Sunday, 30 January 2011

96: Review - Hereafter

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




Hereafter
30 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Plot Synopsis: When you die, you stand around in some mist, looking at a light. And it's great, apparently.

Right, first things first. Allow me (or Clint Eastwood) to introduce you to Frankie and George McLaren. They can't act. One of them can cry on demand, but they can't fucking act. At best, they're wooden. At worst (the chemist scene), it literally sounds like they're reading the lines for the first time, as a man just out of shot holds them up on a board, scrawled in barely legible marker. Seriously folks, I'm not making this shit up, they ruin the film.
That bit in the trailer? That "I recognise you!" line? That's not even the worst of it.

*ahem* Now that's out of the way...

You know it's Oscar-season when the schedules are filled with overly-long, worthy dramas, full of A-grade acting and producing talent, throwing everything they have into a film. And that's not a bad thing, cinema is a place for 'films', every bit as much as 'movies'. This was almost one of them.

Emotionless bean-face Matt Damon makes a fairly good stab at being George Lonegan, an ex-'psychic', who tried to leave it behind as it was emotionally draining him. Obviously, he has a real gift, and can't simply turn it off, which is a major drawback as he tries to move on and do other things with his life. The problem is, whenever you see him doing a reading, he looks more vague and insincere that the fakers he wants to distance himself from. Ah, well.

Cécile De France is more impressive as television journalist Marie who, after a near-death experience, is beginning to develop the same burgeoning powers. The paths of George and Marie are gradually drawn together in London, where a young boy grieving the death of his twin brother is desparately looking for a way to talk to his twin.

This film could have been so much more, and thankfully doesn't descend to the mawkish sentimentality that other writers would have opted for. Given that we see 'the afterlife', it thankfully steers clear of confirming that any actual religion is the right one, yet strongly suggests that there is something, we just don't know what it is. But seriously, it's like a reasonable American paranormal drama has been intercut with a low-budget British TV drama. I find it hard to believe that Clint Eastwood directed the segments shot in the UK.

The Good: The tsunami sequence at the start, the supporting cast, Bryce Dallas Howard as a potentially interesting character that's just scrapped for no real reason. The avoidance of the writer to claim that any particular vision of the afterlife is 'correct'.

The Bad: The establishing shots of London and Paris feature Tower Bridge and the Eiffel Tower, respectively. We later get the 'you can see the Eiffel Tower from any window in Paris' syndrome, but at least we don't get on-screen captions saying "London, England'. Also, the writer's avoidance of explaining the afterlife more. The concept of 'moving on' is hinted at, but that's all.

The Ugly: Frankie and George McLaren. See above. Their acting makes Byker Grove look like The Godfather, and destroys any credibility the film builds up.

Aside from Eastwood's considerable prowess, the producing talents of this film include Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy. These are the people that gave us Indiana Jones. How the mighty... etc.

2/7
A wasted opportunity.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

95: Review - Black Swan

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




Black Swan
26 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Plot Synopsis: Ballet makes you mental

I'm not saying the first hour of this film is hard work, but I had to pay National Insurance contributions on the way out. Actually, that may just be me. I knew I was going to have a hard time adapting when I saw Nina (Natalie Portman) devoting her life, soul, and indeed sanity, to an artform which I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I have absolutely NO frame of reference for ballet, other than the knowledge that most ballerinas end up wrecking their own bodies for their art.

ANYHOW, Nina wants to be the lead in her company's production of Swan Lake, which involves her playing the white and black swans. I gather this isn't the usual way of doing it. She has a pushy mother, a pushy ballet-director, and bitchy contemporaries; at least one of whom (Lily / Mila Kunis) is trying to steal the part from her. Add to this a bitter, soon to be broken ex-lead (Winona Ryder), past her prime and spitting venom at everyone, and you have the basic setup. That shouldn't really take an hour to establish. It does, though. Also revealed is Nina's past of mild self-harming and possible mental illness. But by the time this comes to the fore, you've kind of worked out that she's got a tenous grip on reality.

I'll take this moment to say that the shaky-cam pissed me off greatly. Throughout the film, Nina keeps seeing herself in crowds (and eventually right in front of her). This would have been accomplished a LOT better if the camera had been steady enough for the audience to see what Nina sees. Half the time you're left gauging Nina's reaction when someone with dark hair has been spotted 20 feet away. It 'could' be a device within the movie, but the other half of the time (interspersed), you can actually see Nina's apparent hallcunations. It may work better on DVD, I don't know.

SO. After about the hour-mark, we get the full descent into Nina's madness. I REALLY enjoyed it from hereon-in. It becomes a proper psychological thriller (and borderline horror) for the second half, and all bets are off as to how it'll end. Any more details would spoil it, so I'll just say how great it is. And at this point, the shaky-cam's fine.

Geek-points: 1) At one point, when Lily called Nina 'your highness', I got a little Queen Amidala flashback. 2) When Nina takes the part of the Black Swan, she gets awesome Sith-eyes, to match the ones Vader had at almost exactly the same point in Revenge of the Sith. I was probably the only person in the (packed) cinema who thought this, but hey.

92. That's the magic number.

I should point out, the 92 minute mark is approximate, but it's definitely between 91 and 93, okay? PAL and NTSC versions will vary ;)

So, overall, great film. If I had any interest at all in ballet, I'd probably have enjoyed the first hour more.

5/7



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

94: Review - 127 Hours

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




127 Hours
25 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Plot premise: Man gets stuck in canyon and has to cut his own arm off.

Danny Boyle's new film centres on that most primal of human fears: That if you're trapped in a canyon for 5 days, you'll start hallucinating Dido songs.

Seriously though, I'm going with other reviews on this one and saying that Danny's approach to soundtracking a film appears to be the shuffle feature on his entire CD collection. And that's not neccessarily a 'good' thing.

As for the film itself, very watchable. Way more than I thought it was going to be, thanks to Aron (James Franco). The likeableness of his character as he tries to keep his mind together juxtaposes nicely with him obviously being some kind of fucking dickhead for trotting off round the canyons on his own, not letting anyone know where he was going (etc. I know, it's hammered home enough in the film).

If anything, I found the first half hour or so more hard work than the rest, not sure why. But for a film that should be deeply claustrophobic and un-nerving, it was a fairly easy-view. Of course, by the time he starts hacking at his arm, I'd been willing him to do it for about 20 minutes, just to get some adrenaline flowing.

Much seems to be made about the fact that he left his Swiss Army Knife behind when he made this trip, and that it would have been MUCH better than the crappy multi-tool he did bring. But surely he would have blunted the blades on that in exactly the same way before deciding it was quicker to hack his arm off? Nice use of audio in that sequence, by the way.

Anyway, as a film it's good, but I've no real desire to watch it again, and I don't think it's really taught me anything. Although it didn't apparently teach Aron anything either, if the closing captions are anything to go by. He still goes trekking off, but now he "leaves a note". Christ.

The only real problem I have is this angle of an "inspiring true story". All it's inspired me to do is not be a fucking idiot, does that count? It's not 'that' triumphant, he loses a fucking arm. I'd like to say that it's life teaching him a lesson, but... well, see above.


5/7
It's better than it has any right to be, but born of stupidity.



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

93: Review - The Green Hornet

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




The Green Hornet (3D)
23 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Not a lot I can say about this, it's HUGELY entertaining all round. Reminded me a lot of a cooler, updated version of The Mask, and not just because of the presence of Cameron Diaz.

Seth Rogen plays his oafish slacker to perfection (as usual), with some excellent interaction with Jay Chou as Cato. Christoph Waltz shows glimmers of the pleasant-faced-malevolence he showed in Inglorious Basterds, but isn't quite given enough to work with to make it convincing. He's given some of the film's funniest lines, but the dryness of his delivery means they get lost amongst the crowd-pleasers.

Diaz is largely there for the sake of it, and while competent, doesn't bring anything unique to the mix. Tom Wilkinson is there under much the same banner, for the most part reprising the brutish-father he played in RocknRolla.

It's got a great soundtrack and some beautiful fight-scenes. LOTS of action, LOTS of laughs. The 3D's not a selling point. When it's used, it looks okay, but that's too rarely. There are entire scenes which don't use it, so you're basically sitting watching a film with shades on, aware that everything's needlessly darker than it should be.

If you enjoyed The Mask and/or Kick-Ass, I highly recommend this. Not too much to think about, but sometimes, thinking's overrated.

6/7



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

92: Review - The King's Speech

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




The King's Speech
16 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Very, VERY good. Very Engaging, even if the main characters are slightly too stand-offish to make it truly 'moving'.

Only criticism (and this is becoming a theme)... 'slightly' too long. If you've seen the overly-long trailer, and you appreciate the way movies work, you already know what's going to happen. This kind of movie doesn't (and can't) work with a complete downer-ending*. This film isn't about 'what' happens as much as 'how' it happens. With that in mind, it gets a bit ponderous in the last-third, and I felt myself getting a bit impatient. I appreciate that history dictates the narrative here, but even at his most vunerable, Firth's character is deeply (if accurately) flawed. I wanted to like him more, but couldn't.

6/7

* I know he's not exactly singing and dancing on the table at the end, but again 'history dictates' that this is the happiest it's going to be.



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

91: Review - Gulliver's Travels

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




Gulliver's Travels (3D)
16 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

The Orange-promo for this, that ran in cinemas for a few months up until Christmas 2010, had convinced me that this was going to be an unfunny shitfest. The full trailer, hovever, looked rather promising. As is usual for this kind of thing, the best bits ARE in the trailer, so there are no real surprises in the movie. In line with this revelation, the movie itself is fairly formulaic, with Jack Black playing... well, Jack Black. That's what he does. I'm sure he can be SO much better, but this is the kind of thing that keeps landing on his desk, and it's probably paying his bills rather nicely.

Ultimately, this is a very entertaining (if somewhat soulless) movie, largely due to the supporting cast of Brit actors (and it's always nice to see James Corden getting doused in urine). There's a lot of riffing on pop-culture, with Star Wars getting several nods, as Gulliver lands in Lilliput and convinces the inhabitants that he's the president of Manhattan. Hilarity ensues at a carefully measured, demographic-ticking pace. The 3D's completely needless, too. Well rendered, but unneccessary.

Actually, that sounds harsher than I mean it. The film IS a lot of fun, but will leave you with pretty much nothing, and the only thing you'll get out of repeated viewings is perhaps notcing more of the billboard-homages in the revamped Lilliput city. At 87 minutes, it should be a short affair, but somehow it feels much longer. I'm not sure if that's good or not. It almost goes without saying that if you don't like Jack Black, you won't enjoy the film.

And as a footnote, you've got to feel sorry for Amanda Peet. Set up early on as Gulliver's attractive, sweet-natured love-interest, she's more or less completely blown out of the water by Emily Blunt's screen-presence. But hey, c'est la vie.

5/7
(But it's only a 5 the first time you see it)


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

90: Review - Tron Legacy

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




Tron: Legacy (3D)
10 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Hmm, I was prepared to be bored, and the first half of the film didn't disappoint me in that regard. Everything leading up to the nightclub scene LOOKS visually stunning, but is ultimately completely dull.

Then? Cue Mr Michael Sheen as Castor. Just shy of overacting, Castor and his alter-ego may be inhabitants of the digital realm, but they display more personality than the characters who are meant to be actually human. A fantastic fight scene reminiscent of a camp Matrix is the turning point where the film actually becomes engaging and FUN.

The plot's still largely bobbins, but I saw the film's predecessor for the first time since '82(ish) the other week, and this seems like character-development-central compared to that.

In short: Much better than I thought, not quite as good as I'd have liked.

4/7
(the first half really holds it back)



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

89: Review - The Next Three Days

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.




The Next Three Days
09 Jan 2011. Location: Cinema

Elizabeth Banks has been imprisoned for murder (that she may or may not have committed - do you see what they've done there?). Russell Crowe has to break her out before she gets... transferred to another prison. It's not like she's due to be executed or anything. Still, it's a solid enough premise given the ambiguity of Banks' character.
Quite a few nicely cast small roles and cameos. A two hour film with about an hour and a half's story. Pretty flabby in the middle, although well scripted and acted.
Try not to think too much about things like: "How come he can get through an airport-scanner (post-9/11) with a bag full of cash?" and you'll enjoy it a lot more.
The best part? However much they try to make Elizabeth Banks look dowdy and unattractive, the more they fail.

5/7



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Friday, 21 January 2011

88:mph - Marty, The Doc and me.

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.

That's right, I look AS ridiculous as I did 26 years ago. Wait, you'll see...

I saw Back To The Future at the cinema in 1985. I was 12 at the time, right at the start of those ‘formative years’. It hadn’t caught my pre-viewing imagination in quite the same way as Star Wars, but by ’85, blockbuster films were commonplace, the marketing machines were in full-swing, and all of my peers were buzzing about this extremely cool looking movie about time-travel.

Back in the day, I didn’t live too close to the cinema, and not having any real disposable-income of my own, at trip to the movies was something you pestered parents for, either for financial backing, or accompaniment. As I wasn’t exactly overflowing with street-smarts at 12, I asked if my dad would take me to see BTTF. My Dad and I didn’t have a long history of seeing movies together, per se, but the previous year, he’d taken me to see Ghostbusters, and (from what I recall) quite enjoyed the experience. Both films were just the kind of thing that weren’t really up my 6-yr old sister’s street at the time, otherwise it’d have been a family trip*1.

Anyhow, within the first couple of weeks of release, me and my Dad took the bus over to the cinema at Low Fell (which I believe is still there) for a Sunday afternoon showing. This was a time before the multiplex took off in the UK, so the fleapit was king, choice of movie was small, and the crowds were bigger for that.

The CLASSIC ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE! Low Fell, Tyne & Wear.

I recall feeling slightly uncomfortable at recognizing people from school (in years higher above me) that were there with their mates, hanging out at the flicks, being all cool, and there was me with a parental escort. That being said, I don’t recall anyone actually acknowledging my presence (as I wasn’t on speaking terms with them anyway), and fuck it: they were essentially a bunch of 13-14yr olds trying to look cool while there were no doubt ‘bigger’ kids there – they had their own shit to deal with.

Anyway, the lights went down and I watched a film that would influence my teenage years almost as much as Star Wars had influenced my childhood*2.

Seriously, how fucking cool is Marty McFly? He rides a skateboard (that was a ‘70s throwback), he wears Aviators (Wayfarers were the thing by then), and a puffa body-warmer (fuck knows), and he’s still the coolest kid in the entire film! Probably because he plays rock-guitar and gets the girl. In fact, definitely because of the guitar and the girl. As modern history has proven, teenage boys will put themselves through ridiculous hobbies, fashions and grooming if they think it’ll improve their chances with the opposite sex*3.

So that was that, I wanted to be Marty McFly. Unlike the story of Luke Skywalker, it strays from classic mythology somewhat. Marty (farm-boy) is pulled from his life, effectively losing everything around him apart from the counsel of the Doc (the wizard), who guides him though his quest to restore (and improve) the lives of the one he loves, and get back to Jennifer (the princess). The black knight’s present in the form of Biff, only Marty doesn’t really have to deal with him, that’s George’s quest.. And Marty doesn’t really ‘find himself’, or ‘prove himself’, or undergo any of the tests usually assigned to the hero (again, that’s more George). No, Marty’s role really seems to be: 1) Be a little bit cool in 1985 2) Be cooler in 1955 3) Come back to 1985 and be cool with a sweet 4x4. In Marty’s assistance to George, he’s as much the wizard as he is the hero. The parallel between the Doc and Marty guiding their charges, and Marty and George getting the girl is quite nice and helps to round out McFly junior quite nicely.

Because it’s not that Marty’s an empty-character (and he’s certainly not un-empathic), but he really is just coasting on charm for the most part. What unique quality does he bring other than being fucking cool? It doesn’t really matter, as he’s a regular person in an irregular situation, and he does what needs to be done to fix it.

So, aside from my first serious brush with the concept of time-travel (and all the causality and logic-bending that goes with it), what I imparted from the film was that 1) impressing girls was cool. Even cooler if they end up being actually impressed by your stupid antics. It should come as no surprise that this wasn’t really a viable game-plan for a skinny 12yr old geek. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the geek-thing doesn’t really work until much later, when (ironically), you have the confidence to pull it off. So, despite my earlier grumblings about skateboards, wayfarers and body-warmers, this is me circa ’85.

Told you, didn't I? See?

…ye-e-e-ah. The skateboard isn’t in shot, but it’s there. Needless to say, no-one was impressed. What I wish I had imparted from the film was 1) Skateboarding’s harder than it looks, 2) The guitar is harder than is looks*4, but less dangerous than the skateboarding, 3) If you’re in your teens, girls are impressed by neither, really.

That said, I had fun on my skateboard being blinded by the internal glare from false-wayfarers, but padded with a bodywarmer to stop any broken ribs when the aforementioned ‘deck’ came within 3 feet of a single piece of gravel and I put the knee out of another pair of jeans (and, indeed, out of my actual knee).
So, skateboards made a comeback (and haven’t really gone away since), wayfarers are now permanently cool again (if you can carry them off), and most importantly, just about everyone acknowledges the greatness (if not the cultural importance) of the film Back To The Future.

Last year, around the film’s 25th anniversary, it enjoyed a cinematic re-release. Obviously, I went to see it. I’m afraid I didn’t take my dad with me*5. I took my 16yr old nephew, though. He’d seen the film before, but not for some years. While it didn’t have the same impact that it had on me, he enjoyed it for its fun-action-romp aspect, and I don’t think it’s dated at all in that respect.

Back To The Future: Because you can't riff on Star Wars ALL the time...

What’s interesting about it is the cultural implications. My better half overheard a woman walking to her teenage daughter after the film saying “I suppose for me it’s half nostalgia, because I remember 1985, but for you it must be different as you don’t ‘remember’ either of the time-frames in the film”. While that’s true to some extent, I don’t think the un-reality was quite what Marty McFly experienced. If BTTF was set today, the protagonist would jump back to 1981. While the technology’s different, and there would certainly be some cultural differences, I don’t think it would be anywhere near the difference between 1985/1955 seen in the movie. We seem to have leveled out since the 1980’s in terms of society. A case in point is the BBC series Life on Mars and its spin-off/sequel Ashes to Ashes. The culture-shock suffered by the respective lead characters is nowhere near the same, even if Alex in A2A kind-of knows what’s going on when she jumps back to 1980. We just haven’t moved on from the age of excess, greed and bright colours yet. I’m not entirely sure that we will.

I shall end by saying that Back To The Future parts 2 & 3 are also firm favourites of mine. Obviously, they had nowhere near the impact of the first installment, but I see the three films as one unit, much the same as the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films (yes, including the new ones, for both).

So don’t just let BTTF gather dust on your shelf now that the anniversary’s passed. The next time you feel like watching something lightweight but engaging and fun, pop it into your machine and relive your youth, whatever decade that happened in.

Tonight we’re going to party like it’s 1985.

Where we're going, we don't need... speed restrictions put in place to save lives.

*1 Although I like to think, retrospectively, that my 6yr old sister refused to be seen in a cinema with me after I cried at ET in 1983. More than she cried, if I recall correctly. Mind, she was 4 then, what the hell would she know about emotional depth compared to a 10yr old? Hmmf.

*2 Not in terms of merchandise, but in terms of social behaviour and trying to fit in.

*3 Fact: Girls in their teens are all after boys 2-3 years older than them at that point, and while you’d think that’d give carté blanche to boys to go after younger girls, it’s just fucking creepy. No teenage boy with any morals really wants to date a girl 3 years younger than him, it’s just wrong. The age thing doesn’t really matter once you’re in your 20’s of course. Although past 22, it’s still wrong to date a teenage girl (okay, 18 at the outset). This wrongness increases the older you get. Unless you’re fucking loaded, then you can have as many 18yr olds as you want, apparently.

*4 My guitar-playing can't be soley attributed to BTTF, unfortunately. Bon Jovi had slightly more to do with it.

*5 Although I DID take both my parents to the 1997 re-release of Star Wars, to say thank you for introducing me to that life-changing film.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.