Category: Review

Single film Sunday

I was toying with also catching 44 Inch Chest today, but I just couldn’t be bothered leaving the house! I did make the effort to see The Book of Eli, though, and glad I did.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A lone man walks across the post-apocalyptic US carrying a book which is very much in demand – and not just from nice people.

First off, although filmed in a similar style to The Road which I saw a few days ago this is a hugely different film. For a start it seems to have some kind of plot. There are questions that as a film-viewer you feel you want to know the answers to. There is action. There are some nice snippets of dialogue.

All of these were missing from The Road which is, in fairness, a very different film.

The lead in this case is Denzel Washington who plays the titular Eli as a monosyllabic hard nut who just wants to get on with his little stroll to deliver a package. Bad guy duties go to the excellent Gary Oldman who carries out the manic, power-crazed role as well as would be expected.

Eli is carrying a book (no surprise there) to “the west” and Oldman decides he wants it. It’s a powerful book and what it is won’t come as a shock. What this leads to is a good bit of discussion over how the book has and will be used – how and why, and the effects it has had pre-war and within the society after it.

There are obviously going to be comparisons to the Mad Max films, but given that there are only so many ways you can portray a post-nuclear wilderness. Mel Gibson‘s films pretty much designed the template for any that were to follow, after all.

I definitely won’t spoil the twist at the end, and it’s a good one, but it does drag a bit. The final revelation is made, you get the “joke”… and then there’s more. That, to me, was the only major weak part of the movie. Other than that, it’s captivating and well-filmed. Visually, it’s excellent with a good use of real sets and what must be post-film effects. How else you’d get the Golden Gate Bridge in that state I don’t know.

If you’re only going to see one film set after a nuclear holocaust this month, make it The Book of Eli.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Four Film Fursday

I actually managed to squeeze four movies in this week due to some nice scheduling at the CineWorld. I’m somewhat busy right now so the reviews will be brief.

The Road

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Father and son travel across the US post-nuclear holocaust trying to find safety.

Sounds like a good plot and the film looks beautiful. All faded colours to a point where you could almost be watching a black and white film. Viggo Mortensen looks skinny and haggard as the dying father, while the kid who plays his son is just annoying and squeally at times.

Thing is… nothing much happens. Every time they meet some nasties, they hide and/or run away. Until the next ones. It’s just one series of non-episodes after another. Boring, uninteresting and tedious.

It’s the kind of thing that will garner OSCAR nominations – arty and pointless. On the other hand it’s just not entertaining, and not worth your cash.

Did You Hear About The Morgans?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: The Morgans (Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker) are separated yet, due to being forced into protective custody in small-town backwater America, start to rekindle their relationship.

Yes, it sounds awful. Yes, Hugh Grant plays his favourite character – Hugh Grant. Yes, SJP (as well as having confusing football-sounding initials) looks like a miserable horse. But by gum it works.

The dialogue is snappy and witty. Grant’s comic timing is, frankly, superb. None of the situations or slapstick is so over-the-top that it can’t be taken too seriously. The supporting cast are good enough in their own right.

I am amazed to say that I really enjoyed this film. Not a classic, but for a night out at the cinema it’s really good entertainment value.

Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll

Plot-in-a-nutshell: biopic of Ian Dury, polio-suffering lead singer of The Blockheads.

This film is superb. I’m not a huge fan of The Blockheads, though I do know the classics that made the charts when I was a kid. However, the way the story is told held my interest throughout.

While large parts are just “film”, there are some interesting jumps back into Dury’s past as well as some very off-the-wall sequences using animation and bizarre set pieces. It’s unusual, but given Dury’s quirky personality it just works.

What is amazingly clear is that Andy Serkis was by far and away the best choice for the lead role. Looking at him alongside photos of the “real” Dury is staggering. Given that the film’s in Cockney, I reckon it at least stands a shot at Best Foreign Language Film at the OSCARs, though Serkis deserves some kind of award for this performance.

Not exactly family viewing due to the language, violence and drug use but an incredibly captivating film.

It’s Complicated

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A divorced couple start bonking again despite one of them being re-married. Comedy ensues. Or not.

Another film about a separated couple, with an acclaimed cast but this one lacking a major component of a comedy – laughs. Morgans is far better than this dragged-out effort. There are moments, but they’re too far apart and not as funny anything in the other film.

Steve Martin continues his new habit of not being funny, but at least he wasn’t even trying in this. Meryl Streep puts on a good performance and Alec Baldwin is semi-sleezy as the ex. However, they just can’t save a poor, plodding script.

If you fancy a rom-com or a date movie, go and see Morgans.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Daybreakers

Well, today’s movie blow-out became more of a wash-out. I got lucky with the trains into Glasgow, just catching one that had been delayed by 45 minutes to get into the city. I then arrived at the cinema in good time to buy my ticket for Daybreakers only to be told that the cinema was shut due to a small fire and would hopefully re-open around 4pm.

Poop.

With a couple of hours to spare, I grabbed a McD‘s cheeseburger to warm my hands on and walked up to the uni where I sat and watched a couple of episodes of Dexter. A worthwhile way to spend the time, I thought.

A quick juggle of the times and I opted to catch a later showing of Daybreakers rather than the previously-scheduled Spread. This was the film I’d most wanted to see today.

Well… plot-in-a-nutshell: Vampires rules the world, humans are farmed for blood and… they’re running out of people.

I loved the idea for this film from the moment I saw the trailer. It’s as if the bad guys in Blade won. Only this time it’s due to a virus originally spread by one bad in 2008. The whole world is now vampire with a few pockets of rebelling humans. Those precious humans are being rounded up for their blood as there is only enough to last a few more weeks.

Ethan Hawke plays Edward Dalton, a Senior Hematologist (sic – blooming Americans) with a massive company. They make money farming humans for blood, and aim to create a replacement product so that the demise of the humans is no longer an issue. Dalton, though, is a bit of a softy and is more concerned with preventing the humans dying out.

There are so many metaphors in the film that it’s hard to keep up with them all. One man amongst a race trying to stop a genocide seems very Nazi / Jewish. A world concerned with controlling a limited reserve of a vital resource is so obviously about our use of fossil fuels. Vampires slowly turning bat-like and losing their minds as they fail to get enough blood screams of drug abuse allegory.

Thankfully none are overplayed. They’re the theme of the film, not messages battered into the viewer. Instead we have a very interesting story which has something not often present in films these days – a spark of originality. It is a nice twist on the current vampire theme, although there are a large number of plot holes. I’ll detail the major ones at the end under a nice spoiler heading.

Credit is also due to Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill. Neill’s nicely slick and evil as the guy who runs the company, while Dafoe gets to play a bit of a rough-around-the-edges mechanic. Actually, he’s vaguely similar to Kris Kristofferson‘s Whistler in the Blade movies…

It wasn’t as good as I was hoping, thought there was far more gore and some good creature effects than the trailer let on about. A bizarre thing to say, but I also found the sound good. The gunfire was lovely and meaty rather than sounding like oversized firecrackers.

Enjoyable – a good way to spend the time out of the snow. Eventually.

SPOILERS

At the start of the film, Dalton is show in his car mirror. Or not. He looks like the invisible man, as vampire’s don’t reflect. This is fine, only the same “legend” states that they also don’t appear on film. So how does the news have footage of all the vampires rioting? Indeed, how do the newsreaders not look like empty suits?

And why are they running out of humans? They have hundred, thousands of them in banks where they’re kept suspended to gush blood. I swear there was even a pregnant woman in one of the scenes. Surely it wouldn’t be hard to harvest eggs and sperm, then use them to artificially grow new humans? The machines seemed to manage something similar in The Matrix.

I swear I had more, but that’s the lot for the moment!

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Cinema Sunday – just 2 films

Nowhere Boy
Nowhere Boy

The day after Boxing Day meant Sunday parking rates (i.e. free) so I headed into Glasgow to catch two films:

Nowhere Boy

A John Lennon bio-pic starring Aaron Johnson as the central character. Pretty much the whole world will know who Lennon was (he did claim to be more famous than Jesus at one point), but how much do you know about his childhood?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: a young lad with an adopted family in Liverpool starts to discover a lot more about his genealogical past – and a taste for rock and roll.

There are two major things that you’d expect from a Lennon bio-pic which are missing – music and any mention of The Beatles. In fact, two other members of the Beatles are also introduced as the film goes on, but their surnames are never used. The focus is well and truly on young John.

Going by the Wikipedia article, the film sticks closely to some form of documented reality but does differ compared to other details. Having said that, I suppose there will be many differing versions of events at the time.

This is most definitely not a film about The Beatles. To a huge extent it’s not even about music – John only gets his first banjo lesson about halfway through. If you want a movie about music then you’d be better off with the older Backbeat movie (or Still Crazy, which I love).

Nowhere Boy is a kitchen sink drama. A tale about growing up in Liverpool in the 1950’s, not being good at school and with a collection of forgotten memoirs buried at the back of the family cupboard. It’s also very well acted and scripted, though interest does slip partway through before picking up again.

Not what I was expecting, but interesting nonetheless.

holmes
Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

From an adaptation of a “true” story, on to an adaptation of a fictional character. There has been outcry over the version of Holmes being introduced by Guy Ritchie for this movie. So how “bad” was it?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Private detective and pit-fighter (I kid you not) Holmes gears up for one final case as witty, charismatic action buddy (again, no kidding) Dr Watson attempts to retire from the crime-fighting business.

First up, this is a marginally silly film. It’s got a great sense of humour, some cracking action sequences, wonderful chemistry between the leads, clever direction and absolutely beautiful sets and scenery. However… some of these departures, mainly from the characters featured in the Conan Doyle works, will understandably jar with hard core fans.

From a regular film fan’s point of view, I feel, it won’t matter. Robert Downey Jr is a very “cool” Holmes, though stands shorter than Jude Law‘s Dr Watson and is never seen wearing a deerstalker. Or smoking a large-bowled bendy-stemmed pipe. He does play a good version of Holmes, though. Quick-witted, often condescending, full of himself and so forth.

Dr Watson is where the problem lies for me, having read the books. The character from the stories was never much of an action man, partly due to a leg injury sustained in Afghanistan. Despite the limp he carried with him in the film, Law’s character has no problem bounding and leaping about. Generally in the written works, Watson is more of a biographer who sometimes follows Holmes around. Rarely is he as involved as the sidekick in this movie.

The thing is, ditch the “Holmes and Watson” tag (and the Adler one – she’s out of character, too) and wallow in the film as a standalone feature… and it’s pretty good. Ritchie has been let loose with a staggering budget as can be seen from the set pieces. I loved the backgrounds – even though they did look somewhat CGI – in particular the part-complete Tower Bridge (which the two chattering bints behind me decided after arguing was London Bridge).

If you liked Downey Jr in Iron Man (yay, sequel next year!) then you’ll have an idea of his Holmes. If you’ve seen earlier Ritchie films then you’ll expect the slow-mo scenes and the way certain segments are played through… and then rewound or fast-forwarded to explain them. A nice touch and not over-used.

It is a tad over-long, but it’s good Christmas fodder when there’s not a Bond film around. Closer to Lethal Weapon than canon Doyle (hey, that was clever…) but worth a watch.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

Scented poo
A real stinker

This won’t be so much as a review as a warning. Don’t, for the sake of anything you deem holy, waste your money on St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Who cares? Really? I don’t.

I gave this film a chance and it bit me on the nads. The cast are awful. The girls aren’t even hot. The script’s pants. Even the make-up is rubbish – you can see that some of the younger girls have blacked-out, rather than missing, teeth.

The whole thing simply stinks.

Whereas ex-Dr Who Christopher Ecclestone was awful in the otherwise entertaining G.I Joe, soon-to-be-ex-Dr Who David Tennant is one of the few saving graces… no. The only saving grace in this otherwise atrocious waste of celluloid.

When the “funniest” moment in a film is Colin Firth‘s leg being humped by a small dog, you know a film doesn’t have a hope in Hell. Especially when the exact same joke (I believe) was used in the first film.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter crap.

St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]