If you’re into the whole brevity thing, True Grit can be summed up thus; Another great Coen Brothers Film.
Maybe we’re being spoilt by Joel and Ethan. Twenty years of excellent films, some may argue without exception. Who else can boast that kind of record? Wes Anderson had better pick up the pace if he is to be as prolific and successful.
Initial reports that the Coens were making a Western were met with slight surprise in some quarters. ‘A Western? Who makes Westerns nowadays?’ Not many people, and when they do it often result in embarrassing box office failure for the big names involved, eh Mr Costner. But it should be no surprise that the Coens are branching out into genres. What else are they going to do? Make the same darkly comic noir with a convoluted plot involving blackmail and murder? They must be bored of that by now.
And of course the modern Western isn’t the same as the classic Western. Somewhere between Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven, Westerns became costume dramas; all historically accurate and filthy looking. The period western allows the Coens to take their penchant for wordy, articulate, unselfconscious dialogue and apply it to a setting where it might not seem so out of place. Although for the first time ever when watching a Ceon film, I felt that the dialogue got a bit tiresome by the end, especially when Josh Brolin’s moronic character also started employing far too many words in his few lines.
True Grit is very good, just like all the other Coen films, and because they are all so good, any bits that aren’t so good tend to stick out. The weak link in this one is Josh Brolin (who doesn’t deserve equal billing to Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon). His role is just about big enough to support those who argue that he’s one of the most overrated actors out there. Fortunately the role played by Robert Duval in the 1969 version is played here by the vastly underrated Barry Pepper (excellent in 25th Hour and The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada, worthy of forgiveness for Battlefield Earth). All the supporting characters are as well cast as ever, and Hailee Stenfeld is good, but maybe not deserving of every best actress nomination going.
As for Bridges, I love the guy, though I suppose it’s all because of The Dude. As I peruse his Wikipedia entry I’m reminded of how few of his films I’ve seen. Other than ‘Labowski’ I’m only familiar with Starman, K-Pax, Tron, Iron Man the King Kong remake he was in...time for a dedicated Bridges-athon.
What next for the Coen Brothers? Space Opera starring Liam Neeson? Period Spy Drama starring Ralph Fiennes? Renaissance era Farce starring Ben Kingsly? (yes I have been watching Schindler’s List)
Normally I can watch any film without feeling the need to justify the reason for watching it, but The Mechanic is currently in cinemas, I didn't just Sky+ it like all the other mediocre action films I watch. So I'll just explain how come I ended up watching The Mechanic at the Odeon when there are loads of other films on release right now, in particular all the Oscar contenders; The King's Speech, 127 Hours, The Fighter et all.
My Tuesday evening was planned thus: 4.15pm - meeting with mortgage advisor (65% Loan-To-Value! Gee, no thanks.) 7.00pm - play dodgeball (sport of Kings)
So I had two hours to kill from 5 till 7 and after carefully examining the show times of all the cinemas in Manchester city centre, only The Mechanic was on during the time available to me. It’s a remake of a 1972 Michael Winner film starring Charles Bronson and Jan-Michael Vincent, the lead roles now played by Jason Statham and Ben Foster.
The plot may have been original in ’72, but now it’s just an expectable pastiche of action movie standards; Statham is a clinical assassin who works for some shadowy organisation, his contact in the company is an old friend played by an established actor (in this case Donald Sutherland) whose ten minutes of time on screen is an attempt to add credibility to a lacklustre screenplay. As soon as Sutherland appears on screen it’s obvious he’s going to die, and that Statham will probably kill him, and that he’ll find out the truth later and regret killing his friend and mentor and head off to extract bloody revenge. I predicted a John Woo style ending with the good guy sailing away on the yacht he has always dreamed of owning but it didn’t quite finish like that. Also, unusually for a Statham film, there was no car chase.
Englishman Simon West (director of Con Air) seems more concerned with creating something technically polished and at the very least credible than he does with shooting exiting action. I’ve seen a lot of action films me, and in my opinion the good ones fall into one of two categories, which for the sake of this post I will call ‘Die Hards’ and ‘Hard Boileds’
‘Die Hards’ are good films that just happen to be action films, Die Hard being the most prominent example. I include such greats as Predator 1 and 2, Terminator 1 and 2, Aliens and Under Siege (among many others).
‘Hard Boileds’ are films that are kind of ridiculous and technically not that good, but the spectacle makes them rise above all the other crap action films. I don’t mean these films are ‘so bad they’re good’, I mean they are entertaining enough to be considered good. Hard Boiled, Commando, all the Rambo films and almost every Jackie Chan film made between 1978 and 1995 are good examples.
The Mechanic is not a good action film by either definition, but it had a reported budget of $40 million and stars one of the few ‘bankable’ action stars going. I for one am proud of our Jason, he’s out there kicking ass in big American movies, but the question The Mechanic prompts me to ask is ‘How long before Jason Statham goes straight-to-DVD?’ To try and predict let us examine the careers of Seagal and Van Damme. Steven Seagal Born – 1952 First Lead role in a cinematic release – 1988 (age 36), Above The Law Highest grossing film to date – 1992 (age 40), Under Siege ($156 million including international gross) First successive Straight-to-DVD – 2003(age 51), Out For A Kill
Jean-Claude Van Damme Born – 1960 First Lead role in a cinematic release – 1988 (age 28), Bloodsport Highest grossing film to date – 1994 (age 34), Timecop (over $100 million including international gross) First successive Straight-to-DVD - 2001 (age 41), The Order
Jason Statham Born – 1967 First major lead role in a cinematic release – 2002 (age 35), The Transporter Highest grossing film to date – 2008 (age 41), The Transporter 3 (over $100 million including international gross and DVD sales) First successive Straight-to-DVD – 2017 (age 50), The Transporter 5
Looks like Statham’s career is most like big Steve’s, which means Jason has another six years or so of action in him. Realistically though, Jason will probably stay in cinemas for years to come playing non-bad-ass characters in romantic comedies and heist/caper movies.
Andrei Tarkovsky is one of those film makers you may never have heard of, but he attracts a lot of admiration from certain quarters:
(cut and paste from Wikipedia)
Notable film director Ingmar Bergman said of Tarkovsky: "Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [director], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."
I recently endured a Tarkovsky-athon, watching (in chronological order) Solaris (1972), The Mirror (1975) and Stalker (1979) over the course of four days. The Mirror is a modest 100 minutes, the other two weigh in at over 160 minutes each (both are an hour too long).
To discuss the plots of these films is almost missing the point or so it seems. Two of them are adaptations of sci-fi novels (something I’m very keen on) but they meander away from the plot and into the realms of ‘The Tarkovskyeqsue’. If Andrei was concerned with holding his audience’s interest, his films wouldn’t be arduous journeys into tedium; I doubt a 90 minute version of Solaris was ever going to win the Prix Spécial du Jury.
Ingmar summed up what Tarkovsky was all about, but from what I gather Bergman and Tarkovsky were each other’s biggest fans. So while the above quote summarises what Andrei was trying to achieve, it’s another question as to whether his efforts were really as good as many a po-faced film critic would have you believe.
This brief clip from the beginning of The Mirror and it shows what Tarkovsky was capable of (I wouldn't agree with whoever posted that video about it being the best sequence ever shot).
Pure atmosphere, but from there the films goes nowhere, slowly. There’s another similar shot at the end, Solaris and Stalker are also book-ended with equally compelling sequences, and all three films are peppered with flashes of genius. But the problem is, for all the dream like imagery and ‘new language’ and glimpses of what may well be the true nature of film, this truth is betrayed by the pondering trite that makes up the bulk of the films.
Tarkovsky is an example of the film-maker who rejected the cinema. He was fully aware that his films were not easily enjoyed. Watching a cast of miserable characters waffle on about the meaning of love (Solaris), life (The Mirror) or desire (Stalker) is not remotely cinematic, it’s not even entertaining. From the three films I’ve seen Andrei was either a poor director of actors; everyone is giving the same morbid, brooding performance, or he was deliberately trying to make the same film again and again. Andrei loved an excessively philosophical, world weary protagonist, but none of them are ever as sympathetic as he thinks they are. The titular Stalker in particular goes through a prolonged crisis of conscience and by the end of the film questions the very worth and meaning of his own life, but by this point no one in the audience will give a govno.
The one thing I did take away from this experience was a desire to read Solaris and Roadside Picnic (the basis for Stalker).
Incidentally, I recently watched the 2002 version of Solaris directed by Steven Sodenbergh which I thought was very good.
The most impressive thing about Black Swan is the simplicity. It’s a story about a dancer who is given the lead in Swan Lake, her big break, and the pressure she is put under causes her to come apart at the seams. The conceptual aspect of the film drawn from Swan Lake is as important as the plot itself.
Is Black Swan a masterpiece? I don’t think so, but watching it made me wonder about what it takes to make a masterpiece, and how long a film has to be around before people start declaring it one. Maybe it’s like canonisation; you have to wait for five years after the director’s death before proceedings may begin.
I suppose that every masterpiece is greater than the sum of its parts, and that’s what prevents Black Swan from being one. Everything about it is close to spectacular; the performances are stellar, the production design is top notch (although I thought the black-and-white motif was overused), and the cinematography and camera work are also very good (although some of it was a bit too shaky in parts). But even with all this, it never seems to rise above mere technical excellence.
Black Swan will doubtless be compared to The Red Shoes, but there are 60 years between the two films so I don’t think that’s fair, and besides, The Red Shoes probably has more in common with that other recognised classic Singin’ In The Rain (hmm...now there’s a double feature).
Barbara Hershey is particularly good as Portman’s overbearing mother. Her presence reminded me of another film she stars in; The Stunt Man, also about paranoia (and sleeping with the director). Vincent Cassel’s performance gets smothered by everyone else, but I think the reason I wasn’t so impressed with him in this film is because he’s so good in everything else I’ve seen him in, and he often plays much bigger, stronger characters than the one he plays here. Perhaps he deliberately toned it down (or was directed to do so) in order not to distract the audience from Portman’s delicate and repressed little flower.
It’s an excellent film and well worth a watch. It builds well to a satisfying and dramatic ending, which is something that pleases me more and more as I work my way though so many ‘classic’ films of yore.
Here is a more detailed review than mine (and some nice posters).
After a month of sporadic filming and one mammoth editing session yesterday: Episode 2 – Robocop.
After the experience of making my first animated short I was slightly more ambitious with the second, specifically with my extended use of chroma keying aka green screen. I had grand ideas for the opening shot, and it took a lot more time and effort that I intended to make it work, as this ‘Making of’ shows:
(I can’t even spell ‘chroma’ correctly)
Hopefully the next episode will be less laborious. I find that actually animating the figures isn’t too tricky, it’s setting up the shot and the lighting that takes time. Using a green screen takes away a lot of that trouble and when done right allows the figures to be placed in a background that looks more real that the one behind them. As I get to grips with the software I’m using I’ll pay more attention to all the visual effects that are possible. I could probably do a lot more to improve the ambient light in post production, but I think the animation has an amateurish charm the way it is.
Creating professional looking video effects is literally child’s play in this day and age, as the young ‘Katsuhono’ proves:
There are a lot people making of impressive stop motion out there, but few of them are more than just showcases for their creator’s skills (and their lovely new Transformers toys). Narrative and story are still most important keys of all.
As in ‘Film Adaptations made in the ‘Noughties’: 2000 to 2009’.
For as long as there have been films there have been adaptations. One of the first real ‘productions’, the 14 minute 1902 French silent film A Trip to The Moon, was loosely based on popular science fiction of the time.
Purists may baulk but I like the version with the goofy narration:
Fast forward to 1999 and The Matrix, which also drew heavily from contemporary science fiction to create something new, something that also showed other film makers (and would-be film makers) of the age what could be done using new technology in imaginative new ways. Comparing the Matrix to A Trip to The Moon is rather tenuous. The way cinema has progressed since The Matrix can’t be weighed against what happened over the decade since 1902. Way back then the language of cinema had to be written and discovered as film makers went along; continuity, reverse angles, point-of-view and all the rest of it were created for the first time in the creative dawn of the cinematic revolution.
But in my opinion the Matrix is one of the most important modern films because it showed a new generation that special effects and imagination could create something fascinating, believable and appealing. There are lots of films made in the five to ten years before the Matrix that made use of the emerging GSI techniques: Armageddon, the American Godzilla, Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element and Independence Day to name but a few. The Matrix stands head and shoulders above these films because it was the first to really show that with new technology, anything was now possible (I wonder if that’s how audiences felt in 1902?). The public appetite for effects heavy film had returned, all that was needed was the vision.
The Matrix is an anomaly because it’s an original screenplay. I’ve blogged before about how it borrowed liberally from other sources but it is not based entirely on any one work. Post-Matrix Hollywood was keen to build on the Wachowski Brother’s success. The will was there to put the digital talent available to use in order to revitalise the summer/holiday-season blockbuster. The only problem was the lack of original material. What followed was a decade of big budget action adaptation spectaculars. Comic books were mined first, followed by video games and the occasional book series. Peter Jackson’s Lord of The Rings films had been in development for years but the success of the Matrix probably helped things along, ditto Harry Potter.
Lengthier than intended introduction aside, I take a look at a few examples of adaptations from the second half of the last decade: (there are a hundred others I could mention, I just happen to have watched these ones quite recently, all of them effects heavy fantasies)
Aeon Flux – 2005, Karyn Kusama Oh dear. It’s a huge shame for a number of reasons, none more than fact that the original Aeon Flux animations were incredible. I remember watching them on BBC 2 back in what I consider to be a special time in the history of the channel. If I may reminisce; there was a time when 6pm on weekdays meant only one thing: BBC2. Aeon Flux, The Fresh Prince of Bell Air, The Tick, Buffy, Sliders and of course, Star Trek. Good Lord it was good. I seem to remember that it was the arrival of The Simpsons on BBC 2 that was the beginning of the end. Anyway, Aeon Flux was awesome and prime fodder for a live action adaptation. Charlize Theron was at her most bankable, the source material was associated with MTV so a film could rely on being promoted through all the right channels, and the budget was ample. So what went wrong? Too much attention to detail perhaps? The props and the sets and the locations are all amazing, they just don’t look anything like the cartoon. The cartoon was dirty looking and subversive, profound even. The film was highly polished, a completely different vision. It didn’t help that the story and characters were all rubbish. As the man behind the original Peter Chung said ‘I was unhappy when I read the script four years ago; seeing it projected larger than life in a crowded theatre made me feel helpless, humiliated and sad’ The failure of this adaptation didn’t put a stop to the big budget movie adaptation trend, thankfully, but it did ensure that adaptations made in the following years had smaller budgets, and some of them were clearly better for it.
Silent Hill – 2006, Christpohe Gans I like Silent Hill a lot. It’s faithful to the video game on a number of levels, as well as being a well structured film. Anyone who’s played any of the Silent Hill games will know that it’s all about the atmosphere; wandering around a creepy town in the fog bumping into hellish demons. The movie captures this well. It also does a good job of being a video game adaptation in the sense that it’s structured episodically, like the levels of a game: get to the town, get to the school, get to the hotel, get to the church, get to the hospital. Simple but effective, with a satisfyingly gory ending. My only criticism is one instance where a character looks a bit too much like their video game counterpart:
In a video game you can get away with a blonde crop-haired cop who wanders around in tight leather pants, but not so much in a film. Laurie Holden was a well cast though.
30 Days of Night – 2007, David Slade This one is similar to Silent Hill but it’s not quite as good as it’s far more formulaic as horror films go, the creatures are well designed but strangely inconsistent. It also takes the ‘less is more’ approach a bit far. It builds and builds but doesn’t really go anywhere, then the ending’s a bit of a let down. Quite good on the whole though.
Speed Racer – 2008, Andy and Larry Wachowski They should have known better than to spend $120 million on a film version of Speed Racer. With the release of the new Tron film there’s been a lot of talk along the lines of ‘Why make a new Tron film? Who cares about Tron anyway?’ The same could (and should) have been said about Speed Racer. But...Speed Racer is a guilty pleasure of mine. It should be called LSD Racer. This is just about the trippiest kids film ever. Imagine playing with toy cars inside a rainbow. It’s bonkers. Never before or since has so much money been spent on such a weak, contrived, confused plot. It makes Avatar look like The Shawshank Redemption. This is a difficult one to recommend but if the opportunity comes along, give it a go. It’s pure imagination. If I ever have kids, I’ll happily put a copy of Speed Racer on the DVD shelf along with all the Miyazaki films I’ll force them to watch. Speed Racer gives me hope for the inevitable Yellow Submarine remake.
Watchmen 2009, Zack Snyder The comic-book adaptation genre is well established now, and in amongst the dross, the OKs and the Quite-Goods there have been a few definite peaks: Sin City, 300 and Watchmen. Watchmen does have it’s flaws; Mathew Goode is miscast as Ozymandias (and I was never crazy about Billy Cruddup...in fact when I think about it, other than Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian all the main cast are bad choices) and the ending is all wrong. I don’t mean because it’s missing the Giant Squid Monster, the movie plot makes more sense and was a good idea, I mean the little things anyone who’d read the comic would notice and be annoyed by. However, on the whole it’s good, for the simple reason that they took what was on the pages of the comic book and put it on screen. The colours, the costumes, the setting, all are faithful to what Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created back in 1986. The people behind the Watchmen film were brave enough stick to the comic and not change what didn’t need to be changed.
Well, one year blogging (on Blogger since April) and a total of 69 posts. I'd like to be as prolific next year, hopefully I'll manage at least one post a week. Here's to 2011...
My Name Is Bruce - 2007, Bruce Campbell Fast forward through the god-awful first five minutes until you see Bruce appear and then the rest of this Bruce Campbell-athon isn't bad if you take it for what it is; an homage to all things BC. I've watched and enjoyed The Evil Dead films and had assumed that Bruce wasn't capable of much more than the Heroic Lead Spoof that he made his own. He's also good in Bubba Ho Tep, but he's still just doing a comedy Elvis impersonation. This thing about My Name Is Bruce is that it's one of those 'Self conscious B movies made in the spirit of a B movie' that have become popular with the advent of straight-to-DVD. These films tend to be fun, but lack the spark that made the Evil Dead films (and a few other gems) so good. They often have a lead actor (sometimes an entire cast) trying to be Bruce Campbell and failing. So in My Name Is Bruce, the big man himself proves that he actually is the greatest modern B movie actor around, and as easy as he makes it look, it's impossible to imitate.
Red Scoprion - 1989, Joseph Zito On the back of Ivan Drago, Dolph Lundgren played another monotone Russian badass, this time he got to fire large weapons Rambo style. Dolph plays a Spetsnaz soldier send into an unnamed African country to help fight off a native rebellion against the oppressive and generic Communist foreign power. Lots of 80's action film themes are present: anti-communism, anti-apartheid, helicopter gunship, ultimate killing machine goes native, Little Richard (the very same Little Richard song 'Long Tall Sally' used in Predator) and angry Americans who know what's really going on. It's all very generic but there are some almost touching scenes where Dolph walks though the desert with a bushman. It's strange but compelling to watch a huge hulking young Nordic dude walking around with a tiny, shrivelled old African fellow.
Dolph had some kind of 'celebrity' boxing match with the Russian guy from Predators.
Inferno - 1999, John G. Avildsen Probably Jean-Claude Van Damme's most charming straight to DVD. After an embarrassing opening scene (the old ‘Ride Out Into The Desert To End It All With A Gun And a Bottle Of Jack’ routine) Danny Trejo gives JCVD a foot massage and sings to him (seriously). And then when they've finished bonding, Jean-Claude rides into town to kick ass, reveal his own ass, then kick some more ass. As is often the case it's the ensemble cast that lifts this above most crappy action films.
Screamers - 1995, Christian Duguay Sci Fi B movie loosely based on the Phillip K. Dick novel 'The Second Variety' and starring Robocop himself Peter Weller. Some nice pre digital creature effects along with some early CGI which of course looks very quaint now. They clearly had some money to spend, although it still looks kind of cheap, mainly due to the small cast and some lousy sets. Slightly better than 'Soldier', the other film supposedly set in the Blade Runner universe.
Young Americans - 1993, Danny Cannon Danny Cannon's debut doesn't quite live up to the exiting synopsis: Harvey Keitel plays an American cop who travels to London to apprehend a gangster (Viggo Mortensen) who has formed a new gang of sociopath teenagers trying to imitate American culture. Harvey and Viggo are good, as is a very young Thandie Newton, but it's nothing special.
Paprika – 2006, Satoshi Kon Take a pinch each of Ghost in the Shell, Akira, Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke and Metropolis (not the Fitz version) and mix it all in with an impenetrable plot and you wind up with what might seem like a cynical attempt to make an internationally successful Japanese animated film. If you’ve seen any of the above you’ll know that the plot isn’t what’s important in these films, it’s the concept, the philosophy, the feeling. But this one is so poorly explained and so unoriginal that the climactic spectacle fails to have any resonance. Basically it’s about dreams. Controlling dreams, interacting with them, living them, and then watching them back on screen. I’m not certain but either this film or the novel it’s based on must have had some influence on Christopher Nolan when he came up with the idea for Inception, the similarities are too great for it not too be the case. So Paprika, as an almost incomprehensible film about films and dreams, serves as a testament to how good a film Inception is.
The Hurt Locker - 2008, Kathryn Bigelow Six Oscars! It's good, but it's no better that all the other post-Iraq Invasion films. The Green Zone is an unhealthy fantasy, The Kingdom goes all Rambo at the end, Siriana isn't as clever as it thinks it is, neither is Body Of Lies. Hurt Locker is just as good (average?) and equally unremarkable.
Déjà vu - 2006, Tony Scott Not quite as good as Tony and Denzel's previous collaboration Man On Fire but still better than I expected. It's a bit like Surrogates in that once you accept the main concept, it's an exiting if predictable thriller. It features the best car chase I've seen in a while as well.
Last Action Hero - 1993, John McTiernan As regular readers of It's Been A Long Time General will know, I'm a big fan of John McTiernan, particularly his second work as a director, Predator. After Predator and Die Hard and Hunt For The Red October, McTeirnen took on Last Action Hero. Other than perhaps Walter Hill there was no other director more suited to spoof the Action genre. McTiernan, who spent his pre cinema days directing theatre productions, never took himself too seriously when it came to the macho films that became his forte. This may be the reason he did such a good job, he wasn’t trying to impress anyone. LAH was a bit of a dud financially and critically and so almost inevitably has become a ‘cult classic’. As a ‘spoof’ it shouldn’t be compared to Airplane, The Naked Gun or Hot Shots. Those films were written by seasoned comedy writers and excellent as they are, stuck to a blueprint laid out by the The Kentucky Fried Movie: absolute deadpan, always. LAH is far more daring. Schwarzenegger, the biggest movie star in the world at the time (of all time?) played himself and spoofed his own on screen image. Shane Black who wrote Lethal Weapon had a hand in writing it, spoofing his own work just like McTiernen. In a sense LAH is too similar to the films it parodies; clever premise, good first couple of acts, disappointing climax. It’s a wonder this film wasn’t a lesson to Hollywood to stop making this mistake again and again (Hancock anyone?)
Zombieland – 2009, Ruben Fleischer Is Zombieland the best zombie film ever? Maybe. I suppose that George’s original Dawn of The Dead is the best. Not only did it start off the whole ‘zombies take over the world’ genre which struck a chord with so many cinema goers, but it’s a zombie film with far more intelligence than almost any that has come since. So that makes Zombieland the best zombie film since, by a mile. Even though it’s a comedy it gets all the things about the zombie apocalypse right that almost every other zombie film gets wrong; useless wankers will not make it. There are only four characters in Zombieland (if we choose not to include Bill Murray, which is almost unforgivable but bare with me), only four because almost everyone else is dead. As the film’s main protagonist and narrator explains, the only people who survive the Zom-pocalypse are those who are very very careful (scared), and those who are very very good at taking out Zombies. There are no idiots like those found in other Zombie films; wandering around dark, empty houses calling out ‘is there anybody there’ or any other such annoying wankers. The next series of The Walking Dead could benefit greatly from heeding such lessons.
