2010. Dir: Julie Taymor. Starring: Helen Mirren, Felicity Jones, Reeve Carney, Russell Brand and Djimon Hounsou. ●●●●○
Whilst some of William Shakespeare's plays are constantly in the backs of public consciousness (Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet) others drift in and out of fashion; known more to aficionados and literature students than the average cinema goer. The Tempest definitely sits within the second set partly because Shakespeare's last play is problematic. Like A Midsummer Night's Dream it creates it's own logic; albeit significantly darker in it's intent influenced by the failing of Shakespeare's own literary skills and the King James's obsession with witchcraft. Perhaps the biggest issue, which resonates fully in a post-Iraq geopolitical world, is the ambivalent approach to imperialism and colonisation. Julie Taymor's production rather glosses over these issues, using the stunt casting of Helen Mirren in the traditional male lead of Propero (now called Prospera) as a tactic to confuse and mislead the audience's attention.
The titular storm occurs in the opening scenes of Act I, Prospera exercising her powers with the sprite Ariel (Ben Whishaw) under her control in order to wreck a passing vessel carrying the conspirators behind her exile and abandonment to the barren island where she resides. The rest of the story concerns three groups of the survivors as they respond to Prospera's machinations.
The first group contains her usurping brother Alonso (Chris Cooper) oily spreading discourse with Ferdinand (Alan Cumming) against the King of Naples (David Strathairn) with the loyal and verbose Gonzalez on hand (Tom Conti). Meanwhile Ferdinand (Reeve Carney), the heir to the throne of Naples, has been separated and introduced to Prospera's daughter Miranda (Felicity Jones) in order to test his virtue as a potential suitor.
Finally Stephano and Trinculo, comic relief as a drunkard, wasteful, working class (played by Alfred Molina and Russell Brand respectively) form a bond with the island's sole native - and Propera's slave - Caliban (Djimon Hounsou). Together they plot to overthrow the matriarchal state in which Caliban is imprisoned.
The gender change at the centre is a curious one, it allows for a much closer relationship between Prospera and Miranda, one that gives an additional urgency to the protective instincts Prospera feels towards her daughter - from the alleged lustful desire of Caliban to the shield from her work. That said it weakens Miranda who seems both whiny at times, yet also the standing up against her parent is less risky.
Of course Mirren delivers in the central role, but this isn't just a Propera show as other adaptation's have indicated. Chris Cooper is suitably menacing, virtually licking his lips as he whispers conspiracies. Tom Conti also hits the mark as the aging windbag. Brand and Molina might not be doing anything we haven't seen before but it is what they do best - Brand in particular seems to have wandered in from his stand up show. I was especially taken by Ben Whishaw's performance, at once enamoured by Prospera as well as desperately seeking his freedom from her control.
Design wise there are few film-makes more distinctive that Taymor. Sandy Powell's costume design is fantastic, from the zip encrusted noblemen ware to the seemingly pieces together costuming of the island residents. Whishaw's costumes also shone - when he appears as a crow it's beautiful frightening and captivating.
Eliott Goldenthal's music, including incidental songs, is also wonderfully integrated into the action and is among his best scores. Taymor's direction is at it's usual high standard - although she's clearly more interested in spectacle than character. Weirdly at times the film seems rushed - Prospera's about face on her knowledge seems almost whimsical.
I would heartily recommend this version of the play, but would have preferred Taymor to really try to confront the message of the story. When I leave with sympathy for Ariel's imprisonment but no opinion on Caliban's mistreatment I know there's been a trick missed.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
The Tempest
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Biutiful
2010. Dir: Alejandro González Iñárritu. Starring: Javier Bardem, Maricel Alvarez, Hanaa Bouchaib, Guillermo Estrella and Eduard Fernandez. ●●●●○
Inarritu's first film without screen-writing partner Guillermo Arriaga (the split appears to be permanent) is a departure in stlye from the multi-character story arcs he's used to, but the overriding themes of multiculturalism and the interconnectivity of fate remain. The miserablist Biutiful reminds us that life is cheap and full of heartache, even it's brushes with magical realism do nothing to lift the spirits of the audience.
Barcelona criminal Javier Bardem is having a bad time, his schizophrenic wife has abandoned the family and is casually sleeping with his brother, the illegal immigrants he acts as a conduit for police bribery are hawking their goods in the wrong area, and his connection with the recently deceased is getting out of hand. Plus he's also dying of Stomach cancer so of course it's down to Bardem to ensure that his daughter is able to spell Beautiful succesfully (needless to say he doesn't totally achieve this).
Ultimately the plot is irrelevant - this is a movie about suffering - it explores the lengths to which Bardem's soul is able to deal with the inequality of life and the desparation of his circumstances. It's deliberately bleak with further trials heaping themselves on his fractured conscience.
Bardem's performance is superb, the suffering is etched onto his face. As is Maricel Alvarez as his imbalanced wife, neither overplaying nor sugarcoating her mental illness.
The star though is Barcelona, unrecognisable to the tourists in it's handling of the inherent poverty and underclass of major city life. The production design is also superb, each flat, each factory, each location seems recognisable and lived in with the subtle distinctions of class, taste and ambition.
There is also a refreshing sense that this film is for adults, the visions of the dead that Bardem is subjected to are fleeting and on the edge of the screen, the relationship is referred to without being overt. Visual metaphors on the delicacy of life are allowed to drift in the shadows but aren't forced down the viewers throats. Saying there there are obvious attempts to elicit emotion from the audience. There is a tragic event about three quarters of the way through which would be enough in itself but due to the characters involved pushes us to an unnecessary extent. The simplicity of the bookend, snowbound scenes are much more poignant - especially in the closing credits.
I would recommend this film, but take a tissue and be prepared: there are no happy endings in Inarittu movies.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Whatever Works
2009. Dir: Woody Allen. Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Ed Begley Jr, Patricia Clarkson and Conleth Hill. ●○○○○
The philosophy of this film, which Larry David's Boris is keen to point out on numerous occasions, is that life is hard and transient enough that we should all strive for our own temporary measures of happiness, for Whatever Works. At heart it's a message of tolerance and forgiveness, that happiness is so fleeting we should hold on to it however it's obtained and not to begrudge other people's methods. Beautiful. Unfortunately the movie had the opposite effect on me, I left the cinema less happy then when I went in and I'm willing to forgo other people's happiness if this sort of tangled mess is the result.
I'll start in a positive way by listing the elements of the film I liked: the concept of Boris breaking the fourth wall and alienating the other characters was interesting (although it wasn't done well or with any consistency), Evan Rachel Wood gave a passable ditzy blond of the Mira Sorvino school of Allen heroines, the score was the usual easy jazz we've come to expect from Allen's movies and... No, don't expect any more, that's all I liked.
The flimsy plot follows bitter, nihilistic, semi-suicidal Boris, and the path of his relationship with Wood's Southern runaway Melody. Boris is clearly the Allen proxy but David shouts his way through the performance with none of the nebbishnish and self-deprecation that would have made the character work, he's not even rude and funny which would bring the audience some way around liking him. You have to wonder what naive Melody sees in him, and no the Pygmalian references in the film won't wash because Boris takes no pleasure in either the transformation (if there even is one) or the process of enabling this transformation.
Time, according to one of the direct to camera monologues (that's one where no-one notices him as opposed to the ones where people stare and question), passes and out of the blue Melody's parents played with gusto but no feeling by Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jnr arrive separately as gargantuan stereotypes of deep south prejudices. Allen clearly doesn't know what to do with people outside of his usual social groupings has them immediately and without much warning lose their previous fears and anxieties and become a nymphomaniac and proud homosexual respectively.
I would say it was the influence of Allen's own Manhattan that sets these people free of their bonds, but you'd hardly know it was set in New York. The heady atmosphere of the city ever-present in Allen's greatest movies is barely noticeable with the location feeling the same as any other major metropolis.
All this, and much more, is squeezed into the 92 minute film making it feel like an eternity had passed before the end credits.
I want to end with more positivity, to praise Clarkson's costumes or the set decoration of David's duplex, but I can't. Sure these elements work, but they're uninventive and bordering on the cliched. Perhaps if I end with the one line that made me laugh out loud (and bear in mind it was an empty theatre so I didn't have an excuse for not guffawing often). Boris has just awoken from a nightmare panicking about is imminent demise - I did say the character was like a neuroses greatest hits for Allen didn't I? - and Melody suggests watching a film to calm down:
Boris I have stared into the abyss.
Melody We'll watch something else then.
Even that wasn't as good as I remember.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Shutter Island
2010. Dir: Martin Scorsese. Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingley, Max von Sydow and Michelle Williams. ●●●●○
I'm not much of a reader. Sure, like anyone I can devour an airport paperback in a couple of sittings, but these are few and far between. I spend much more time between books, with dogeared classics drifting around my desk waiting for the first chapter to be tried agian. Occasionally though I make a bit of effort. It could be because I love the author's style (Michael Chabon, J.G Ballard) or because I've heard great things (The Time Traveler's Wife, Curious incident of the dog in the night-time) OR because I hear there's going to be a movie made form it. Which how I came to read Dennis Lehane's Shutter Island.
I hated it.
But that negative experience meant that I could, when the film came out, watch it with a understanding of where the plot was going and pre-warned about the style. Lehane, who specialises in adult crime thrillers (Mystic River and Gone, Baby, Gone have both been sucessfully adapted to the big screen), set out to write a genre piece, a gothic mystery with a dramatic twist. As a novel I felt it didn't work as the ending was too neat, too cliched to be true. Of course it's a film cliche, anyway, so naturally it works better in that medium.
As the film starts we see a ferry coming out of the mist on it's way to the titular island and its maximum security institute for the criminally insane. Before we've had a chance to fully register the characters Marshalls Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (geddit???!!! - Mark Ruffalo) are being thundered away from the dock in an open top jeep to a soundtrack of intense classics.
The plots own macguffin is escaped prisoner Rachel Solando who's miraculously squeezed through her bars and disappered into the inhospital island, and the Marshalls have been called to help track her down. Not that that's the only thing on DiCaprio's mind. Whilst he's there he must find out the truth about the secret mind drugs that sinister phychiatrist's Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow are dishing out and avenge the murder of his fragile wife Dolores Chanal (Michelle Williams) by the arsonist Andrew Laeddis who may also be, unregistered, in the island. Meanwhile he's suffering from violent headaches, dreaming about his wife's murder, suffering from flashbacks to World War 2. And, to top it all off, there's a big storm coming.
If all of this combined makes it seem like there's an awful lot going on, you're right. But remember most of these events are red herrings. The film is packing in incident and characters to confuse you, to obscure the truth from your vision. Like the fog in the opening, we aren't meant to understand the full implications of the search until that thrid act reveal. Although you could read those last two paragraphs and in effect solve the entire mystery.
Marty knows what he's doing with the story, in what must be his most satisfying film since Goodfellas. The sensibility of the novel and the genre is a ball that Scorsese is more than happy to pick up and run with. Every underlined clue, every musical cue, every jumpy edit seems to be perfectly judged to reinforce the storys central conceit. It is both a pastiche and a modern response to the melodrams of the 40's and 50's where the heroine (usually) begins to doubt her own security and sanity The Spiral Staircase, Gaslight and Sorry, Wrong Number all come to mind.
To that end we also completely forget it's a Scorsese picture, wih it's use of a classical soundtrack and heavy handed symbolism it's about as far away from his past masterpieces as you can imagine. Only the concentration camp shoot out with it's relentless tracking shot is a clue to who you're working with.
In the lead role DiCaprio continues to grow as an actor, able to convey much with a look or a throwaway line. Even the more outre choices - like the completely gonzo scribbling - seem to fit with the characters arc. The way he plays the final scene by the doors of the asylum is incredible, a massive awareness of his situation combined with a confidence about the path he must follow.
I expect in 10 years time we'll look back at this period in DiCaprio's career (with this Inception and Clint Eastwood J. Edgar Hoover biopic) when he truly matured into the greatest actor of his generation
Ben Kingsley also givs a rare performance as the doctor in charge, slipping from playfulness through exasperation to dismissive sometimes within a single speech.
As you would expect in a Scorsese picture the design is solid, with Dante Ferretti's (Casino, Interview with the Vampire) production design inside Robert Richardson's (Inglorious Basterds, Powder Keg) lens meaning every frame is a piece of art.
Overall this is a wonderful throwback to the films of yore, only let down by it's lack of ambition, with no commentary about the world outside of the film.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Hachi: A Dog's Story
2009. Dir: Lasse Hallström. Starring: Richard Gere, Sarah Roemer, Joan Allen, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa and Jason Alexander. ●●●●○
It's no secret that I like the simple things in life. I have lost count of the number of times I have said in reviews that a simple story well told can reach the highest level of film-making. So it was with great delight that I watched Hachi: A Dog's Story, a simple dog's story.
Based on a true story, only transplanted to a more sellable US setting, the film explores the fundamental relationship between one man and his dog as Music Professor Richard Gere adopts an Akita puppy he finds at the local train station. Through each other they learn what a true friend is. Spoilers follow after the jump.
We are treated to watching the two of them bond for an hour, Gere trying to teach Hachi (Japanese word for 8) how to fetch, Hachi's insistence on following his master to the town station; this is especially important as Hachi develops a routine whereby he follows his master every morning, then returns at 5 to pick him up. They share moments of elation, comfort and misery. As a previous dog owner myself I fully appreciate falling asleep on the couch with dogs on your lap and being told they we must all stay there because something has been chewed.
Then, suddenly, Hachi won't follow his pack leader and in a bizarre twist of behaviour takes Gere his ball. Everything that sets Hachi apart from other dogs is turned on it's head. There's even a burst of aggresive barking. We are lead to believe that Hachi is exhibiting his dissatisfaction at being treated lower on th social strata within the pack - Gere's daughter had annouced her pregnancy and he had also spent more time with his testy wife (Joan Allen giving a flawlessly underplayed performance - nicely tipping the audience off to the history of the family and their relationships).
The behavioural differences turn out to be more complex when out of the blue Gere collapses in his lecture hall, breathing his last and letting the ball Hachi had passed to him roll out of shot. The dog then mounts a vigil, returning to the train station each night to wait for his former master who will never return.
The story is mawkish, sentimental and signposts all the plot developments early on. Nevertheless it can be forgiven these flaws for the simple reason that it works. That sense of loneliness and loyalty the film evokes in it's third act is so profound that there literally wasn't a dry eye in the house (I personally wept like a baby).
I will critisize the bookending (why do they do it?) as Gere's grandson - who you will remember never met his grandfather - relates the story to his class. This is certainly a step too close to bathos and the grotesque image of pre-pubescent schoolchildren pretending to cry nearly killed off the emotions felt in the rest of the film.
The performances were serviceable throughout with the notable stand-out of the dog's playing Hachi. The pup wo played him in the early scenes particurlarly displayed a shocking range, along with serious come-to-bed eyes.
The dog vision segments were inventive using a bleached black and white footage and muffled soundtrack, but needed more of them to fully appreciate how they worked to establish the relationships, especially as the film focussed well on the co-dependence of the relationship. Well done to d.p. Ron Fortunato (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Catch a Fire).
Lasse Hallström did a fine anonymous job in the directors chair, it's may not be up there with his Swedish output but he crafted a better movie than he's made for a long time.
Overall Hachi was a fine example of what every dog-based film should be. An uplifting portrayal of that very special relationship between a man and his best friend.
Friday, 1 January 2010
20 for 2010 - Numbers 17 to 20
It seems hard to believe that I've been blogging so long that I'm returning to a theme I've already covered, that of the films I'm most looking forward to in 2010. In case you don't remember (or more likely weren't reading last year) on 1st January 2009 I counted down the top twenty films I was anticipating.
In retrospect it wasn't a great list. I have, so far, seen 11 of the films and only one of these made the top ten of films I actually saw - admittedly it was the final number 1 - Where the Wild Things Are. Therefore 10 were just not good enough. Of the remainder I'll be seeing The Lovely Bones and Brothers in January, Whatever Works has no sign of a UK release date, My Own Love Song has disappeared and Hachi looks like it's going striaght to video. The rest have been bumped into 2010 schedules and will be listed below as part of the countdown.
You could extrapolate that experience and try to second guess which of the top 20 will move to 2011 or drift off (I already know that one of the list has a UK release date in Jan '11), alternative you could tell me in advance which of these will make the year end top ten. There will actually be a competition later in the rundown with a bag of minstrels as the top prize (It's my cinema snack of choice).
The rules are simple.
1. I use the US release dates and schedules. I know this flies in the face of the way I do my top ten, but it's impossible to estimate how long it will take between releases here and there and it's often easier to find those details in the states. This means that It's Complicated and Precious aren't eligible even though I will see both of them.
2. On IMDB the filming must have started, and it must be recorded as a 2010 film. It's arbitrary I know, but it helps to reduce the likelihood of a film slipping into next years schedule.
3. (New Rule Alert) Films that made the list last year will be shunted to the back of this years list no matter how excited I am about them. I call this the Shutter Island rule because last year Shutter Island was the top film and I am still looking forward to it more than any other film on this list - but it wouldn't be fair to lead 2 years in a row so that, and all the other projects that have been delayed are at the back.
So, with that in mind, here are the films 20 to 17 that I am most looking forward to seeing in 2010.
17. Shutter Island Dir. Martin Scorsese. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley and Michelle Williams.
18. Love Ranch Dir. Taylor Hackford. Starring Helen Mirren, Joe Pesci and Sergio Peris-Mencheta. (No, I couldn't find any decent screen pics apart from the one I used last year)
19. The Tempest Dir. Julie Taymor. Starring Helen Mirren, Russell Brand and Djimon Hounsou (below as Caliban).
20. Biutiful Dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu. Starring Javier Bardem, Rubén Ochandiano and Blanca Portillo.
If you want to know a little more about why I was interested in these films then take a look at the labels below and you'll see last years posts.
Look out for number 16 in the 20 for 2010 countdown tomorrow.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Nine
2009. Dir: Rob Marshall. Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench and Nicole Kidman. ●●●●○
The question I asked myself as I walked into the cinema this week was: Is Rob Marshall the saviour of musical cinema or it's destroyer. I left the cinema with the same question. I simply do not know. I deeply suspect that he is neither, and in the fullness of time he will remian merely a footnote in the history of movies. That is not to say that Nine is a bad movie, it is very enjoyable, but also strangely forgettable.
Before I go any further on this review, I'd like to point out the excellent review by TomS over on his blog. I'd advise going there if you want a slightly more positive spin on what I'm about to say.
Nine is a film adapatation of the stage musical based on Fellini's 8 ½, which is in itself essentially a rumination on writer's block within the film industry, with the lead protagonist a thinly veiled version of Fellini. Nine then follows the story of an egotistical, womanising director - Guido Contini (Day-Lewis) - struggling to create his latest masterpiece even though production is set to begin and the marketing is in full throttle.
Contini distracts himself by talking to and imagining the women in his life, and in each of whom he equates to a particular song and dance style, and so we are able to include the element of music added to the stage without arousing suspicion that it's a musical - it's all in his head. A heady reminder of the artifice of cinema and the strains of the creative process. You may remember Rob Marshall used this technique in Chicago, there it seemed original and clever, here it seems like he's stolen it from himself.
Daniel Day-Lewis does his best in the lead role, hunching his neck forward like a vulture seeking out new prey (or women), but there's little in his demeanor to indicate why women flock to him. Maybe they're awed by his talent, but as he doesn't appear to be "nice" to any of them I can't see why they'd stay around. Saying that Day-Lewis is better at the comedy than I'd suspect - he skulks around the spa furtively hiding from people like a seasoned farceur.
Of the ladies the stand-out is Marion Cotillard (she came first in my supporting actress of the year awards), as I said there she effectively gives us the impression that her love for her husband Guido is balanced by her realisation that that may not be enough. She also performs both her songs with dignity and passion.
The singing performance can only be surpassed by Fergie as the under-written Seraghina, the whore Contini remembers as a child. She has the best song (Be Italian - it was used in the trailer) and really knows how to sing to the back row, the Fosse inspired choroegraphy is also a great additoon to the song.
Some of the other ladies do not do so well - Sophia Loren was distinctly underwhelming and I was also disappointed by Penelope Cruz's mugging. Part of the fault of this is because Nine is just not that good a musical. We want either songs we can repeat the refrain endlessly or to at least be able to spot the beauty of the music outside of it's setting. Nine largely fails at both of these.
The production values also seemed inconsistent. I liked the dancing, but wished the camera would look at it more - Marshall hasn't learnt that editing is crucial to getting the audience to understand the "story" of the dance. The evocation of 1960s Italy was superb until Nicole Kidman's movie star glared at me from a film poster, her face seemingly painted by a different artist from the rest of her body. I will admit the opening and closing scenes were excellently staged and performed, as a introduction and effectively a bow from all the women and their imagined choruses.
As I said at the beginning of the review my overall impression was that I enjoyed the film, but I will soon forget it.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Crossing Over
2009. Dir: Wayne Kramer. Starring: Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta, Ashley Judd, Jim Sturgess and Cliff Curtis. ●●○○○
I have tried to make allowances for watching the multi-storyline drama Crossing Over on video over the weekend, rather than at the cinema. I know that at home even if you're watching an excellent film your mind can wander off as you look at your bookcase or hear birdsong out of the window. However even being lenient the film, a remake of director Wayne Kramer's previous short, still fails on many levels.
The idea of taking a large number of parallel storylines to illustrate a point have been arond since the beginning of cinema. Grand Hotel with it's "galaxy of stars" and ideas of emotional equality (even with groups who are massively unequal socially) is a good example. The technique was later honed by Robert Altman - look at his masterpiece Nashville which confronts ideas of patriotism as well as cleverly interweaving 20+ rounded characterisations. The last 10 years have seen Crash and Syriana use this tool to highlight particular issues, and it's the critical succes of these films which probably led to Crossing Over being green-lighted.
Crossing Over does not compare well to any of the titles I've listed above. It aims to take a long hard look at U.S. immigration control and the dilemmas facing people at various stages of the process as well as the very essence of what it means to be American, however it shoehorns so many plots and characters in that the central conceit is muddled and many of the performances seem flat.
In a butchered 108 minutes (40 minutes less than Traffic, which it is clearly aiming to be - there must have been a lot more filmed than this) we have actresses selling their bodies for a green card, honour killings, the lure of gang violence, the effect of 9/11 on the freedom of speech, the disparity between immigrants of different cultural and economic backgrounds, I could go on. In reality any single issues addressed could have filled a movie of their own. I want to know understand more about the life experience of Summer Bishil's character, to find out how she has the confidence to speak out at the beginning. The family politics in Cliff Curtis' background would be more than enough to satisfy me.
So why do we get Ray Liotta gurning his way through every line, or sit through lots of time with Jim Sturgess' loveable Jewish rogue; is accent was all over the place, but at least the religion stays contant through the film.
Harrison Ford, clearly the marquee name for this, does an adequate job as a honorable man working for the immigration service but the stand out performances are Bishil and Curtis. Curtis in particular has a lot of heavy lifting to do, however the screenplay lets him go without the payoff he deserves.
Talking about the screenplay this is strictly plotting by numbers. From the first time we meet any of the characters we see virtually every side to them, with no-one going through an arc or showing any depth. Needless to say the end is also nicely resolved with all the loose ends tied off, the bad guys going to jail and the morally questionable ones getting their comeuppance.
Wayne Kramer can be an interesting director, the shoot out in the liquor store is tightly choreographed and the bleached flashbacks with unflinching sex and shocking violence are done with the same hard edge he used in Running Scared and The Cooler, however he needs to find a good thriller plot to hang his technique around and not waste time with passion projects like this.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Where the Wild Things Are
2009. Dir: Spike Jonze. Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara and Lauren Ambrose. ●●●●●
I will start this review by confessing that I have never read Maurice Sendak's Where the wild things are. Regardless of it's status as one of the greatest children's books ever written I was never exposed to it's beauty as a child. The biggest compliment I can say having seen the film is "I wish I had". If the book has even half the emotional richness that the film has then every child should have that opportunity.
By now you probably know that I liked Where the Wild Things Are. I really really liked it.
The plot (bearing in mind this is not really plot driven) follows a small boy (Max Records) first in his normal every day life then, following an arguement with his mother (Catherine Keener), in a fantasy land populated by "Wild Things" where he escapes to. In both environments he plays, fights, builds forts and (fails to)connects with everyone else.
There are so many things this film gets right it's difficult to choose which ones to look at. Primarily the casting of Max is perfect. I don't know whether the boy can act but he was incredibly natural, both on screen and in his actions. The changes in emotional state from joy to fear to petulance as perfectly played and as spontaneous as children can be. Later as Max begins to realise the psychology of the Wild Things and as he appreciates the shift in dynamics that takes him from being the child to the parent he handles the subtle changes incredibly well.
The screenplay perfectly judges to tone. It is a kids film, they could watch it and understand everything that is being said, enjoy the comedy of throwing mud balls at each other and feel the fear when the Wild Things may turn on Max. Yet it's also an adults film. In growing up we start to hide all those emotions that Max allows to run rampant, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - or that they ever fully go away. As an adult I can recognise those Wild Things and appreciate them - I want ot be Max and face them.
The Wild things themselves are brilliant. Both as physical creations - the things they do are pure fantasy but because they are real people in big suits (with some addition FX shots to clean up the facial expressions) we can feel their movements as much as see them. The voice performances are all suited to the characteristics their Wild Things portray, but special kudos go to Lauren Ambrose as K.W. (representing the pull of family) and Paul Dano as Alexander (loneliness).
A brilliant film that should be seen by everyone.
Monday, 16 November 2009
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
2009. Dir: Terry Gilliam. Starring: Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield, Heath Ledger and friends. ●●●○○
If you were to brainstorm words associated with the back catalogue of Terry Gilliam then you would almost certainly perfectly describe his latest piece. Indeed The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a typical example of both the positive and negative aspects of the former Python's oeuvre.
Creative - Inside the titular doctor's travelling show, and it's portal to another dimension there is a unique and beautifully crafted world where anything that can be conceived is not just attainable but perfectly logical. Indeed the entire basis of the plot, where the souls of mankind are fought over by making people choose the end to their story whichever way they feel necessary.
Half baked Yes Terry has this fantastic concept, but he can't think of enough of a story to hang it on - or at lest make a decision to stick with a particular story - is it the wager with the devil we are concerned with, or Valentina's coming of age, or the origins of Heath Ledger's anmesiac stranger?
Cast Great actors Like the venerable Christopher Plummer in the lead, or taking risks withs model Lily Cole and gravelly voiced singer Tom Waits. Even to tragic loss of Heath Ledger, and the subsequently rewriting of the fantasy scenes to introduce multiple actors (Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell) to play alternative Tony's seems utterly organic.
Forget to direct the actors unfortunatly there is little point in being creative in casting if you allow the stars to coast (yes Johnny I'm looking at you), give them nothing to do (Plummer's the lead role but so very one note) or allow free reign (I don't wish to speak ill of the dead but Heath is just plain bad in this). Andrew Garfield is a real find though.
Excellent production design as ever there are some memorable and disturbing images, especially from the dreamscapes and from the inside of the caravan. Anastasia Masaro has a lot to be proud of.
Allow the images to dictate the story dancing policemen in stocking a suspenders may work in a late 60's sketch show, but unless it's forwarding the plot it comes across as indulgent.
When we combine all these elements it's not hard to see how the entire film can be described as classic Gilliam. It's like painting with your neice - enjoyable and fun
whilst you're doing it, but ultimatley messy and forgettable.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
The Soloist
2009. Dir: Joe Wright. Starring: Jamie Foxx, Robert Downey Jr., Catherine Keener, Tom Hollander and Lisa Gay Hamilton. ●●○○○
After a couple of false starts - one cancelled night out and a trip to see Dorian Gray - I managed to persuade the rest of the cast to see The Soloist. With the benefit of hindsight I wish I hadn't bothered. It's not that it's a bad film, not really really bad, indeed there is much to commend it. More than that it's deeply disappointing, the combination of talent should havr combined to a much greater whole than witnessed here.
The film charts the relationship between Steve Lopez - columnist for the L.A. Times - and Nathaniel Ayers former Julliard prodigy now homeless and, possibly, pyschizophrenic played by Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx respectively. In the main the film plays from Lopez's perspective as he builds the story from a chance encounter during lunch break and realises that the adoration he inspires in Ayers is a front for deeper personal and societal problems. It is Lopez's story in that he is the character we follow home to his raccoon infestation and failed marriage. Occasionally we get extended flashbacks to Ayer's youth or bizarre glimpses into his subconcious.
Strangely this concept felt like the best way of adapting this story - tellingly Lopez is a columnist not a journalist - he is his own story. This distances Foxx's character to such an extent that we feel short changed on his performance and when Wright looks at his mental processes creatively (such as an extended light display during a concert rehearsal) it seems like only half the story; like the creative team didn't have the courage to finish what they started.
This confused tone is symptomatic of the issues I had with this movie. Both Donwey Jr. and Foxx are clearly putting in terrific performances but their either too smug or held at arms length to such an extent that I felt nothing for them.
Technically the film was merely proficient, but I would like to commend Jacqueline Durrand's costuming (Atonement, Vera Drake), especially for Foxx's variety of idiosyncratic regalia which must have been both a nightmare to organise, as well as being a pleasureable challenge.
Ultimately less than the sum of it's parts my overall impression was that all concerned could and should do so much better.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Inglorious Basterds
2009. Dir: Quentin Tarantino. Starring: Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth and Michael Fassbender. ●●●○○
I have an extraordinary dilemma in reviewing Tarantino's latest feature, in that over the last few days since I saw the film I have had three distinct reactions to it.
Whilst watching it, and indeed whilst whistling the closing credits on the way home, I was like a small boy. Imagining I could take on the entire Nazi party, wondering what levels of destruction I could do single handedly, gleefully chuckling as my (imaginery) machine gun torn off the face of passers-by who looked at me funny. Later my film theorist intellectual side reminded me of the various nods to classic cinema, nods to Ford, Aldrich and Godard among others. The intellectual revelled in the period detail and tha audacity of the project, praising the way that tension was built up in each scene.
With the Id and Ego satisfied I could have easily written a five blob review of Basterds on Saturday night, however it was then that the Super-Ego kicked in and I began to have very serious doubts about the film.
To understand this I ought to briefly describe the plot, or at least precis it as much as is possible. There are in essence 2 storylines involving revenge and vengeance. The first involves Shosanna Dreyfus (Laurent) surving the massacre of her family at the hands of Col. Hans "The Jew Hunter" Landa (Waltz) and then following a handy set of coincidences having the opportunity to take a few Nazi's out. The second revolves around LT. Aldo Raine's (Pitt) squad of Basterds, an elite group of Jewish scalp hunters who intend to demoralise German troops in France and their final mission involving the British and German undercover spies. Both storylines come to a head in the cinema owned by Shosanna and a bloody climax ensues.
Tarantino breaks this up into 5 chapters, each of which jumps to the opposing storyline and essentially allows the tension to build from scratch to a different shocking or exciting denoument. Each of the chapters specifically invokes ideas of different genres, and I don't deny I will almost certainly pore over a DVD copy when I can to look for the changes in the camera angles and lighting that reflect each chapter's core style. The tension is in a large part due to Tarantino's hyper-real dialogue with it's playful use of language. Conversations that dance and skirt around major plot points occur in every chapter, whether it's Landa interrogating a French peasant or gentle probing of adversaries to look for weakness as in the LaLouisiane scene.
The actors given these scenes manage to excel Waltz and Laurent do an especially good job, but the performances from Fassbender as British film critic turned spy Lt. Archie Hicox and Diane Kruger as German film star Bridget von Hammersmark are very impressive. Pitt, Roth and the rest of the Basterds are so grossly underwritten that their sections could easily have been cut out completely but for the connections with the other plot strands.
In keeping with the references to other cinematic landmarks Tarantino does his best to constant remind you that you're watching a film. There are a couple of bizarre narrative sections from Samuel L. Jackson, character names are scrawled on the screen, history is revised to such an extent that it makes Braveheart seem accurate and there's even a burst of David Bowie in the soundtrack. With all of these elements together the film can safely be excused as a fantasy, a nerdy film geek getting his own back on history and executing his own private revenge on Hitler.
However there is something rotten at the core of Inglorious Basterds. There were three key moments in the movie where Tarantino clearly shows his hand and possible shows his contempt for humanity. SPOILERS follow from here, so please do not read on unless you are prepared.
1. The Basterds have beaten a German squad during an engagement and now have three prisoners. They interrogate the Sergeant in order to identify the location and armaments of the next nearest unit. Unsurpringly he refuses to tell them so "The Bear Jew" (Roth) is called to execute him, using a baseball bat naturally. The German soldier is prepared to die, Roth asks him whether he received his Iron Cross for killing Jews, he replies "for bravery" then wham! Roth beats him to death. It is bloody and deliberate and close to being funny. The implication is that the bravery doesn't matter, that in some way that Sergeant was complicit with the greatest crimes of the Nazi's, purely due to him putting the uniform on. I disagree with this sentiment whilst discrimination and segregation of ethnic groups was commonly practised most Germans were unaware of the genocide being committed by the Nazi party at the time. It is also sad that we are not given an understanding of the extraordinary peril this soldier would have faced to be given his Iron Cross.
2. Bravery by soldiers leads us nicely to another point. The only German creditted with any extraordinary ability is Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) who as a sniper killed over 200 allied troops from his bell tower vantage point. For most of the film he seems couteous and, whilst not shy about his talents, at least humourous and diffident in front of Shosanna with whom he has become infatuated. During the final cinema scene, watching the Nazi propaganda piece Nation's Pride based on his accomplishements and starring Zoller he visible shuffles in his seat, and eventually excuses himself. For a moment I imagined that he had doubts about what he had done, feelings of guilt or compassion. He goes to Shosanna in the projection room and then turns into an agressive bully - suddenly seeming like he's more likely to rape her than woo her. The possiblity of a noble German or a character identifying the sanctity of human life is again dashed.
3. Finally the film ends with a massacre. Many people are killed. Lots are Nazi generals and politico's, others are simply film makers. The issue of killing civilians, or whether it is right to replace one brutal regime with another is not raised. The victims are shot and then fall down dead, there are no injuries or pain just turning from one state of living to a state of death. The treatment of war is not just cartoonish but frightening.
SPOILERS OVER.
All these elements add up to make me feel that in spite of the brilliance at work, in spite of how enjoyable the film was, I simply cannot endorse a film which treats people which such contempt. Thare's a lot of gloss here, but no humanity.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Public Enemies
2009. Dir: Michael Mann. Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup and Stephen Dorff. ●●●●○
The future is here. Forget about James Cameron, Pixar and the whole 3D gimmick, Michael Mann is ushering in the greatest change to cinema since the creation of widescreen. The future (even when it's the past) is digital. And it's crisp and beautiful.
So, I went to see Mann's latest on Friday, and spent the weekend considering the film and how it affected me. Plotwise there is little I can tell you that you can't find out from Wikipedia. Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the folk hero like American bank robber from the 30's, Marion Cotillard the coat-check girl he falls for and Christian Bale the G-Man chasing him down.
But the story, and it's inevitable end, is scarcely the point. Mann excels at showing the relationship between the criminal and the cop, at highlighting the differences and similarities between the two. In Heat we understand the dedication that both sides have to their profession, in Collateral we sympathise for both Tom Cruise's hired killer as well as the dogged cops frantically trying to stop him.
The film certainly doesn't disappoint here, we see how Dillinger and Purvis are both driven and exacting men. They both understand the importance of planning the job in detail, and choosing the right team. However we don't get under their skin in the way we have with Mann's back catalogue. The feds are essetially ciphers with no back story or emotions. Dillinger fares better with some interesting insights into his brushes with fame, and the moral exactitude he brings with him to his work; as opposed to the ambitious mafia and pshychopathic mobsters he mixes with. Depp works fine with what he has, the trademark half smile he carries giving the audience a taster of the depth of character, but it's only a start to understanding the man.
Instead it's up to Marion Cotillard (as Billie Frechette) to carry the acting honours. She beautifully conveys how out of depth she is with the world of gangsters and the variations in her attitude are perfect. Another stand out is Stephen Lang, as one of the seasoned Southern agents Purvis calls up. He manages to convey more depth with a look and a way of standing than Bale does throughout the film. I look forward to seeing more of him soon (he's in Avatar).
The screenplay is better with the action scenes. The robberies themselves may seem rushed and interchangeable, although I expect that's deliberate, but the Prison break at the beginning and the woodland shoot out are incredibly tense, and fully draw you into the action.
Kudos to Mann's direction for making these scenes really work.
Congratualtions are also due to the sound mixers, the gunfights sounded exceptionally real and dangerous (and the crowd scenes so alive with rhubarbing) that I was hooked to every pindrop. I'm ashamed to say I completely forgot Elliott Goldenthal was scoring, so I don't expect it's one of his greatest efforts.
I started the review talking about the digital cinematography, and this for me is the highlight of the film. Mann has proved that hand-held camera techniques and up close digital filming can work in a period setting, and can be gorgeous. Every shot seems to be perfectly fit, every angle worked out. With digital film it feels different to the viewer, more immediate, more real. I love that.
Overall this is an incredibly film to watch and listen to. It's just a real shame I didn't feel more about the characters.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Angels & Demons
2009. Dir: Ron Howard. Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan MacGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård and Pierfrancesco Favino. ●●●○○
Before I write anything else down, I know I will need to justify that score. Even for such a generous reviewer as myself 3 out of 5 seems awfully nice, and to be sure the plot is complete bobbins, the acting variable and the script risible in parts, however if you take it for what it is, a thriller set against the backdrop of a conclave for a new Pope then it does go by at a fairly reasonable pace and we learn a lot about the processes in the Vatican.
So, to recap the plo to those who haven't already read it, there's a macguffin about to explode inside the Holy City. Naturally the Church call in their sworn enemy Robert Langdon (Hanks) who you may remember uncovering the secret lovechild of Christ and sporting a strange mullett in The Da Vinci Code. I suppose that Jesus did teach forgiveness and this is especially important when the 4 leading candidates to be the next Pope has been kidnapped and a threat against the conclave has been issued.
Hanks teams up sexy scientist Zurer, who's responsible for the macguffin, and some doomed Vatican detectives (including Favino who stands out in the cast for me) to find the bomb and save the Preferati by following a treasure trail written by Bernini over 400 years ago. Possibly hampering their investigation for their own ends - it's that sort of film - are Skarsgård as the head of the Swiss Guard, MacGregor as the Camelengo (sort of Pope deputy running the show until a new one's in) and Armin Mueller-Stahl as a faintly ambitious, but definitely traditionalist Cardinal.
None of these three are particulary trying hard, but I could accept the moody Swede and the Middle European gnome, but the Irish-Italian helicopter pilot was one step too far.
The first 3/4s of the film work very well. We're either in the middle of the chase (and seeing old churchmen die in painful ways) or we're geting some insights into the workings of the Vatican (fascinating details). Even the set-up in CERN is pretty tense, except for the pointless CGI. Didn't Ron Howard learn from A Beautiful Mind that exhibiting scientific ideas with pretty lines that aren't there is just patronising?
The last 30 minutes are less successful, as the detective story we've been following falls flat and the heroes have to rely on CCTV footage to solve the crime. In the rush to end we also lose any real understanding of the motivations, so was he just mad?
The design elements are pretty good throughout, and I especially liked the costumes. Although I expect we should be congratulating Catholic tradition rather than Daniel Orlandi.
Finally I'd like to congratulate Nikolaj Lie Kaas on being a kick ass assassin. Although he was still pretty ropey - I wouldn't have used that car - at least he was better than our man in State of Play. Looks like it could be a bad year for hired killers.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Chéri
2009. Dir: Stephen Frears. Starring: Michelle Pfeiffer, Kathy Bates, Rupert Friend, Felicity Jones and Frances Tomelty. ●●●●○
Still naff all coming out in June, and I'm still behind on the reviews, so here's one for the latest collaboration between Michelle Pfeiffer and Stephen Frears.
Plotwise the film covers the relationship between Pfeiffer's ageing courtesan (Lea) and Rupert Friend callow youth (known affectionately as Cheri), the son of Kathy Bates. The film does this in four sections; the courting, the arranged marriage for Cheri, the pretending that's everythings fine and the conclusion. Throughout this it is worth remembering that the trailer highlights the comic elements of the film but it is not a comedy. You will laugh but you will also cry, and at the end stare at the final frames in shocked bewilderment.
Cheri opens with a jolly voiceover by the director giving a potted history of the courtesans and some of the more infamous among them (missing out Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge!) and soon we're zipping through the streets of Paris meeting the characters. These early scenes are played lighly with loose editing and gentle soundtrack. In fact all elements of the film work together all the way through. As the affair ends the pacing slows and the tunes become more ponderous.
Each member of the technical crew is working at the top of their game, but it's Frears incredible touch in the directors chair that must be responsible for the keeping together of the feelings.
Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly cast, aloof and upright, but clearly melting behind the eyes. If she gets an Oscar nod this year (not as unlikely as I had thought going in) it'll be the moments she doesn't speak that will play in any clips. Bates almost steals the show mind, giggling and gossiping her way through scenes with malevolent intent. Friend comes off as a bit of an enigma, but that's in perfect keeping with the role.
Whilst the acting noms may be in the balance, Consolata Boyle's (The Queen) costumes must be guaranteed to get her second nod. Dresses and hats so exquisite you want to reach out and grab them.
Overall this is a great little gem of a movie, watch it glisten as soon as you get a chance.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
State of Play
2009. Dir: Kavin MacDonald. Starring: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Helen Mirren, Rachel McAdams and Robin Wright Penn. ●●●●○
I've been running late on reviews over the last couple of weeks, so I'll be publishing ont today, tomorrow and Thursday in order to catch up. This means there won't be a trailer today, but there's naff all out in June so I really don't care.
Coincidently I was also running a tiny bit late when I went to see State of Play and therefore missed some of the early plot. But it's OK, as I missed the plot bits about a druggy and pizza-delivery guy getting shot randomly and this was subsequently referred to a lot over the rest of the film so I don't think I actually missed anything of substance. The other story, the film starts with, is the death of a Congressional aide under mysterious circumstances. The aide works for Ben Afflecks left leaning politico who's chairing an investigation into Military subcontracts. By coincidence his high school roomie, Russell Crowe, is a top reporter for the Washington Globe and before you can say "conflict of interest" or "journalistic integrity" Russell is investigating the link between the deaths.
The film follows Crowe and Globe Blogger Rachel McAdams as they follow each twist and turn of the murder(s?) discovering a massive conspiracy which includes the ambitious and murky subcontractors, party power brokers (Jeff Daniels) and low-life PR men (Jason Bateman).
I won't give away the ending, suffice to say the screenplay leads you and Crowe in a number of false leads and suppositions until he - completely out of nowhere - remembers a small detail and solves everything. If you've seen the BBC miniseries of the same name you will know which of the supporting characters is hiding the truth, but if you haven't, like me, then the twists will be sufficiently hidden to be able to enjoy the journey.
Part of the fun in this film is comparing it to it's predecessors, the political thrillers and journalism heroics of the 70's. See All the President's Men or The Candidate. Especially in the way it treats the Newspaper setting. Foul mouthed Jason Robards may have been replaced by foul mouther Helen Mirren but the look and feel of the editors office hasn't changed at all. Although there are many hints as to the way print journalism is going - increased focus on the web side, focusing on the shareholders - it's a clear indictment of the current trends.
All of the supporting cast do a fine job, but the film squarely rests on the shoulders of Russell Crowe. He seems to be aware of this and gives his most lived in performance in 5 years, thoroughly believeable as a shlubby journo and as a man torn between the loyalty to his friends and to his job.
The techinical elements are all good, with special kudos to Cheryl Carasik's set decoration.
I do have some minor quibbles; the whole conspiracy seems a little forced, it's almost as if the plot needs a little more time to breathe. The affair between Crowe and Robin Wright Penn as Affleck's wife is retained from the original series but used as background to the relationship, I think it would have benefitted from being excised completely. Finally Michael Barresse's turn as the hitman is too bland, and perhaps the way his character operates is too opaque - almost to the point that you have no idea why he isn't caught sooner.
Overall though this is an excellent piece, proving MacDonald as a director and reaffirming Crowe's reputation as an excellent character actor.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Duplicity
2009. Dir: Tony Gilroy. Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti and Dan Daily. ●●●○○
2009 has now begun. We, or at least I, have seen the first film among my hotly anticipated titles for the year. The good news is that Duplicity is eminently enjoyable, with zippy direction, an exciting plot and some quality performances. The bad news is that at the end of the year I probably won't remember this film at all.
It's essentially a con-film where we know the lead protangonists (Roberts and Owen) are grifting their prospectively employers (Wilkinson and Giamatti) over a top secret product being developed by the rival pharmaceutical firms. As the film goes one we are forced to question the loyalty between the two them, their bosses and ultimately whether honesty has any place in the relationahips and cut throat society we have today.
The screen play is tight and light, with a final act twist that was both unexpected and brilliant in it's eexecution, safely negating everything we've seen so far as we realise exactly who is playing whom.
The performances are of a general high standard. Wilkinson and Giamatti both give different sides of the same coin of ruthless corporate executives, and both are clearly loving every moment of it. Owen and Roberts continue from Closer with their wonderful chemistry, but also playing the expediency of their entaglement. The supporting players are all fine, with a lovely turn from Carrie Preston (Appletini in the trailer) as a shy girl who throws herself at Clive - not that I can blame her he spent large portions of the film wondering around in a towel and I for one would have thrown myself at him.
The direction was assured, as with Michael Clayton Gilroy shows us he's less interested in the flashy direction than allowing his story to unfold. All technical aspects of the film were good - although I would especially commend the Set Decoration by George DeTitta Jr as every room was as interesting as it was unique.
So I really enjoyed this movie, but to be honest there was little original or insightful to raise it to the next level. Good clean fun, that's great but that's all.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
20 for 2009 - Shutter Island
Or, Now Marty's got an Oscar is he going to let rip or will this be his way of getting one for Leo?
How can I be so cynical. This is my number one choice for 2009. Against the anticipation for Shutter Island all other films look pasty and irrelevant.
There is little I can actually say to really defend why I'm interested in this film. The novel is hokey with the ending telegraphed so clearly my dogs guessed what was happening. It also doesn't have the depth of story that Scorcese is used to dealing with. But maybe that's why I'll be there. It's simplicity will mean that Martin will need to make a great film to get away with it.
Seriously if you need me to tell you why I'm excited then you probably never will be anticipating this one.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
COMPETITION - 20 for 2009
Before I announce my top pick to watch in 2009 (which will be in about 26 hours) I just want to remind you I have a box of chocolates for the first person to guess the number 1. I will even post it to you free of charge. To help, or maybe ust because I like writing long lists of stuff here is a countdown of the top 20 so far, and after the jump there may be some more clues.
20. The Lovely Bones Dir. Peter Jackson. Starring Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon.
19. Inglourious Basterds Dir. Quentin Tarantino. Starring Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger and Mélanie Laurent.
18. Biutiful Dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu. Starring Javier Bardem, Rubén Ochandiano and Eduard Fernández.
17. The Tempest Dir. Julie Taymor. Starring Helen Mirren, Russell Brand and Djimon Hounsou.
16. Hachiko: A Dog's Story Dir. Lasse Hallström. Starring Richard Gere, Joan Allen and Jason Alexander.
15. Crossing Over Dir. Wayne Kramer. Starring Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta and Ashley Judd.
14. Where the Wild Things Are Dir. Spike Jonze. Starring Paul Dano, Catherine Keener and Forest Whitaker.
13. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus Dir. Terry Gilliam. Starring Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer and Verne Troyer.
12. State of Play Dir. Kevin MacDonald. Starring Ben Affleck, Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams.
11. My Own Love Song Dir. Olivier Dahan. Starring Renée Zellweger, Forest Whitaker and Elias Koteas.
10. Love Ranch Dir. Taylor Hackford. Starring Helen Mirren, Joe Pesci and Sergio Peris-Mencheta.
9. Public Enemies Dir. Michael Mann. Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Channing Tatum.
8. Nine Dir. Rob Marshall. Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard and Penélope Cruz.
7. Whatever Works Dir. Woody Allen. Starring Evan Rachel Wood, Larry David and Patricia Clarkson.
6. Brothers Dir. Jim Sheridan. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman and Tobey Maguire.
5. Duplicity Dir. Tony Gilroy. Starring Julia Roberts, Clive Owen and Tom Wilkinson.
4. Angels & Demons Dir. Ron Howard. Starring Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer and Ewan McGregor.
3. The Soloist Dir. Joe Wright. Starring Robert Downey Jnr., Catherine Keener and Jamie Foxx.
2. Cheri Dir. Stephen Frears. Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Kathy Bates and Rupert Friend.
1. To be announced.
To find out more about any of these titles, or why I've included it, please click on the 20 for 2009 label below and scroll down to the film you're interested in.
More clues to winning that chocolate after the jump.
10 films that just didn't make the top 20
Antichrist Dir. Lar von Trier. Starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbough.
Avatar Dir. James Cameron. Starring Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez.
Brooklyn's Finest Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Starring Don Cheadle, Richard Gere and Ethan Hawke.
A Christmas Carol Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Starring Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
Drag me to Hell Dir. Sam Raimi. Starring Alison Lohman, Justin Long and Lorna Raver.
The Informant Dir. Steven Soderbergh. Starring Matt Damon, Melanie Lynskey and Scott Bakula.
Margaret Dir. Kenneth Lonergan. Starring Anna Paquin, Matt Damon and Mark Ruffalo.
Ondine Dir. Neil Jordan. Starring Colin Farrell, Dervla Kirwan and Alicja Bachleda-Curus.
Taking Woodstock Dir. Ang Lee. Starring Demetri Martin, Liev Schreiber and Emile Hirsch.
The Vintner's Luck Dir. Niki Caro. Starring Vera Farmiga, Gaspard Ulliel and Keisha Castle-Hughes.
And finally 10 films that even though they're going straght top the top of the box office and everyone at boxofficemojo is going doolally over them I will not go*.
*unless the reviews turn out to be fantastic.
Friday the 13th Dir. Marcus Nispel. Starring Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker and Derek Mears.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Dir. David Yates. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint.
New Moon Dir. Chris Weitz. Starring Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Ashley Greene.
Star Trek Dir. J. J. Abrams. Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Eric Bana.
Terminator Salvation Dir. McG. Starring Christian Bale, Anton Yelchin and Sam Worthington.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Dir. Michael Bay. Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox and Josh Duhamel.
2012 Dir. Roland Emmerich. Starring Amanda Peet, John Cusack and Thandie Newton.
Up Dir. Pete Docter and Bob Peterson. Starring Edward Asner, Jordan Nagai and Christopher Plummer.
Watchmen Dir. Zack Snyder. Starring Patrick Wilson, Billy Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine Dir. Gavin Hood. Starring Hugh Jackman, Ryan Reynolds and Liev Schreiber.
What do you think. Go on, tell me if I'm a idiot in the comments. Or just say what's going to be No. 1 and win those chocs.
Monday, 19 January 2009
20 for 2009 - Cheri
I realise that you all ar completely au fait with any bits of information I add ino my blog, and that there probably isn't a single film in my top 20 for 2009 that you aren't already salivating over (to a greater or lesser extent). However imagine my annoyance when my number 2 choice was pre-annouced by the Berlinale 09 announcement last week.
I know that the festival wants to big up it's attendees in order to get some good advance publicity, and if the delectable Michelle Pfeiffer were coming to my festival then everyone would know, but in all fairness I think they should have timed their annoucement to coincide with mine.
Doesn't she look lovely?
Cheri is based on a classic French novel by Colette, first published in 1920. It tells the story of an aging courtesan (Pfeiffer) and the death of her love affair with the incredibly handsome younger man Colette (Rupert Friend). The novel itself is beautifully written, even in translation you can see the poetry dripping off the page. The story is slow but measured as you pass from the immense happiness Lea feels when with her lover to destruction of her self esteem towards the end.
Lea is a fantastic part for Michelle Pfeiffer and one which she will be able to work wonders with. It's an especially meaty part when you consider Michelle is more or less the right age for the character, a 49 year one sleeping with a man less than half her age.
Rupert Friend will have much less to do, as the book mainly has him looking gorgeous and cruelly teasing Lea with little room for character development. He can look gorgeous in his sleep though so I expect Rupert will rise to the occasion.
This project marks the first time that Pfeiffer has teamed up with director Stepehen Frears (The Queen, Mrs. Henderson Presents) and writer Christopher Hampton since 1988's Dangerous Liaisons, also based on a historical French novel. That previous film was a big success so we can hope that lighting will be striking twice here.
Alexandre Desplat is scoring and Consolata Boyle is designing the costumes. Both of whom were oscar nommed for their work on The Queen so expect some similar high standards here.
COMPETITON TIME
Cheri is number 2 of my top twenty films in 2009. I will annouce the top film on Wednesday but until then, for a chance to win a large box of chocolates, please guess my top choice... Some clues will appear tomorrow.
