back to Charlie Bronson ‘the entertainer’ for his take on the events of his life. S&D&R&R opens in exactly the same way and uses the same method of cutting back to Ian Dury as narrator of his own story.
This may be pure coincidence, but these are two British made biographies of British men, set during roughly the same period and released within months of each other.
Does the fact that they are so similar prove an inevitability of influence? Both of these films are quite original, but they have both hit upon the same idea at the same time.
As hard as the writers and directors have tried to be different, they’ve ended up doing the same thing as the other guy. Is this because the other guy has seen the same films he has?
Anyway.
The similarities end there. The films both works well, but ‘Bronson’ works better. Bronson is funny and brutal, like the Mark Read bio ‘Chopper’ performed in a circus. The Dury film is more conventional. After all the abstract sequences it boils down to the familiar ‘he was a bit of a bastard but he loved his kids’.
Je m’appelle Charles Bronson
What bearing does this have on the upcoming Iggy Pop biography featuring...Elijah Wood?
When We Were Kings / Tyson
When We Were Kings – 1996, Leon Gast
Tyson – 2009, James Toback
The best documentaries take an interesting subject and use it as a plot. Conventional fictional films have twists and turns and revelations, and there’s no reason documentaries can’t have them as well. For this reason WWWK is better that Tyson, but even the most perfunctory documentary about Tyson would be good. Tyson is an interesting, crazy, despicable and sympathetic man. Boxing saved him from a life of crime. Make that a life of even more crime.
Tyson sits and talks about his life and we are shown footage of his fights and court appearances. The best thing about this film from a boxing point of view is the footage of Tyson’s pre rape conviction fights. All we ever see nowadays is an out of shape tattoo face Tyson biting off ears or giving up to Irish journeymen. When he was on his way to his first title Tyson was unbelievable. He was strong and could hit as hard as anyone, but he was also faster than almost any other heavyweight at the time, this made him unstoppable.
Iron Mike has mellowed, and as sympathetic a portrait as this doc paints of him, you still wouldn’t want to be alone in a lift with him. The most loathsome thing he mentions is that he is angry at the conviction he received for raping Desiree Washington.
How many women did you ‘take advantage’ of Mike?
When We Were Kings is the better documentary, but Gast benefited from the wealth of footage that exists from The Rumble In The Jungle, the biggest boxing match in history. The circumstances of the fight, the atmosphere in Zaire and the build-up were all documented at the time by the world’s press. As well as the fight there was a concert; Zaire 74 (which is the subject of a 2008 documentary Soul Power) which provided a lot of material (including some excellent footage of B.B. King).
Mohamed Ali is the obvious hero of the film, but George Foreman isn’t completely demonised. WWWK left me with mixed emotions. Discovering more about Mohammed Ali makes it all the sadder that he wasn’t able to fulfil his potential in later life. He could have become an even bigger influence than he already is. Conversely, George Foreman appeared not to have had any charisma at all in 1974. After a crushing defeat to the underdog Ali, he went on to become the larger than life purveyor of domestic appliances we know and love today.
And for the record; at their respective peaks Tyson beats Ali hands down.
Blues Guitar Face to the max.
Tyson – 2009, James Toback
The best documentaries take an interesting subject and use it as a plot. Conventional fictional films have twists and turns and revelations, and there’s no reason documentaries can’t have them as well. For this reason WWWK is better that Tyson, but even the most perfunctory documentary about Tyson would be good. Tyson is an interesting, crazy, despicable and sympathetic man. Boxing saved him from a life of crime. Make that a life of even more crime.
Tyson sits and talks about his life and we are shown footage of his fights and court appearances. The best thing about this film from a boxing point of view is the footage of Tyson’s pre rape conviction fights. All we ever see nowadays is an out of shape tattoo face Tyson biting off ears or giving up to Irish journeymen. When he was on his way to his first title Tyson was unbelievable. He was strong and could hit as hard as anyone, but he was also faster than almost any other heavyweight at the time, this made him unstoppable.
Iron Mike has mellowed, and as sympathetic a portrait as this doc paints of him, you still wouldn’t want to be alone in a lift with him. The most loathsome thing he mentions is that he is angry at the conviction he received for raping Desiree Washington.
How many women did you ‘take advantage’ of Mike?
When We Were Kings is the better documentary, but Gast benefited from the wealth of footage that exists from The Rumble In The Jungle, the biggest boxing match in history. The circumstances of the fight, the atmosphere in Zaire and the build-up were all documented at the time by the world’s press. As well as the fight there was a concert; Zaire 74 (which is the subject of a 2008 documentary Soul Power) which provided a lot of material (including some excellent footage of B.B. King).
Mohamed Ali is the obvious hero of the film, but George Foreman isn’t completely demonised. WWWK left me with mixed emotions. Discovering more about Mohammed Ali makes it all the sadder that he wasn’t able to fulfil his potential in later life. He could have become an even bigger influence than he already is. Conversely, George Foreman appeared not to have had any charisma at all in 1974. After a crushing defeat to the underdog Ali, he went on to become the larger than life purveyor of domestic appliances we know and love today.
And for the record; at their respective peaks Tyson beats Ali hands down.
Blues Guitar Face to the max.
The Godfather
The Godfather – Part I 1972, Part II 1974, Francis Ford Coppola
Like most people, I have seen The Godfather films before, but it was years ago and I couldn’t quite remember what happens. Since watching them I read Mario Puzo’s
book. My first impression upon re-watching the films was that Puzo’s story was so good (Puzo co-wrote the screenplay as well) that whomever directed the film version couldn’t really go wrong, particularly with the acting talent involved. But like all great directors, Francis did more than just call the shots.
Coppola was actually the third choice director for the Godfather. After Sergio Leone turned the job down, the studio wanted Peter Bogdanovich (who years later would play Dr. Elliot Kupferberg in The Sopranos). George Lucas eventually persuaded Coppola to take on The Godfather. The Studio wanted a different cast to the one that appeared in the film, but Coppola stuck to his guns and demanded Al Pachino over Robert Redford and Marlon Brando over Ernest Borgnine, although all the big names at the time auditioned (it’s a shame Stallone didn’t get a part).
So although Copolla can take a lot of credit, is it his actual direction that makes the films great? There are only two or three shots in both films that stand out as very well composed or inspired. A lot of the scenes are very similar, a considerable chunk of the films takes place in darkened rooms where Pachino, Brando, Duvall et all provide excellent performances and all a director would have to do is point the camera at them. Maybe it’s the simplicity that makes the two films so good, nothing is out of place. It certainly makes them very consistent, I don’t know why part two is considered to be better than part one.
Excellent as it is, I think The Godfathers influence is overrated. It may have lead to more films about the mafia being made, but Scorsese’s films are copied more. Narration by the main character and montages of criminal activities have become staples of gangster films because of Goodfellas and Casino.
Lucas may be indirectly responsible for The Godfather films turning out so well but that doesn’t justify this: (from Wikipedia)
In the DVD commentary for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas stated that the interwoven scenes of Anakin Skywalker slaying separatist leaders and Palpatine announcing the beginning of the Galactic Empire was an homage to the christening and assassination sequence in The Godfather.
Whatever George.
Like most people, I have seen The Godfather films before, but it was years ago and I couldn’t quite remember what happens. Since watching them I read Mario Puzo’s
book. My first impression upon re-watching the films was that Puzo’s story was so good (Puzo co-wrote the screenplay as well) that whomever directed the film version couldn’t really go wrong, particularly with the acting talent involved. But like all great directors, Francis did more than just call the shots.
Coppola was actually the third choice director for the Godfather. After Sergio Leone turned the job down, the studio wanted Peter Bogdanovich (who years later would play Dr. Elliot Kupferberg in The Sopranos). George Lucas eventually persuaded Coppola to take on The Godfather. The Studio wanted a different cast to the one that appeared in the film, but Coppola stuck to his guns and demanded Al Pachino over Robert Redford and Marlon Brando over Ernest Borgnine, although all the big names at the time auditioned (it’s a shame Stallone didn’t get a part).
So although Copolla can take a lot of credit, is it his actual direction that makes the films great? There are only two or three shots in both films that stand out as very well composed or inspired. A lot of the scenes are very similar, a considerable chunk of the films takes place in darkened rooms where Pachino, Brando, Duvall et all provide excellent performances and all a director would have to do is point the camera at them. Maybe it’s the simplicity that makes the two films so good, nothing is out of place. It certainly makes them very consistent, I don’t know why part two is considered to be better than part one.
Excellent as it is, I think The Godfathers influence is overrated. It may have lead to more films about the mafia being made, but Scorsese’s films are copied more. Narration by the main character and montages of criminal activities have become staples of gangster films because of Goodfellas and Casino.
Lucas may be indirectly responsible for The Godfather films turning out so well but that doesn’t justify this: (from Wikipedia)
In the DVD commentary for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas stated that the interwoven scenes of Anakin Skywalker slaying separatist leaders and Palpatine announcing the beginning of the Galactic Empire was an homage to the christening and assassination sequence in The Godfather.
Whatever George.
Avatar
Avatar – 2009, James Cameron
Avatar is not a very healthy fantasy. Do we all want to be taller and thinner and bluer? Maybe if the human race were to find an alien planet occupied by a sexier versions of ourselves we would create our own version, only slightly better looking. We would indulge in paradise like the main characters of the film. The Na’vi that Sam Worthington possesses is more ripped than any other Na’vi male, and the Na’vi version of Sigourney Weaver looks younger than any other Na’vi female and has bigger tits.
As on screen fantasy goes this is the best looking and most compelling ever created (and I’ve seen The Red Shoes). In fact the most unrealistic things in a totally unreal world are the one dimensional, corporate bad guys. They make Disney villains look like well established characters. It’s a very lazy plot to have evil men destroy a paradise they don’t understand. All the effort that went into the creation of this film warranted a more mature and developed story.
Cameron must have been satisfied enough with his ‘biological-internet-circle-of-life’ to bother coming up with a more original plot to wrap around it. This is understandable as the world of Avatar is a good reflection of what the people of earth (the cinema going ones that matter that is) desire most. Huge amounts of human effort are put into the two goals everyone shares; to be attractive and to have lots of friends. We are achieving this though exposure to the ‘celebrity ideal’, and through social networking and all the friendships it provides, both real and superficial. Imagine if through natural evolution everyone was slim and gorgeous, and the very plants that grew around us provided a spiritual connection to the entire planet. Avatar is our greatest artificial fantasy in biological form. How long before Na’vi porn becomes a well established fetish? Move over Furry Fandom, Na’vi is the new ‘Yiff’.
There is a lot to like about Avatar though. If the Lord of The Rings films hadn’t convinced us that an imaginary world could be created on screen without looking fake, Avatar certainly does. With enough resources the greatest visions that the human imagination is capable of can be brought to life. I am truly grateful to Cameron and his production team. Cinema will benefit from the technical advances of this film. Unfortunately, the power of this new technology will be put to more bad use than good. I’m not looking forward to what Michael Bay and McG have planned for motion capture based CGI.
Some folks out there will not go to see Avatar for the same reason I didn’t go to see Transformers 2 ie sick of big budget bullshit being rammed down my throat. But this is one spectacle that is worth seeing. I suppose it really has to be seen in the IMAX, but does anyone else find 3D a bit blurry?
This is just the beginning.
Avatar is not a very healthy fantasy. Do we all want to be taller and thinner and bluer? Maybe if the human race were to find an alien planet occupied by a sexier versions of ourselves we would create our own version, only slightly better looking. We would indulge in paradise like the main characters of the film. The Na’vi that Sam Worthington possesses is more ripped than any other Na’vi male, and the Na’vi version of Sigourney Weaver looks younger than any other Na’vi female and has bigger tits.
As on screen fantasy goes this is the best looking and most compelling ever created (and I’ve seen The Red Shoes). In fact the most unrealistic things in a totally unreal world are the one dimensional, corporate bad guys. They make Disney villains look like well established characters. It’s a very lazy plot to have evil men destroy a paradise they don’t understand. All the effort that went into the creation of this film warranted a more mature and developed story.
Cameron must have been satisfied enough with his ‘biological-internet-circle-of-life’ to bother coming up with a more original plot to wrap around it. This is understandable as the world of Avatar is a good reflection of what the people of earth (the cinema going ones that matter that is) desire most. Huge amounts of human effort are put into the two goals everyone shares; to be attractive and to have lots of friends. We are achieving this though exposure to the ‘celebrity ideal’, and through social networking and all the friendships it provides, both real and superficial. Imagine if through natural evolution everyone was slim and gorgeous, and the very plants that grew around us provided a spiritual connection to the entire planet. Avatar is our greatest artificial fantasy in biological form. How long before Na’vi porn becomes a well established fetish? Move over Furry Fandom, Na’vi is the new ‘Yiff’.
There is a lot to like about Avatar though. If the Lord of The Rings films hadn’t convinced us that an imaginary world could be created on screen without looking fake, Avatar certainly does. With enough resources the greatest visions that the human imagination is capable of can be brought to life. I am truly grateful to Cameron and his production team. Cinema will benefit from the technical advances of this film. Unfortunately, the power of this new technology will be put to more bad use than good. I’m not looking forward to what Michael Bay and McG have planned for motion capture based CGI.
Some folks out there will not go to see Avatar for the same reason I didn’t go to see Transformers 2 ie sick of big budget bullshit being rammed down my throat. But this is one spectacle that is worth seeing. I suppose it really has to be seen in the IMAX, but does anyone else find 3D a bit blurry?
This is just the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)