Two films in two days, how crazy is that? They each couldn't be further from one another, this is a big Hollywood, huge budget, high concept, top drawer actors, amazing film. Most importantly it has a much shorter running time than my previous cinematic endeavour, this is too it's credit and a little bit worrisome.
My immediate reaction to Gravity was the fact that the first act of the film is mind-blowing, then it seems to change gears and move on to a still extraordinary film but the set up didn't quite match the pay off. That's just how I feel about it I guess. Don't get me wrong, stylistically it's a beautiful film to watch, the visual flourishes and space-scapes are just amazing, heart in your mouth gorgeous, especially in 3D. But you really can't top the opening sequence of the space craft introducing the astronauts, and then the onslaught of debris smashing everything to kingdom come, then the time spent with Sandra Bullock character as she composes herself from the disaster. It's just a great sequence of events and shot beautifully and I felt genuinely nauseous being spun around in space.
The two core players in the film were George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, the shiniest stars in the sky bobbing about showing us their skill. I doubt I will ever be lost in space, but godamn if I was lost in space with anyone on earth, I would want to be lost in space with George Clooney. Clearly his character has been specifically designed to be a confident affable presence to the less sociable 'deeper' Sandra Bullock, the stoic female with a chip on her shoulder. It's a role that George Clooney is pretty much ideal to play, he's sassy, has a story for every occasion and makes a supreme effort to distract us from impending doom, which is great because we need Clooney to lighten the mood. Sure Clooney is good in some roles, i.e. the stoic cool guy role, but here he works just great and provides some light relief from the terror. We also have Sandra Bullock, we gradually strip down her character to her undies floating around in space, to her core, the film tries to make some effort to make her personal journey touching and revealing and we learn about her as we follow her through her ordeal. I'm not sure if it's her lack of oxygen but she does act quite insane during several moments, barking at some chinese guy over the radio, turning off the oxygen and deciding to pack in all together, she even goes as far as hallucinating, then talking to unseen dead people and referencing the afterlife and prayer, it's all very worrisome at some points but it moves the story along and obviously gives us a point of entry to empathise and understand her as a person. It could have worked but hey, I wasn't feeling it, needless to say Sandra Bullock will most definitely receive an Oscar nomination for her work in the film because it's great, what she does, I wasn't especially blown away by her performance but I can understand that what she did was great and deserves recognition. If that makes sense... plus I love Clooney, he's a great dude in general, I do believe his talent doesn't specifically lie in acting as such but everything else he does always interests me greatly.
Gravity as a whole, a great film. It evoked Space Odyssey 2001, and there was a distinct feel of when FFVIII tried to evoke that same sensation by needlessly setting a chunk of the game in space just so we could to into space and roam around in space suits because there is something about space that really tugs at the imagination in a unique way. Most importantly there is a scene where you just see a suit floating away endlessly in space and I recalled 'losing Rinoa in space forever.' and bellowing at my television screen with rage and fury. I was eleven years old and I couldn't get her to float into my damn arms...
In space, no one can hear you scream! (According to the Alien by-line) And there's much to be afraid of, up there in the big black emptiness with Earth serenely turning below... There's the soundlessness, the fear of dying in space is quite horrifying one, alone, no one to find you, take you home, remember you, be there for you, it's all a very frightening prospect and Gravity does a great job of conveying this. But, as with most Hollywood films, there comes a point where a protagonist can only defy death so many times until it becomes more irritating and than thrilling, if I assume I were a trained cosmonaut, I know I would have died several times... It just sours the whole experience when you're thrown into peril and know you're going to survive. And hell surviving against all odds is a hell of a story to tell, as Bullock states, but it's also incredibly predictable... Did I want everyone to die? No, not really... It wouldn't have been a good film if we weren't faced with endless obstacles to overcome... I guess it's just not my kind of film. I went in with low expectations, I came out with those expectations met, it was a gorgeous film and the set up was great, the last hour was just good. I know it'll be a well talked about film for years to come and Alfonso Cuaron is one hell of a director, so there you have it!
Monday, 11 November 2013
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Blue is the Warmest Colour
So, I have failed to write on here in a long while, mostly because the films I have dragged myself to see have been... A mixed bag. I thought Rush, which will most likely pick up Award buzz for a) being directed by Ron Howard b) being historical and c) for being a by the numbers tale of a complex male rivalry (which wasn't all that complex but it made out like it was because of all the shit they went through...) Then I saw Filth which flat out left me speechless. I really desperately wanted to write a blog about it and godamnit given the time I would because it's by far one of the best films I've seen this year but that's for another time.
This brings me to Blue which had an immediate impact on me as I left the cinema which was, 'Oh thank Christ that is over.' It's a French Arthouse film, winner of the Cannes Palm d'Or and is basically a very talked film, why? Lesbians. Also, my place of work was not showing it during the Leeds Film Festival and my curiosity was piqued because, hell, it sounded intriguing. I don't mind foreign films in the slightest, I've watched plenty, I watched Goodbye Lenin! the other night because it's a damn good film and I love seeing Daniel Bruhl be all young and wide eyed...
To my point! Lesbians.
My main complaint through this film, and it's going to make me sound like a right idiot, but I am someone who samples all aspects of culture, so bear with me here. The lead role was Adele played by a lovely French girl called Adele (completely illegible surname.) She spent most of the film either crying or with a half morose half blank face, I really don't want to say gormless but this was the thought I had. What really irritated me was the fact she essentially looked like a slightly prettier Charlotte from Geordie Shore. All of credibility has slipped away I know... But damn, there was the same glazed over expression, the same incapability of shutting her mouth, if she'd started getting completely over the top drunk and pissing in sinks I would have remained completely nonplussed. Fortunately Adele is very much French and is experiencing the trials and tribulations of young love and discovering herself, except we don't really see her discover in so much as, she has a lesbian relationship, she has flirtations with a couple of dudes, but we don't see how the effects of this and where this leaves her at the end of the film. At the end of a three hour film I would expect some godamn closure and not endless shots of her eating spag-bol and feeling sorry for herself. But hey, this is an arthouse film, I know this, I knew what I was letting myself in for...
Her female lover, Lea Seydoux had much more of a screen presence, but she had more to work with, she was an intelligent self-aware artist and was comfortable in her own skin, flirtatious confident and a whole mess of other things which made her far more interesting to watch, but we spend most of our time with the lost little girl, poor Adele.
The film is essentially their relationship, it's a lesbian relationship, it's between two people who have an attraction to each other, fall in love, move in together, immerse lives, and inevitably break up and struggle to move on. I get that everyone goes through the same shit, and I never assumed that lesbians were any different to anyone else when it comes to that, but trying to hang a film around the basic premise is all well and good but there isn't much else holding it up.
One thing that irked me was the timing in the film, it starts with Adele's burgeoning romance in school with a dude, then there's the beginning of her lesbian tendencies, then she's moved in and house-making with Emma and a teacher (which is briefly mentioned earlier would take a master, so that university plus another year, plus the time it takes to fall into a decent job at a school so five years minimum...) then there's the time after that where it's briefly mentioned three years have passed. Don't drag out the old prosthetics just yet, but Adele barely aged a day from nubile 17 year old to depressed/grumpy school teacher. The film doesn't put up any distinct road signs as to how much time has passed but a little help would have been appreciated, especially considering how LONG THE FILM IS! The time spent watching not a whole lot happened could have had some inane conversation like, 'Oh, don't you two girls make a delightful couple, how long have you been going out?' or something like 'Hey, you dyed your hair blonde, when did that happen?' No reason as to why, perhaps she just matured or grew up or whatever, it's just ignored completely, but the colour 'blue' plays a big part in the film, for no other reason than it's the colour of Emma's hair when they meet. Also there's a lot of time spent at school talking about stuff which I assume was supposed to tie in with the story, I picked up on the 'Love at first sight' snippet which was followed by Adele spotting Emma on the street one day but the rest went over my ignorant head. Then there was the party where the silent film in the background was essentially playing out the scene but with funnier actors behind them... Apart from that the cleverness, if there was any in this film was lost on me.
It's the same with heterosexual couples, their love lives are the same but unless it's a high concept rom-com there has to be more going on than just the standard aches and pains we all suffer. Blue tries to incorporate the pains of growing up, the comparisons of repressed families (Adele's) and more open families (Emma's) and then there's the fact that although these two women have an intense sexual relationship (trust me I'm getting to that...) they don't have as much in common as they would like. Adele is young and naive, she doesn't look into anything deeply, she becomes a primary school teacher and spends her days with children who don't have to think past their ABCs and she doesn't try to excel herself to be anything more. Emma is ambitious and ruthless with her vision, surrounds herself with intelligent creative people and tries to encourage Adele to further herself creatively and push herself in more learned pursuits. Emma prioritises her creative pursuits, Adele plays home-maker and teacher and not much else becomes lonely and insecure. She's young so she throws herself at someone who gives her the slightest hint of attention. It all falls apart. These things happen, but there's a lot of sitting around, watching spaghetti bolognese be eaten and pretentious conversations between artsy types, and then just to mix it up, watching five years old act adorable. It's a messy overly long film but at it's heart, I think... I think! It's trying to say that growing up is shit and lesbians go through the same shit as everyone - neither of which were remotely surprising, but hey there aren't many films that put a female/female relationship at the forefront; that in itself should be applauded and I appreciate that the film maker didn't shy from trying to present that on the screen, in the cinema, to essentially be watched by a bunch of artsy film types and people wanting to see some lesbian sex.
Which brings me to the lesbian sex scenes. They were beautifully shot, uhhh, creatively... Nope, I'm done. My main thought whilst watching those beautiful naked women scissor each other was, straight couples don't get this much done in the films I watch, and they don't go on this long unless it's well... Porn... Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that the film was trying to represent how much chemistry this pair had, how well they connected physically in as many positions as they were capable of, but... Damn... If it was Adele's first time at lesbian sex I was half expecting it to be at least slightly more awkward, I want to say realistic, it's a coming of age film, it was her first time, but nope, they just went for it... It just really felt like very well lit, very well shot, lesbian porn. And it went on for ages! The cinema I was in were collectively fatigued, when you thought they were slowing down, nope they whipped into a 69 position... Oh are they.... nope! Did this provide us with an honest intimate female/female love scene? No, it didn't, it didn't feel authentic or realistic, it just felt like over the top porn, not sex between two lovers for the first time.* Also, there was a moment in the cafe where I was very concerned that, sure they were having their intense moment but, damn, wasn't anyone watching? Not that they were bothered but still. Everyone in the cinema laughed as the camera panned around at the end of the scene and there was a shot of two women watching unimpressed. Well that was the most fun the film had so I had to give it to them.
So there it is... My uneducated unbiased opinion on Blue is the Warmest Colour. A film about a woman coming of age over a few years, loving a lesbian, not quite being sure what she is herself, but thanks to her vacuous expressions and lack of any real storytelling, we'll never quite know who she is, but she doesn't close her mouth when she's sleeping. I genuinely don't care if that makes me an idiot... Go watching Blue Jasmine instead. Or even better, Goodbye Lenin! There's a good foreign film with an interesting premise.
*I feel I should point out that the female actresses were unhappy with the way the film was shot and embarrassed and had received little direction during the sex scene. Although during the rest of the shoot the director shouted and forced them to do scenes over and over until they were emotionally exhausted. After a point I just felt kind of bad for them. In the sex scene they were given little to no direction and to have long filming days simulating sex without any choreography much have been so awkward... plus from what I've heard of the director he sounds like a monster and treated them terribly so I wish them every success in the future and I'm relieved I'm no where near attractive enough or talented enough to be an actor. Huzzah!
This brings me to Blue which had an immediate impact on me as I left the cinema which was, 'Oh thank Christ that is over.' It's a French Arthouse film, winner of the Cannes Palm d'Or and is basically a very talked film, why? Lesbians. Also, my place of work was not showing it during the Leeds Film Festival and my curiosity was piqued because, hell, it sounded intriguing. I don't mind foreign films in the slightest, I've watched plenty, I watched Goodbye Lenin! the other night because it's a damn good film and I love seeing Daniel Bruhl be all young and wide eyed...
To my point! Lesbians.
My main complaint through this film, and it's going to make me sound like a right idiot, but I am someone who samples all aspects of culture, so bear with me here. The lead role was Adele played by a lovely French girl called Adele (completely illegible surname.) She spent most of the film either crying or with a half morose half blank face, I really don't want to say gormless but this was the thought I had. What really irritated me was the fact she essentially looked like a slightly prettier Charlotte from Geordie Shore. All of credibility has slipped away I know... But damn, there was the same glazed over expression, the same incapability of shutting her mouth, if she'd started getting completely over the top drunk and pissing in sinks I would have remained completely nonplussed. Fortunately Adele is very much French and is experiencing the trials and tribulations of young love and discovering herself, except we don't really see her discover in so much as, she has a lesbian relationship, she has flirtations with a couple of dudes, but we don't see how the effects of this and where this leaves her at the end of the film. At the end of a three hour film I would expect some godamn closure and not endless shots of her eating spag-bol and feeling sorry for herself. But hey, this is an arthouse film, I know this, I knew what I was letting myself in for...
Her female lover, Lea Seydoux had much more of a screen presence, but she had more to work with, she was an intelligent self-aware artist and was comfortable in her own skin, flirtatious confident and a whole mess of other things which made her far more interesting to watch, but we spend most of our time with the lost little girl, poor Adele.
The film is essentially their relationship, it's a lesbian relationship, it's between two people who have an attraction to each other, fall in love, move in together, immerse lives, and inevitably break up and struggle to move on. I get that everyone goes through the same shit, and I never assumed that lesbians were any different to anyone else when it comes to that, but trying to hang a film around the basic premise is all well and good but there isn't much else holding it up.
One thing that irked me was the timing in the film, it starts with Adele's burgeoning romance in school with a dude, then there's the beginning of her lesbian tendencies, then she's moved in and house-making with Emma and a teacher (which is briefly mentioned earlier would take a master, so that university plus another year, plus the time it takes to fall into a decent job at a school so five years minimum...) then there's the time after that where it's briefly mentioned three years have passed. Don't drag out the old prosthetics just yet, but Adele barely aged a day from nubile 17 year old to depressed/grumpy school teacher. The film doesn't put up any distinct road signs as to how much time has passed but a little help would have been appreciated, especially considering how LONG THE FILM IS! The time spent watching not a whole lot happened could have had some inane conversation like, 'Oh, don't you two girls make a delightful couple, how long have you been going out?' or something like 'Hey, you dyed your hair blonde, when did that happen?' No reason as to why, perhaps she just matured or grew up or whatever, it's just ignored completely, but the colour 'blue' plays a big part in the film, for no other reason than it's the colour of Emma's hair when they meet. Also there's a lot of time spent at school talking about stuff which I assume was supposed to tie in with the story, I picked up on the 'Love at first sight' snippet which was followed by Adele spotting Emma on the street one day but the rest went over my ignorant head. Then there was the party where the silent film in the background was essentially playing out the scene but with funnier actors behind them... Apart from that the cleverness, if there was any in this film was lost on me.
It's the same with heterosexual couples, their love lives are the same but unless it's a high concept rom-com there has to be more going on than just the standard aches and pains we all suffer. Blue tries to incorporate the pains of growing up, the comparisons of repressed families (Adele's) and more open families (Emma's) and then there's the fact that although these two women have an intense sexual relationship (trust me I'm getting to that...) they don't have as much in common as they would like. Adele is young and naive, she doesn't look into anything deeply, she becomes a primary school teacher and spends her days with children who don't have to think past their ABCs and she doesn't try to excel herself to be anything more. Emma is ambitious and ruthless with her vision, surrounds herself with intelligent creative people and tries to encourage Adele to further herself creatively and push herself in more learned pursuits. Emma prioritises her creative pursuits, Adele plays home-maker and teacher and not much else becomes lonely and insecure. She's young so she throws herself at someone who gives her the slightest hint of attention. It all falls apart. These things happen, but there's a lot of sitting around, watching spaghetti bolognese be eaten and pretentious conversations between artsy types, and then just to mix it up, watching five years old act adorable. It's a messy overly long film but at it's heart, I think... I think! It's trying to say that growing up is shit and lesbians go through the same shit as everyone - neither of which were remotely surprising, but hey there aren't many films that put a female/female relationship at the forefront; that in itself should be applauded and I appreciate that the film maker didn't shy from trying to present that on the screen, in the cinema, to essentially be watched by a bunch of artsy film types and people wanting to see some lesbian sex.
Which brings me to the lesbian sex scenes. They were beautifully shot, uhhh, creatively... Nope, I'm done. My main thought whilst watching those beautiful naked women scissor each other was, straight couples don't get this much done in the films I watch, and they don't go on this long unless it's well... Porn... Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that the film was trying to represent how much chemistry this pair had, how well they connected physically in as many positions as they were capable of, but... Damn... If it was Adele's first time at lesbian sex I was half expecting it to be at least slightly more awkward, I want to say realistic, it's a coming of age film, it was her first time, but nope, they just went for it... It just really felt like very well lit, very well shot, lesbian porn. And it went on for ages! The cinema I was in were collectively fatigued, when you thought they were slowing down, nope they whipped into a 69 position... Oh are they.... nope! Did this provide us with an honest intimate female/female love scene? No, it didn't, it didn't feel authentic or realistic, it just felt like over the top porn, not sex between two lovers for the first time.* Also, there was a moment in the cafe where I was very concerned that, sure they were having their intense moment but, damn, wasn't anyone watching? Not that they were bothered but still. Everyone in the cinema laughed as the camera panned around at the end of the scene and there was a shot of two women watching unimpressed. Well that was the most fun the film had so I had to give it to them.
So there it is... My uneducated unbiased opinion on Blue is the Warmest Colour. A film about a woman coming of age over a few years, loving a lesbian, not quite being sure what she is herself, but thanks to her vacuous expressions and lack of any real storytelling, we'll never quite know who she is, but she doesn't close her mouth when she's sleeping. I genuinely don't care if that makes me an idiot... Go watching Blue Jasmine instead. Or even better, Goodbye Lenin! There's a good foreign film with an interesting premise.
*I feel I should point out that the female actresses were unhappy with the way the film was shot and embarrassed and had received little direction during the sex scene. Although during the rest of the shoot the director shouted and forced them to do scenes over and over until they were emotionally exhausted. After a point I just felt kind of bad for them. In the sex scene they were given little to no direction and to have long filming days simulating sex without any choreography much have been so awkward... plus from what I've heard of the director he sounds like a monster and treated them terribly so I wish them every success in the future and I'm relieved I'm no where near attractive enough or talented enough to be an actor. Huzzah!
Tuesday, 8 October 2013
Blue Jasmine
How do we identify ourselves? That's a round-about sensation I felt whilst watching Blue Jasmine. Here is a woman who has literally no idea who she is deep down. On the surface she is a beautiful sophisticated lady with impeccable taste and great social skills. As the film unfurls around you, you realise this is a broken character with no direction or comprehension of her life, she clearly has had a mental breakdown since her whole existence was torn to shreds and she is popping pills and drinking Stolichnaya vodka (classy people vodka) obsessively just to keep herself as calm as possible whilst her psyche bursts at the seams bleeding out by ranting in public.
To be honest, my immediate reaction to this film was - 'White people problems, rich people - boo hoo.' To be fair Woody Allen provides a different speed of film nowadays, he is much more interested in white people with money having various types of mental/relationship breakdowns (Midnight in Paris I believe follows this rule, as does any film he has made in the past ten years.) To be honest, there isn't much to comment on.
Is the film well written? Yes. Is it well acted? Cate Blanchett is incredible and the supporting cast is pretty damn good, Sally Hawkins specifically playing her adoptive sister, this woman was perfection in Happy Go Lucky (an oddly optimistic Mike Leigh film,) and here she is just a delight. Also Louis CK makes a sort of cameo appearance in the film, he's only in about two or three scenes and he's used sparingly doing some 'real' acting which means he has very little chance to have any personality or be remotely engaging as a character which is a shame because I really wanted him to be awesome. Peter Sarsgaard also appears playing a rich pompous chap and does so with relative ease and looks dashing in fine clothing, so there is that to be rather pleased about. Alec Baldwin always plays corrupt, philandering dastardly husband without breaking a sweat.
I must reiterate how incredible Cate Blanchett is in this film, she manages to play the middle-aged ignorant woman so well as her life falls apart at the seams. At the end of the day she has no true identity beyond her rich husband, her fine clothes and her money, beyond that she has 'taste' I guess, which means she's highly judgemental of all around her and ignorant of anyone/thing which might prevent her from living her fabulous distracting lifestyle. Because nothing else really matters as long as you are beautiful, healthy and cultured. Deep down though this woman is spiteful and extremely unsympathetic as she manages to push and force everyone around her away with little regard for how it may affect her, she's vicious immature and highly strung. Yet so wrapped up in herself she doesn't make any effort to be any more than the beautiful sophisticated image of a woman she expects the world to see her as. The tragedy of Blue Jasmine is that Jasmine (or Janine? It's not her real name anyways...) has no idea who she truly is because everyone else has projected what they see back onto her, they see a beautiful woman, a well dressed impeccably groomed doll, and they plant in her expectations that is all she ever has to be, because let's face it, with her good looks and charm she managed to manifest a lavish lifestyle with very little effort at all. When this all falls apart she spends the film desperately trying to grasp at what she should be, what she's expected to be, rather than what she wants to be because she has no idea what that truly is. It works for a time but it's a flimsy foundation to rebuild a life on and clearly what is underneath is rotten and unstable anyways. Blanchett plays the character with utter conviction and manages to occasionally show flashes of humanity as Jasmine grapples with her lack of identity and the tattered remains of her existence. It's an interesting character piece and her performance drew me into my clearly in depth thoughts about identity.
As a film, it is edited to gradually reveal the position the main characters have found themselves in, jumping between past and present, giving snippets of interesting details as we go. It's a relatively short film and it's effectively done without overstaying it's welcome. I've heard the critics adore the film, but I have yet to read too much into it. I felt it was important to get my feelings out before I let the chatter of others influence my mind. It's a film about identity as much as anything and how you can only get so far in life on assumptions before you lose yourself. At least that's what I gleaned from it. I feel like my argument would be greatly backed up by Sally Hawkins character, Jasmine's sister, who always knew she was second best, was a normal girl without any thrilling future. She dabbles in a different lifestyle and realises who she is and what she wants and is happy and comfortable with her existence in the end. I think it's an interesting film and it definitely made me think; for that I am glad.
To be honest, my immediate reaction to this film was - 'White people problems, rich people - boo hoo.' To be fair Woody Allen provides a different speed of film nowadays, he is much more interested in white people with money having various types of mental/relationship breakdowns (Midnight in Paris I believe follows this rule, as does any film he has made in the past ten years.) To be honest, there isn't much to comment on.
Is the film well written? Yes. Is it well acted? Cate Blanchett is incredible and the supporting cast is pretty damn good, Sally Hawkins specifically playing her adoptive sister, this woman was perfection in Happy Go Lucky (an oddly optimistic Mike Leigh film,) and here she is just a delight. Also Louis CK makes a sort of cameo appearance in the film, he's only in about two or three scenes and he's used sparingly doing some 'real' acting which means he has very little chance to have any personality or be remotely engaging as a character which is a shame because I really wanted him to be awesome. Peter Sarsgaard also appears playing a rich pompous chap and does so with relative ease and looks dashing in fine clothing, so there is that to be rather pleased about. Alec Baldwin always plays corrupt, philandering dastardly husband without breaking a sweat.
I must reiterate how incredible Cate Blanchett is in this film, she manages to play the middle-aged ignorant woman so well as her life falls apart at the seams. At the end of the day she has no true identity beyond her rich husband, her fine clothes and her money, beyond that she has 'taste' I guess, which means she's highly judgemental of all around her and ignorant of anyone/thing which might prevent her from living her fabulous distracting lifestyle. Because nothing else really matters as long as you are beautiful, healthy and cultured. Deep down though this woman is spiteful and extremely unsympathetic as she manages to push and force everyone around her away with little regard for how it may affect her, she's vicious immature and highly strung. Yet so wrapped up in herself she doesn't make any effort to be any more than the beautiful sophisticated image of a woman she expects the world to see her as. The tragedy of Blue Jasmine is that Jasmine (or Janine? It's not her real name anyways...) has no idea who she truly is because everyone else has projected what they see back onto her, they see a beautiful woman, a well dressed impeccably groomed doll, and they plant in her expectations that is all she ever has to be, because let's face it, with her good looks and charm she managed to manifest a lavish lifestyle with very little effort at all. When this all falls apart she spends the film desperately trying to grasp at what she should be, what she's expected to be, rather than what she wants to be because she has no idea what that truly is. It works for a time but it's a flimsy foundation to rebuild a life on and clearly what is underneath is rotten and unstable anyways. Blanchett plays the character with utter conviction and manages to occasionally show flashes of humanity as Jasmine grapples with her lack of identity and the tattered remains of her existence. It's an interesting character piece and her performance drew me into my clearly in depth thoughts about identity.
As a film, it is edited to gradually reveal the position the main characters have found themselves in, jumping between past and present, giving snippets of interesting details as we go. It's a relatively short film and it's effectively done without overstaying it's welcome. I've heard the critics adore the film, but I have yet to read too much into it. I felt it was important to get my feelings out before I let the chatter of others influence my mind. It's a film about identity as much as anything and how you can only get so far in life on assumptions before you lose yourself. At least that's what I gleaned from it. I feel like my argument would be greatly backed up by Sally Hawkins character, Jasmine's sister, who always knew she was second best, was a normal girl without any thrilling future. She dabbles in a different lifestyle and realises who she is and what she wants and is happy and comfortable with her existence in the end. I think it's an interesting film and it definitely made me think; for that I am glad.
Tuesday, 17 September 2013
About Time
Richard Curtis, creator of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Love Actually, and the writer of that Van Gogh episode of Doctor Who, a British institution, a man capable of spreading warm fuzzies over scones and a pot of tea, serving it up in a couple of hours for joyous film entertainment. Basically, if you're down and feeling a bit glum and you're feeling like the world is a cruel and horrible place, watch anything with Richard Curtis' name attached and you will feel a sudden warm happy feeling.
About Time follows a standard theme, it's a love story, but it's also as much about the people around the core couple, populated with familiar tropes, but as an additional wrinkle there is the added aspect of time travel. Perhaps Curtis was so influenced by his love of Doctor Who (long time fan, great man) and decided to weave this into a story. But time travel isn't so much at the forefront of the story, as much as it is a story telling device, there is a whole load of rules to adhere to, but the time travel never really impedes massively on the story telling. It's a bit saccharine, but as I've previously mentioned, you're not going to see a Richard Curtis film to be challenged or thrilled; although there is a delightful sensation just by seeing things go right.
The film follows a formula, you can almost predict how certain things might unfold, but the film throws curveballs and delights in subverting expectations by tweaking things with the time travel allowing the main character to repeat a scene. Obviously it doesn't outstay it's welcome and the travel thing doesn't solve all his problems, and as time goes on our main character learns to live without such helpful redos.
Best place to start? Domhall Gleeson, to be from here, known as Ginger Hugh Grant. This guy is a great actor, and bless him, he is doing some great work here, but from the accent, to the social awkwardness, to the slightly squinty eyes, it's just all something a certain Hugh Grant gained fame for a couple decades ago in previous Curtis films. I adore this man, Gleeson (not Hugh Grant), he played Levin in the recent adaptation of Anna Karenina and was painfully underused (I understand why Levin's part wasn't as massive as it could have been, they basically used all of his essential moments but there was just never enough time...) and was also in Black Mirror earlier this year which was heartbreaking. As a romantic lead? He worked great, he was loveable sweet and just all around adorable... I think I'm in love.
Rachel McAdams, you are adorable, you are sweet, you possibly are the most beautiful creature on this planet, the exact lovely lady every man would want to take home to meet his mother. She just effuses warmth that woman, and is a perfect fit in this film. As for the rest of the cast? Well it's a line up of what is essentially a Curtis character countdown!
Tom Hollander is the curmudgeonly angry chap who is a standard misanthropic genius man, he hate everything but he goes along with everything and plays happy with people regardless because he's a softie underneath, obviously.
There is the main guy's sister, she's a bit batty, a bit mad and happy and quirky, a catalyst when things get a bit slow, also in a happy healthy brother/sister loving relationship, it's all good. Then there are the main character's friends, the ginger kid from Skins third generation (I nearly fell off the sofa wondering when the hell did he grow up?) and some dweeby chap he works with at the lawyer firm or something who is so criminally dumb I wonder how he is a lawyer, and most importantly if they hiring insanely idiotic people like him then either I a) have a chance as a lawyer finally using my history degree for good and not ... absolutely nothing, or b) my theory about nepotism ruling the entire universe stands tall and I should just give up.
Other thoughts? Uhhh... It's just a great film. Why? Because even though I really hate voiceovers. I loathe them... but Curtis seems to rely so heavily on them with his affable male leads - Hugh Grant usually, narrating the main themes of the story being told, just to make sure the people with even the lowest attention spans can grasp what it is the film is about. About Time? It's about appreciating what you have, living every day by just being a nice person and spreading good feelings wherever you go. Basically, be nice and happy and everything will turn out alright? Such a cliche, but people forget to just be nice nowadays it's just so pleasant to be in the company of a film which wants everyone to just smile and be happy.
About Time is a standard British film, and everything about it, from the scenery, to the people, to the situations, are all achingly charming and delightful. It's set in an ideal beautiful world where people learn from their lessons and gradually grow and become better people, it wants you to do the same, it wants to take your hand and say, be the better person! What's wrong with that? Let's all be nicer and happier! I felt so much happier after seeing this film. Sure, you could say, it's all manipulation, but it comes from a man who honestly just wants everyone to just smile and be loved, because it's the entire body of his work which says this over and over, I don't think he is manipulating me, he's just trying to share his life view. There aren't many films like this nowadays, brimming with optimism and love, and it's just really nice to know that I can rely on someone to keep providing me with them, and keep me smiling. Cheers Curtis.
About Time follows a standard theme, it's a love story, but it's also as much about the people around the core couple, populated with familiar tropes, but as an additional wrinkle there is the added aspect of time travel. Perhaps Curtis was so influenced by his love of Doctor Who (long time fan, great man) and decided to weave this into a story. But time travel isn't so much at the forefront of the story, as much as it is a story telling device, there is a whole load of rules to adhere to, but the time travel never really impedes massively on the story telling. It's a bit saccharine, but as I've previously mentioned, you're not going to see a Richard Curtis film to be challenged or thrilled; although there is a delightful sensation just by seeing things go right.
The film follows a formula, you can almost predict how certain things might unfold, but the film throws curveballs and delights in subverting expectations by tweaking things with the time travel allowing the main character to repeat a scene. Obviously it doesn't outstay it's welcome and the travel thing doesn't solve all his problems, and as time goes on our main character learns to live without such helpful redos.
Best place to start? Domhall Gleeson, to be from here, known as Ginger Hugh Grant. This guy is a great actor, and bless him, he is doing some great work here, but from the accent, to the social awkwardness, to the slightly squinty eyes, it's just all something a certain Hugh Grant gained fame for a couple decades ago in previous Curtis films. I adore this man, Gleeson (not Hugh Grant), he played Levin in the recent adaptation of Anna Karenina and was painfully underused (I understand why Levin's part wasn't as massive as it could have been, they basically used all of his essential moments but there was just never enough time...) and was also in Black Mirror earlier this year which was heartbreaking. As a romantic lead? He worked great, he was loveable sweet and just all around adorable... I think I'm in love.
Rachel McAdams, you are adorable, you are sweet, you possibly are the most beautiful creature on this planet, the exact lovely lady every man would want to take home to meet his mother. She just effuses warmth that woman, and is a perfect fit in this film. As for the rest of the cast? Well it's a line up of what is essentially a Curtis character countdown!
Tom Hollander is the curmudgeonly angry chap who is a standard misanthropic genius man, he hate everything but he goes along with everything and plays happy with people regardless because he's a softie underneath, obviously.
There is the main guy's sister, she's a bit batty, a bit mad and happy and quirky, a catalyst when things get a bit slow, also in a happy healthy brother/sister loving relationship, it's all good. Then there are the main character's friends, the ginger kid from Skins third generation (I nearly fell off the sofa wondering when the hell did he grow up?) and some dweeby chap he works with at the lawyer firm or something who is so criminally dumb I wonder how he is a lawyer, and most importantly if they hiring insanely idiotic people like him then either I a) have a chance as a lawyer finally using my history degree for good and not ... absolutely nothing, or b) my theory about nepotism ruling the entire universe stands tall and I should just give up.
Other thoughts? Uhhh... It's just a great film. Why? Because even though I really hate voiceovers. I loathe them... but Curtis seems to rely so heavily on them with his affable male leads - Hugh Grant usually, narrating the main themes of the story being told, just to make sure the people with even the lowest attention spans can grasp what it is the film is about. About Time? It's about appreciating what you have, living every day by just being a nice person and spreading good feelings wherever you go. Basically, be nice and happy and everything will turn out alright? Such a cliche, but people forget to just be nice nowadays it's just so pleasant to be in the company of a film which wants everyone to just smile and be happy.
About Time is a standard British film, and everything about it, from the scenery, to the people, to the situations, are all achingly charming and delightful. It's set in an ideal beautiful world where people learn from their lessons and gradually grow and become better people, it wants you to do the same, it wants to take your hand and say, be the better person! What's wrong with that? Let's all be nicer and happier! I felt so much happier after seeing this film. Sure, you could say, it's all manipulation, but it comes from a man who honestly just wants everyone to just smile and be loved, because it's the entire body of his work which says this over and over, I don't think he is manipulating me, he's just trying to share his life view. There aren't many films like this nowadays, brimming with optimism and love, and it's just really nice to know that I can rely on someone to keep providing me with them, and keep me smiling. Cheers Curtis.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
The Way Way Back
Films with Sam Rockwell are 80% better, fact. Every now and again a film comes along which infinitely lifted to a higher plane by the inclusion of Sam Rockwell, nothing has ever been more true than with this film, although Seven Psychopaths comes to mind too... Right so I have no real indication of what I should say about this film apart from, every second of Sam Rockwell is pure electricity. Well actually a person at work the other day say they saw it and declared they had no idea who a certain someone was and were impressed by the way he essentially stole every scene. So what else do you need to know?
Well, Jim Rash and Nat Faxon wrote and directed the film about a teenage boy's summer of emotions. Mum is with a jackass played by Steve Carrell, there was just so little acting involved in this role, he wasn't doing anything, it was such a lame role, easy man to loathe, nothing interesting to take away from it, boring. Then there is Toni Collette being harried and emotional, to be fair she has always excelled at this since Muriel's Wedding; I've never forgiven her for making my feelings so sad. Then there is the kids, totally non-descript, the girl who now plays younger Carrie. Most importantly Jim Rash and Nat Faxon make appearances in their own film, Jim Rash plays socially awkward pain in the bum member of staff, everyone takes great joy in mocking him, we all get a good laugh. Nat Faxon is best bud and all around nice guy and gets to do a nice Ben from Ben and Kate style list of dance moves, damn memories... Obviously it's only interesting to me that Nat Faxon's co-star Dakota Johnson who played Kate in Ben and Kate (a show I did not want to be cancelled.) has been cast as Anastasia Steele in the 50 Shades of Grey film opposite the delectable Charlie Hunman, not that I would go see that trash... Oh and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Jim Rash is Dean Pelton from Community but everyone in the entire universe knows this. Maya Rudolph is the most hard working member of staff at the water park and she bounces off Sam Rockwell delightfully. Alison Janney is playing the best female role being a fantastically terrible person who for all their insane faults is still likeable. Then there's the kid with the lazy eye who is great.
This is a film which encapsulates that summer feeling and brings us a reminder that Water Parks are essentially awesome, but then when you actually drag your bum around one all day it's in actuality the biggest load of awkward rubbish ever... Then this is combined with hanging around adults who are all essentially all drunk randy fools, and about as idiotic at teenagers but with worse manners. It's great that the socially uncertain kid with the broken home can find some joy in this world considering his life is an omnishambles at this particular moment. Sadly enough even though it's September this is a distinctly summer film. Then there is the amount of shots of the kid sitting in the car looking stoically emotional...
As far as characters go everyone comes as either bland or simplistic. Which is fine but when you've got bottled fireworks in the form of Sam Rockwell with his magical charisma and awesome glittering through every scene it's so hard for anyone else to compare. Once again, I can't stress this enough, Sam Rockwell is a force of nature. I adore him. I implore you to see this film just for him alone, I know I see most films with Sam Rockwell in just because his name is attached to it, he is perfection. It's a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, and puts a smile on your face sure. Sure it's predictable, but it's fun and sweet and I enjoyed it.
Well, Jim Rash and Nat Faxon wrote and directed the film about a teenage boy's summer of emotions. Mum is with a jackass played by Steve Carrell, there was just so little acting involved in this role, he wasn't doing anything, it was such a lame role, easy man to loathe, nothing interesting to take away from it, boring. Then there is Toni Collette being harried and emotional, to be fair she has always excelled at this since Muriel's Wedding; I've never forgiven her for making my feelings so sad. Then there is the kids, totally non-descript, the girl who now plays younger Carrie. Most importantly Jim Rash and Nat Faxon make appearances in their own film, Jim Rash plays socially awkward pain in the bum member of staff, everyone takes great joy in mocking him, we all get a good laugh. Nat Faxon is best bud and all around nice guy and gets to do a nice Ben from Ben and Kate style list of dance moves, damn memories... Obviously it's only interesting to me that Nat Faxon's co-star Dakota Johnson who played Kate in Ben and Kate (a show I did not want to be cancelled.) has been cast as Anastasia Steele in the 50 Shades of Grey film opposite the delectable Charlie Hunman, not that I would go see that trash... Oh and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Jim Rash is Dean Pelton from Community but everyone in the entire universe knows this. Maya Rudolph is the most hard working member of staff at the water park and she bounces off Sam Rockwell delightfully. Alison Janney is playing the best female role being a fantastically terrible person who for all their insane faults is still likeable. Then there's the kid with the lazy eye who is great.
This is a film which encapsulates that summer feeling and brings us a reminder that Water Parks are essentially awesome, but then when you actually drag your bum around one all day it's in actuality the biggest load of awkward rubbish ever... Then this is combined with hanging around adults who are all essentially all drunk randy fools, and about as idiotic at teenagers but with worse manners. It's great that the socially uncertain kid with the broken home can find some joy in this world considering his life is an omnishambles at this particular moment. Sadly enough even though it's September this is a distinctly summer film. Then there is the amount of shots of the kid sitting in the car looking stoically emotional...
As far as characters go everyone comes as either bland or simplistic. Which is fine but when you've got bottled fireworks in the form of Sam Rockwell with his magical charisma and awesome glittering through every scene it's so hard for anyone else to compare. Once again, I can't stress this enough, Sam Rockwell is a force of nature. I adore him. I implore you to see this film just for him alone, I know I see most films with Sam Rockwell in just because his name is attached to it, he is perfection. It's a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, and puts a smile on your face sure. Sure it's predictable, but it's fun and sweet and I enjoyed it.
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
Now there is one reason I went to see this film, and I should probably be ashamed to say this; I have a ridiculously inappropriate girl-crush on Lily Collins. She is literally the most beautiful thing in this world at the minute, Lord knows how Phil Collins of all people managed to spawn such a delightfully gorgeous little nymph.
If there was anything worth saying about this film, well I would have said it by now, and I've been sitting on this blog all week waiting to figure out what exactly I want to say. Obviously Miss Collins would not even be acknowledged weren't it for her prestigious parentage, but hey, the whole eyebrow sensation and the impeccable fashion sense are doing her favours. I can't say she's a dreadful actress, in fact she's good at beguiling looks and pained expressions, there is a distinct lack of charisma, but when she looks so damn good, well it doesn't really matter does it. Considering a good chunk of the film is spent basically just looking at her, and getting her to dress up in various outfits and looking damn good regardless of how gothic things get I think she does quite well. She even acknowledges how ridiculous the outfit they put her in as she yanks off those crazy thigh high boots at one point, but then she has to put them back on again, for safety's sake, in case she steps on something sharp, like a stiletto heel... Apart from that she is just pretty... And that's all films are about lately, casting extremely pretty people in pointless roles.
What was I even talking about? Oh right! The film! This film is so boring... I forgot sleeping was an option after paying for the ticket. There are certain segments where I was so bored with what was going on I was just looking at film errors, like the blatant green screen seam, or the fact that Lily Collins has red hair dye staining her forehead from recent touch ups to keep that unnatural shade vibrant. Is gothic culture that intriguing? Do we all need to be clad in leather with garish tattoos to hunt demons? Is that necessary? Why don't people just dress normally?
The only normal thing about the film was Robert Sheehan, and he was given, unrequited best bud role which just made him look emasculated and lame. Plus he clearly has a vampire bite and doesn't need his glasses later on in this film, do we get any resolution on that? Also speaking of problems with the plot. Incest? Really? Lane Pryce made a point of telling gothic, never convincing, Henry VIII to just flat out lie to the kids about their parentage, but that whole turning the ring around so the W was an M or whatever, well that was just damn convincing. Obviously it's a thread that is completely ignored at the end, they'll have their forbidden love regardless. It just made me feel uncomfortable for the rest of the film because it's just thrown in there as a complication for them to overcome, but it's just... Well, it just didn't work on any level. I'm not that squeamish when it comes to these things, I fricking love The Borgias, but this just failed on so many levels.
I really have little else to say about this film except it's been done. Love Triangle, check, teenage girl discovering supernatural powers, check, girl discovering her natural abilities far surpass that of anyone who has trained their whole lives just to piss off everyone, check, gay for flavour, check, gothic everything, check, Aidan Turner as a werewolf, check (damn hot one at that...)
Bored. I'll be off...
If there was anything worth saying about this film, well I would have said it by now, and I've been sitting on this blog all week waiting to figure out what exactly I want to say. Obviously Miss Collins would not even be acknowledged weren't it for her prestigious parentage, but hey, the whole eyebrow sensation and the impeccable fashion sense are doing her favours. I can't say she's a dreadful actress, in fact she's good at beguiling looks and pained expressions, there is a distinct lack of charisma, but when she looks so damn good, well it doesn't really matter does it. Considering a good chunk of the film is spent basically just looking at her, and getting her to dress up in various outfits and looking damn good regardless of how gothic things get I think she does quite well. She even acknowledges how ridiculous the outfit they put her in as she yanks off those crazy thigh high boots at one point, but then she has to put them back on again, for safety's sake, in case she steps on something sharp, like a stiletto heel... Apart from that she is just pretty... And that's all films are about lately, casting extremely pretty people in pointless roles.
What was I even talking about? Oh right! The film! This film is so boring... I forgot sleeping was an option after paying for the ticket. There are certain segments where I was so bored with what was going on I was just looking at film errors, like the blatant green screen seam, or the fact that Lily Collins has red hair dye staining her forehead from recent touch ups to keep that unnatural shade vibrant. Is gothic culture that intriguing? Do we all need to be clad in leather with garish tattoos to hunt demons? Is that necessary? Why don't people just dress normally?
The only normal thing about the film was Robert Sheehan, and he was given, unrequited best bud role which just made him look emasculated and lame. Plus he clearly has a vampire bite and doesn't need his glasses later on in this film, do we get any resolution on that? Also speaking of problems with the plot. Incest? Really? Lane Pryce made a point of telling gothic, never convincing, Henry VIII to just flat out lie to the kids about their parentage, but that whole turning the ring around so the W was an M or whatever, well that was just damn convincing. Obviously it's a thread that is completely ignored at the end, they'll have their forbidden love regardless. It just made me feel uncomfortable for the rest of the film because it's just thrown in there as a complication for them to overcome, but it's just... Well, it just didn't work on any level. I'm not that squeamish when it comes to these things, I fricking love The Borgias, but this just failed on so many levels.
I really have little else to say about this film except it's been done. Love Triangle, check, teenage girl discovering supernatural powers, check, girl discovering her natural abilities far surpass that of anyone who has trained their whole lives just to piss off everyone, check, gay for flavour, check, gothic everything, check, Aidan Turner as a werewolf, check (damn hot one at that...)
Bored. I'll be off...
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
Alpha Papa
Alan Partridge has, and will forever, hold the title of most British comedy character ever. Perhaps it's my skewed vision of the world, but the middle aged, self-obsessed, despicably obtuse, high and mighty caricature is just perfection. You're now going to assume I loved this film, because I love garish knits and sharp humour, you'd not be far off. I have few complaints about this film aside from the fact that it doesn't outstay it's welcome, at 90 minutes you might not be getting your money's worth but they squeeze every minute with as much fun as they can. To be honest it gets a bit ridiculous after a certain point and the material could have probably been condensed into an hour long TV special, but hey it's still got some quality jokes in there. I could just watch this all day to be honest, I love a bit of Alan Partridge, especially when Michael the Geordie is around, and let's be perfectly honest, the laugh per minute ratio is greatly increased when there is a northern accent anywhere in British comedy, not that I'm personally biased or anything.
Anything with Armando Iannucci's name within spitting distance of it is usually guaranteed slick black humour of the highest nature, skewering those with the biggest of egos and none have bigger egos than the behemoth of Alan Partridge. Iannucci has been busy making Veep over the water (which is beyond fantastic) so it's nice to see him coming back to something so good, you know, now that The Thick of It is officially over and Malcolm Tucker has received the keys to the TARDIS and whatnot...
To be honest, I saw this about a week ago and whilst I laughed raucously at many of the painfully inappropriate statements made, and one fantastic jingle, it hasn't stayed with me as much as I'd have liked. I want to be quoting the damn thing, I want to want to see it again and cry laughing with each rewatch - but Iannucci and Alan Patridge aren't those kind of comics. They don't spout catchphrases or make easy to repeat jokes, they have biting retorts and precision timing at hand which I lack in the day to day. I'm not desperate to watch the film again, there are sections that are not to my brand of humour, a nudity scene springs immediately to mind, but the jokes that made me laugh did so quite loudly in the cinema. Mainly from Michael the Geordie, and there was a couple of shit jokes in there too (pun intended.)
It's a funny film, and it's great to see Steve Coogan effortlessly portray such a brilliant character, but it's not a particularly memorable outing, which is a shame.
Anything with Armando Iannucci's name within spitting distance of it is usually guaranteed slick black humour of the highest nature, skewering those with the biggest of egos and none have bigger egos than the behemoth of Alan Partridge. Iannucci has been busy making Veep over the water (which is beyond fantastic) so it's nice to see him coming back to something so good, you know, now that The Thick of It is officially over and Malcolm Tucker has received the keys to the TARDIS and whatnot...
To be honest, I saw this about a week ago and whilst I laughed raucously at many of the painfully inappropriate statements made, and one fantastic jingle, it hasn't stayed with me as much as I'd have liked. I want to be quoting the damn thing, I want to want to see it again and cry laughing with each rewatch - but Iannucci and Alan Patridge aren't those kind of comics. They don't spout catchphrases or make easy to repeat jokes, they have biting retorts and precision timing at hand which I lack in the day to day. I'm not desperate to watch the film again, there are sections that are not to my brand of humour, a nudity scene springs immediately to mind, but the jokes that made me laugh did so quite loudly in the cinema. Mainly from Michael the Geordie, and there was a couple of shit jokes in there too (pun intended.)
It's a funny film, and it's great to see Steve Coogan effortlessly portray such a brilliant character, but it's not a particularly memorable outing, which is a shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)