I decided to react to three different films today, I went and see them and three failed blogs have been written, rewritten and scrapped. Even without any internet to distract I failed miserably at writing anything substantial, so I simply converted a singular entry into a dumping ground for the films I have little to say for in one easy to observe place.
It would seem that in my never-ending quest to find a perfectly crafted film, I have forgotten that films aren't there to be challenging, perfect examples of humanity and entertainment; instead cinema is about simply entertaining and, well, getting people to part with their disposable income and make shitloads of money. So here is a slew of films which are essentially easy-going and... Fun? None of them blew my mind, or made me say 'Wow! That was AWESOME.' But few films succeed in that regard, anyhoo, what are you going to do.
This is the End
James Franco is having a houseparty, everyone is invited, then the world ends, and well, all hell breaks loose. - wait, I think this might have been the tag-line.
The best part of this film is the fact that actors are essentially playing skewed versions of their public selves, just ruder and more obtuse than usual. James Franco could provide laughs a plenty by just essentially being his presumed self. Fine, I have a weird affection for James Franco, it's tempered with an eye-rolling irritation at his talent, but damn is he pretty... Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel are along for the ride having a bro-lover's tiff. There is a tension between the three of them obviously because Seth and James starred in Judd Apatow's beloved Freaks and Geeks together, then Rogen went on to star in Apatow's follow-up Undeclared which also starred Baruchel. Bleh I know these things, and goes a lot towards explaining the kind of bro-love triangle. As I know very little about the intricacies of men and their bro-mances, I just determined all of their bickering and tension was basically because they essentially had a deep sexual longing for one another, because most men hope the same from women whenever they are having their arguments. I don't know what version of sexism I am consigning to with these thoughts. I just wanted James Franco to simply sigh and start kissing someone, anyone would do, in fact him and Danny McBride had some serious chemistry, that would have worked just fine. These are the things that concern me when I'm supposed to not be thinking and simply enjoying mindless action/comedy. Also along for the ride are Jonah Hill (I hate you the most) and Craig
Robinson. Basically they all bicker and bounce of each other being
generally idiotic, inappropriate and all around useless when it comes to
survival.
Oh and mentioning the Freaks and Geeks history, Franco actually has some paintings of the old freaks and the geeks on his walls, they aren't addressed like his other artwork, (giant ceramic penis anyone?) but they are there and it made me feel warm and fuzzy. Another acknowledgement of previous collaborations would be the much needed, home/high-made version of Pineapple Express 2 with Paper Planes playing extremely loudly over famous actors dicking about and acting terribly. By far the funniest sequence in the film. Everyone loves reference humour, it's the new thing clearly, and this film is brimming with them, plus people love those who are happy to poke fun at themselves, I can see why this has been well received.
The film had some laughs, if laughs are wrung from people taking drugs and being extremely rude to one another. This is also with life-threatening circumstances and the bunch of actors reasoning out their purpose for existence is far more important than most others, they bring joy to people! They act like it's hot when it's cold, or cold when it's hot! They have to remember lines! They are the most important people in the world! So we all get some laughs out of their self-awareness, and the ridiculousness of the situation.
Any of the other jokes fall a bit flat in my mind, mainly because dick jokes are not the pinnacle of good humour - as amusing as it is to watch Franco and McBride argue about ejaculation it's not as funny as they think it is, the drug jokes and rape jokes just don't land, along with most of the film... I sniggered but I never actually laughed, apart from the bit with Pineapple Express 2, but that was just fun; the film tries to riff on The Exorcist but it fails miserably, the same joke twice is never a good idea especially when the second time round it's just rubbish. As with any film of this ilk, it goes on about thirty minutes too long for no reason, the material always starts to outstay it's welcome after a while and this is no exception.
The whole bit about it being the Rapture and the Hollywood gang don't get into Heaven because, well they are horrible people, means the end really rings hollow for me personally because, well they don't prove to be very deserving when it comes down to it, it's not particularly earned in my book. Perhaps my bleak outlook has led me to believe that low-beat endings are better, but I hate unearned happy endings, I don't like Forrest Gump either (see: history graduate). Just call me crazy but wouldn't it be funnier for everyone to be doomed to hell forever? HAHAHAHA! No...? Just me.
It had about fifteen minutes of funny material, the premise was a good one in theory, but it was long and stupid, and the testosterone was just suffocating, then again what was I expecting?
Oh! Apparently Backstreet's back, again.
Now You See Me
Someone asked me what this film was about the other day and I just waved my arms at my sides and hissed 'magic'. Surprisingly this was the most dense of my three film party, and it has been the best received out of the three. I say this, it's more public opinion at the cinema, everyone was really surprised by how much they liked it, how well the twist worked (it didn't really...) and it was entertaining, slick and interesting enough to waste an hour or two. So the general feeling is that it was good? My opinion, completely unfazed by this film.
Out of the three films it took itself the most seriously, and it tried so hard to be clever and interesting but it was pretty damn dumb. Also, the whole magician's conceit is a great idea, having magician's robbing banks is a good one, but when the film takes ten minutes to explain how they went about it, well my eyes nearly rolled into the back of my skull. The film goes to great lengths to make it seem like it's all happening in real time, but it's clear to anyone who has ever watched any film in the past twenty years, it's just part of the illusion or has an iota of scepticism in their system... This immediately soured the film for me as I realised the film didn't want to treat me like someone with half a brain, it just wanted to have some loud crazy fun.
Fine, I figured, let's have some pointless fun.
I hate big stage productions, scripted arena madness, crowd pleasing, theatrics, scripts! Blah, piss the crowd off with your incompetence and go home. Play a different song that no one knows and watch the audience shrink as they rush to the bar or queue for the loos. Forget the numbers, fumble the cards, let out a swear word when you stub your toe, get stage fright and look bewildered and in awe in the space of a few seconds then bolt. Fuck it up! Failing that, dress in drag and sing Viva Las Vegas. That's entertainment! Just me?
What was I talking about...?
Oh right, poor Woody Harrelson... They gave him nothing, NOTHING! I have serious deep seated desire for Woody Harrelson and they gave him criminally little to do, in fact every line he said I could add up on my fingers, and most of them were cheap jokes. Then there was Jesse Eisenberg, hello young man, you are still playing the wise-ass, well done, it's working for you, as is that shirt/jumper combo, bravo, Oscar in the bag! Franco's little brother, being little and having a decent action sequence to show off his flexibility, good show! Isla Fisher, you look smoking hot... That's all. Melanie Laurent, french and beguiling. Mark Ruffalo... Oh Mark Ruffalo... Buff as a ... hulk-man thing... We never really spent enough time with any character to mark them as actual people, Laurent is a no nonsense Interpol agent but also has some weird belief that simply believing in some things is just... Fine? Ruffalo has a grumpy FBI agent to play, and does plenty of grumpy desperate FBI things as he becomes more harried and frustrated throughout, then he just suddenly flips a switch and becomes all Zen about all things. The four core magicians are basically sketched individuals but have little depth or time spent with them to make them actually interesting, the time spent with them give us nothing to actually care about. Actually there was nothing to care about, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are there too, neither look like they actually give a shit, which is never more obvious when they are in a scene together, two of the greatest actors alive and not one shit is given, it's amazing! That aside...
It was far too up it's own deceit to care about the audience. It pulled certain threads, left others bewilderingly hanging, it didn't really explain some points, but puts masses of energy into exploring other irritatingly small parts which people could have figured out themselves. The twist at the end was as contrived as anything. As I say, it was trying to be really clever but only for some parts, others it was really dumb, there was no real consistency. It was dumb fun, polished until glossy and forgettable.
Despicable Me 2
A sequel takes what we love about the first instalment and expands and explores new dynamics in order to add a fresh look at the characters we have come to adore. Or, there's the Hollywood standard, the old adage, if it ain't broke don't fix it, don't change too much, make it bigger more explosive, but retread old tracks so as not to alienate the audience and make as much money as possible. I will grant that Despicable Me 2 does try to add more, do something different without drastically changing the status quo that everyone loved about the original but... Well it was just light on anything else really... It added a new element, it increased the exposure of the best part of the previous film (the minions) and tries to shoe horn some emotional beats in there; for the most part it works, but it's also incredibly formulaic and lacking in the 'freshness' department.
Single man raising three young girls, relatively adequately, alone? Not on your life. Introduce a female to complete the fictional family immediately! Kristen Wiig, well isn't she great, and her character is a lot of fun, she's sweet and funny, she wears a scarf too! Good times!
Obviously it's painfully formulaic, the jokes and story-lines leave threads open for nothing to be surprising. This is even more noticeable when you are at a late night staff showing for cinema staff only, there is free booze, everyone is a bit tipsy and we all have our shoes off and stretched out on the sofas shouting at the screen what is going to happen next. The accuracy was alarming considering how bloody tired we all were and how much beer had been consumed.
Ah, you say, 'It's a kid's film, it's not supposed to be challenging!' But come on! That's bull. Despicable Me was fun because it was unpredictable and fun, the best Pixar films are the ones where you literally couldn't guess what the hell was going to happen next - hence why since Toy Story 3 they have ushered their way quietly out of the Golden Era into a kind of creative slump as their stories become more and more standard...
The best kids films are ones that entertain adults as well as the children, and in this case a bunch of mid-twenties cinema workers, it didn't really make any when the best joke in the film is a little yellow tic-tac in dungarees sniggering at the name Ramsbottom* well you have a problem!
Sure it's funny, it's accessible, the minions get way more to do, and boy do that lot know how to throw a great party. A good test for a film is to acknowledge where the best material is, and that's either in the first twenty minutes or the trailer, it's a painful but true fact.
It was just ok, it was a good laugh, and I'm sure the kids will enjoy it, or even multiple times a day until the DVD is snapped in half by an irate older family member one afternoon after the fiftieth time in a row of watching it.
So revisiting these films took a lot more effort than I anticipated, I apologise for my lacklustre opinions. I promise to try harder next time.
* I knew a girl with that surname at a previous job, it took lots of
self-control not to giggle, the amount of rudey surnames in the world
astound even me.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Bling Ring
Shallow, that is my main complaint about this film, and it's ironic because that's the point, I know. My inclination is to worm towards thinking perhaps it's brilliant in that regard, for literally having a bunch of youthful airheads spewing obtuse horrifying statements whilst maintaining expressions of complete obliviousness.
No idea where to start so, starting with the good.
A great soundtrack does not a good film make. The songs are achingly cool and apt in this film and I couldn't praise it enough. In fact just watch the trailer over and over with the soundtrack running in the background for an hour and you'll get the perfect vibe of the film without feeling short-changed at the cinema.
Along with the classy soundtrack I have to admit the film is cut together quite beautifully. Use of Facebook and some party sequences are a whole lot of fun, there is a well shot sequence of Audrina Patridge's home being burgled. There is a flair and daring to some sequences I found myself enjoying. But then this is just undercut by some sections in which interview clips are used at various points for voice overs to hammer home the points the film is trying to make. But wait? Wasn't this supposed to flesh out the story a little bit? Well, how much can we trust coming out of these people's mouths? An interview has certain constraints, and there is no honesty to anything these people are saying, they are just spouting the same crap. Sure it gives a little bit of insight but I just found it so difficult to engage with such vacuous shells? Plus voice-overs are pet peeves of mine when it comes to any kind of film in general.
Apart from our brief insights from controlled interviews all we really see is their inane conversations. This is where the film falls apart for me, the characters are so idiotic and two-dimensional it's alarming how little I cared about... well anything. Which brings me to the seemingly infallible Emma Watson; once again I find myself, distractingly underwhelmed. She's a beautiful girl, and she had so much less to work with here, she's got that American accent nailed and I can appreciate how hard it is to be airheaded and shallow when in reality you're a thoughtful and caring talented young woman, but it's not a performance I would rate. From the scant few things I've heard about this film everyone has raved about Emma Watson, from what I can see she simply got a plum role, she was given more fun stuff to work with, but any other actress could have probably done a pretty decent job - she had a few more interesting scenes and had to say obtuse things with a straight face. I just always feel like screaming at the screen 'EMOTE GODAMNIT!' Perhaps there are subtleties to her acting that I simply cannot see, or maybe this just wasn't a role which demanded any strong emotions besides the ocassional perfunctory statement and acting like a brat.
As for the rest of the cast there was about as much charisma among them as I would find simply standing next to line of lampposts*. Not the brightest bulbs it would seem and as their star-power combined couldn't compare to Emma Wattage, it would seem there's not much more to say than, they also failed to make any impact. It's a shame too because after much reflection I think the two main players had a chance to make a real go of it with the material; Marc for example is a unique character and we get the bare bones of his motivations but perhaps the constraints of moving the plot along and taking photos of themselves with their phones got in the way. He does a couple interesting things but it doesn't require any serious heavy lifting on the actors part apart from dicking about mostly...
Sofia Coppola is director famed for allowing the plot to take place and simply following through with the sequence of events, she doesn't get too involved in trying to make any statement, she simply allows what is happening to speak for itself; she's non-judgemental and therefore doesn't make a point of condemning or celebrating the actions of the Bling Ring. Is this fair? It would be fair to say, we spend a lot more time with the gang when they are robbing and living vicariously, rather than the fallout of their actions, but it's not a cautionary tale, Coppola simply is telling the story and the effective end is the gang being sentenced for their crimes and going their separate ways. (It's not a spoiler, watch the news.) In this regard it's quite a simple story, but one that hasn't really done like this before and for the most part it works in a kind of flashy Hollywood version of events, with those flourishes and awesome tunes playing. But hey for it to work for me as a good film it had to be more, more thought through, more interesting, more to chew over, and for what it was, it was pretty lean.
There is a stand-out scene for me, in which the girls, having just looted Paris Hilton's house for what would seem like the fifth time, they discover she has the same dress twice. Later we're at the club having a good old party, Emma Watson is throwing some moves on the dance-floor in a natty dress and her mate is pounding the tiles with her in the exact same dress. There is no giant arrow pointing this out, it's subtly done, but it spoke volumes to me. Hey all the money in the world isn't going to make you an individual, all these beautiful things exist and there are copies of them everywhere, because someone else has it you value it more, etc etc. It was a sly well done few seconds visual humour. There was also a funny aside in which Marc steals some pink Paris Hilton shoes and they make some reappearances through the film. These little flourishes made Bling Ring seem smarter than I would have initially given it credit for but then again, as Coppola isn't doing much more than showing us what happened rather than casting judgement, there isn't really much else going on beneath the surface.
The interest in this film lies in seeing what's happening in these celebrities homes, which all, apart from Paris Hilton's house, look like actual normal homes. What is quite befuddling is that with all the money in the world, people still forget to lock all their doors, or invest in better security, but hey when there Rolexes in the cupboard and Prada in the walk-in closet let's leave the back porch open! Also Megan Fox with a gun under the bed is just frankly alarming, especially when these people are rooting through her drawers... The good sport Hilton is, she actually let the crew film in her real house, with her real cushions with her face and her walls covered in her picture, clearly she has no issue with exposing herself to people, or her idiocy of leaving her keys under the mat.
So there are fun and games to be had. I won't deny the film has a good crack at trying to make a point as to why these people are how they are, with the interview voice-over work and some Leslie Mann school of crazy scenes, but it's so hard to care when the performances are flat and the trajectory of the plot becomes tedious.
I will probably always have this problem with Sofia Coppola's films, they simply don't have charisma. Lost in Translation, her best film by a mile was elevated to a different plane simply by having Bill Murray. Obviously Bill Murray is one of the greatest actors that ever lived and it's hard to cap the kind of quality he brings to proceedings, but even with a minimalist plot and a meandering sense of meaninglessness, Murray just brought so much to so little, he just effervesces charisma. Ever since Coppola has tried to recapture this, specifically with Somewhere, which was just awful. Bling Ring is witty in it's own way, it has those visual flourishes and there is food for thought there, but it's all buried beneath the fact that the actors/characters are nothing to get excited about, nothing to be interested in.
It's a shallow world we live in, it's a shallow bunch of people we are with, so it's only fair that I find myself disconnected from this particular lifestyle and sequence of events, there is no personal interest in there for me. Sure I like to read the gossip magazines, know who's with who, what beautiful dresses they are wearing, but I acknowledge the disconnect between that world and my own. The characters are Bling Ring are trying desperately to be a part of that world, but it's just so pointless, I can't begin to sympathise with them. This is of course unfair to all films everywhere as the rich tapestry of life and the film industry begs me to view other people's lives and views removing myself from my own assumptions - but in this case I find the disconnect from this world and my own too frustrating, it's so close yet so alien at the same time... It's fame money hungry youngsters wanting more from life, it's so easy to understand, and yet I intensely dislike the whole bunch of them. Coppola clearly doesn't want me to like the bunch of them but still. I want to understand, otherwise what's the point of basing this on real events? It might as well be fantasy; which is what these people are trying to attain, their own fantasies... I'm just talking myself into circles here. To me if there was something more there, perhaps better actors, better scripting, some better way of conveying the story to make it really pop out of the screen... I don't know what that is though and usually I have a vague idea what is missing from a film.
The soundtrack is cool, the editing is nifty, there are flashes of brilliance, but overall I can't find myself loving this film because there is nothing to galvanise this all together to make it great, it's just missing something, something special... And no it's not Bill Murray, although all films are made infinitely better with his presence, it's just something more transcendental, it just didn't click for me.
*It would seem when words fail me I just go with lamppost. It seemed apt here, they are all skinny bright young things...
No idea where to start so, starting with the good.
A great soundtrack does not a good film make. The songs are achingly cool and apt in this film and I couldn't praise it enough. In fact just watch the trailer over and over with the soundtrack running in the background for an hour and you'll get the perfect vibe of the film without feeling short-changed at the cinema.
Along with the classy soundtrack I have to admit the film is cut together quite beautifully. Use of Facebook and some party sequences are a whole lot of fun, there is a well shot sequence of Audrina Patridge's home being burgled. There is a flair and daring to some sequences I found myself enjoying. But then this is just undercut by some sections in which interview clips are used at various points for voice overs to hammer home the points the film is trying to make. But wait? Wasn't this supposed to flesh out the story a little bit? Well, how much can we trust coming out of these people's mouths? An interview has certain constraints, and there is no honesty to anything these people are saying, they are just spouting the same crap. Sure it gives a little bit of insight but I just found it so difficult to engage with such vacuous shells? Plus voice-overs are pet peeves of mine when it comes to any kind of film in general.
Apart from our brief insights from controlled interviews all we really see is their inane conversations. This is where the film falls apart for me, the characters are so idiotic and two-dimensional it's alarming how little I cared about... well anything. Which brings me to the seemingly infallible Emma Watson; once again I find myself, distractingly underwhelmed. She's a beautiful girl, and she had so much less to work with here, she's got that American accent nailed and I can appreciate how hard it is to be airheaded and shallow when in reality you're a thoughtful and caring talented young woman, but it's not a performance I would rate. From the scant few things I've heard about this film everyone has raved about Emma Watson, from what I can see she simply got a plum role, she was given more fun stuff to work with, but any other actress could have probably done a pretty decent job - she had a few more interesting scenes and had to say obtuse things with a straight face. I just always feel like screaming at the screen 'EMOTE GODAMNIT!' Perhaps there are subtleties to her acting that I simply cannot see, or maybe this just wasn't a role which demanded any strong emotions besides the ocassional perfunctory statement and acting like a brat.
As for the rest of the cast there was about as much charisma among them as I would find simply standing next to line of lampposts*. Not the brightest bulbs it would seem and as their star-power combined couldn't compare to Emma Wattage, it would seem there's not much more to say than, they also failed to make any impact. It's a shame too because after much reflection I think the two main players had a chance to make a real go of it with the material; Marc for example is a unique character and we get the bare bones of his motivations but perhaps the constraints of moving the plot along and taking photos of themselves with their phones got in the way. He does a couple interesting things but it doesn't require any serious heavy lifting on the actors part apart from dicking about mostly...
Sofia Coppola is director famed for allowing the plot to take place and simply following through with the sequence of events, she doesn't get too involved in trying to make any statement, she simply allows what is happening to speak for itself; she's non-judgemental and therefore doesn't make a point of condemning or celebrating the actions of the Bling Ring. Is this fair? It would be fair to say, we spend a lot more time with the gang when they are robbing and living vicariously, rather than the fallout of their actions, but it's not a cautionary tale, Coppola simply is telling the story and the effective end is the gang being sentenced for their crimes and going their separate ways. (It's not a spoiler, watch the news.) In this regard it's quite a simple story, but one that hasn't really done like this before and for the most part it works in a kind of flashy Hollywood version of events, with those flourishes and awesome tunes playing. But hey for it to work for me as a good film it had to be more, more thought through, more interesting, more to chew over, and for what it was, it was pretty lean.
There is a stand-out scene for me, in which the girls, having just looted Paris Hilton's house for what would seem like the fifth time, they discover she has the same dress twice. Later we're at the club having a good old party, Emma Watson is throwing some moves on the dance-floor in a natty dress and her mate is pounding the tiles with her in the exact same dress. There is no giant arrow pointing this out, it's subtly done, but it spoke volumes to me. Hey all the money in the world isn't going to make you an individual, all these beautiful things exist and there are copies of them everywhere, because someone else has it you value it more, etc etc. It was a sly well done few seconds visual humour. There was also a funny aside in which Marc steals some pink Paris Hilton shoes and they make some reappearances through the film. These little flourishes made Bling Ring seem smarter than I would have initially given it credit for but then again, as Coppola isn't doing much more than showing us what happened rather than casting judgement, there isn't really much else going on beneath the surface.
The interest in this film lies in seeing what's happening in these celebrities homes, which all, apart from Paris Hilton's house, look like actual normal homes. What is quite befuddling is that with all the money in the world, people still forget to lock all their doors, or invest in better security, but hey when there Rolexes in the cupboard and Prada in the walk-in closet let's leave the back porch open! Also Megan Fox with a gun under the bed is just frankly alarming, especially when these people are rooting through her drawers... The good sport Hilton is, she actually let the crew film in her real house, with her real cushions with her face and her walls covered in her picture, clearly she has no issue with exposing herself to people, or her idiocy of leaving her keys under the mat.
So there are fun and games to be had. I won't deny the film has a good crack at trying to make a point as to why these people are how they are, with the interview voice-over work and some Leslie Mann school of crazy scenes, but it's so hard to care when the performances are flat and the trajectory of the plot becomes tedious.
I will probably always have this problem with Sofia Coppola's films, they simply don't have charisma. Lost in Translation, her best film by a mile was elevated to a different plane simply by having Bill Murray. Obviously Bill Murray is one of the greatest actors that ever lived and it's hard to cap the kind of quality he brings to proceedings, but even with a minimalist plot and a meandering sense of meaninglessness, Murray just brought so much to so little, he just effervesces charisma. Ever since Coppola has tried to recapture this, specifically with Somewhere, which was just awful. Bling Ring is witty in it's own way, it has those visual flourishes and there is food for thought there, but it's all buried beneath the fact that the actors/characters are nothing to get excited about, nothing to be interested in.
It's a shallow world we live in, it's a shallow bunch of people we are with, so it's only fair that I find myself disconnected from this particular lifestyle and sequence of events, there is no personal interest in there for me. Sure I like to read the gossip magazines, know who's with who, what beautiful dresses they are wearing, but I acknowledge the disconnect between that world and my own. The characters are Bling Ring are trying desperately to be a part of that world, but it's just so pointless, I can't begin to sympathise with them. This is of course unfair to all films everywhere as the rich tapestry of life and the film industry begs me to view other people's lives and views removing myself from my own assumptions - but in this case I find the disconnect from this world and my own too frustrating, it's so close yet so alien at the same time... It's fame money hungry youngsters wanting more from life, it's so easy to understand, and yet I intensely dislike the whole bunch of them. Coppola clearly doesn't want me to like the bunch of them but still. I want to understand, otherwise what's the point of basing this on real events? It might as well be fantasy; which is what these people are trying to attain, their own fantasies... I'm just talking myself into circles here. To me if there was something more there, perhaps better actors, better scripting, some better way of conveying the story to make it really pop out of the screen... I don't know what that is though and usually I have a vague idea what is missing from a film.
The soundtrack is cool, the editing is nifty, there are flashes of brilliance, but overall I can't find myself loving this film because there is nothing to galvanise this all together to make it great, it's just missing something, something special... And no it's not Bill Murray, although all films are made infinitely better with his presence, it's just something more transcendental, it just didn't click for me.
*It would seem when words fail me I just go with lamppost. It seemed apt here, they are all skinny bright young things...
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Puzzling
People are puzzles, once they are solved they are easier to observe as a whole and easier to deal with. Various pieces fall into place immediately upon first impressions, others take a while to discover but make perfect sense, time decays pieces, others reveal themselves at the oddest moments; for the most part I work people out or I give up trying long before they notice my interest. My aim in life is to be an inscrutable puzzle, to not be understood, to be a mystery, to be a lost relic hidden in plain sight, precious but ignored (being noticed is too much effort). So far I am most of the above (ignored), but to be precious would involve being wanted. My much vaunted desire to be wanted is impeded by the fact that I have no idea about how I am perceived, do people see me anything more than a nonentity? Perhaps I'm not even a puzzle, perhaps I'm as dull as dishwater, all my facets of self bobbing around the surface, people see me and notice I am nothing special, just dirty.
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Before Midnight
'This is how people start breaking up.'
Life is one long compromise, don't ask me why, that's just how it is, don't pretend that it isn't. My pessimistic view on everything is that life forces you into situations where you find yourself making decisions you didn't expect; time then erodes all those plans and ambitions you thought you had forever to attain. Nothing speeds up this process than being in a relationship, then you have two lives and ideals to contend with, then comes the children, the baggage of this mortal coil, and compromises multiply like a disease until time turns you into the exact thing you didn't expect to be; old and full of regret. Well, I'm 22, I have no major ambition, and my expectation of life is essentially that it will be full of occurrences that don't mean anything, I'm aware that I'm unoriginal even in my malaise.
I have strong memories of my Dad turning to me, tears in his eyes, alcohol flowing through his system, telling me his life isn't what he expected, it just seemed to me that an inexplicable fatigue was all that was stopping him from doing anything about his dissatisfaction, because doing something, changing something, was just too much effort and life had already moulded him into what he didn't want to be; old and full of regret.
What is essentially the most heartbreaking thing about Before Midnight is that the magical romance of Jesse and Celine isn't as mystical and perfect as I had hoped, how can I be hopeful in a world where even my favourite cinema couple are saddled with the same problems and regrets that the rest of the world suffer? How can I go on knowing that their unique and beautiful love is as decayed and unstable as everything else in this world? Now I know that life is exactly what I anticipate it to be, I have unequivocal proof that everyone grows to be the same, old and full of regret.
But that doesn't necessarily make life bad, it just makes the good aspects more important, taking what we can from our experiences and grasping what makes us happy and never letting go. Before Midnight was a hard film to watch because of it's realism, the arguments were standard ones that couples have and I didn't expect or want this from Jesse and Celine. I am so used to this pair being so openly honest with each other and that leading to more and more intimate knowledge being revealed and their love growing and their connection strengthening; in direct contrast with the previous Before films, the more the pair talk the more the fractures show and the more frustrated they become with one another and their endless talking instead of bringing them closer together seems to drive them apart; it's heartbreaking!
Perhaps I should give a little bit more information. Richard Linklater created a lovely romance film in 1994 about a pair of young, bright strangers meeting on a train and spending an evening in Vienna exploring the city and each other. The whole concept hinges on the fact that the pair don't expect to see each other again and therefore their rambling becomes more intense as they feel free to open up and let themselves be honest about everything, up to and including their feelings; Before Sunrise!
Then nine years later we have Before Sunset, arguably the better film for a couple of reasons, first and foremost the time-frame is smaller, a couple of hours wandering around Paris, thus the conversation moves better and with that we are literally seeing every second of the pairs reunion. Then there is the fact that Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy (the stars) had a greater hand in the script and the production of the film, Delpy sings her own song, Hawke was going through a divorce from Uma Thurman at the time, and the dialogue was mostly written by the actors; it was more personal.
We see the pair rekindle their romance in a way but it is left ambiguous as to whether they ended up together, but the end of the film was so painfully beautiful I'll let them off.
Yet another nine years later Linklater and the lovely cinema couple, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy returned and from the trailers endlessly repeated at the cinema I work at, it's apparent they are together now over the peak of forty, with their own children and, God help us all, baggage. Before Midnight takes the formula of the previous two films and plays about with the rules. The rules are the pair are out of their element, in a foreign country (I know Celine lived in Paris in Before Sunset but Jesse didn't, and it's still a different country...) and they spend most the film merely talking with only brief interludes from other minor characters. Previously the pair spent the majority of the film alone and in each other's company talking openly and honestly with little or knowledge of any history they had before.
Before Midnight places the pair in Greece with a set of twins and Jesse's stepson leaving to return to America after spending the Summer with his Dad. Some intervention from a friend means the pair are plonked alone in a hotel room for their verbal spar, we do have a lot of walking and talking as before, but it's the couple's history and their lives together which become the core subject of their conversation. The first section of the film weaves a picture of the makeshift family for the viewer, the pair have a set of twins (I feel strangely joyful about that particular fact), they aren't married, Jesse only sees his son from his first marriage during holidays, and his ex-wife isn't particularly happy with the situation, Celine is in the process of changing jobs, and Jesse is still writing books. He wrote a second one based around events from the second film and afterwards, luckily my assumptions that he stayed with her were true, and there was lots of sexy times, good on them! They interact with other people in Greece and we see them on their own and at a little dinner party, before we manacle them together for the other two thirds of film and we have classic Jesse and Celine discussion. But it's not classic, because there's so much more history, and so much less joy to be had, they are older and wiser and there's more going on than just getting to know each other.
The crux of this film is how life and all that comes with it wears on a relationship, even a seemingly perfect one like that of Jesse and Celine. Time waits for no man and it has slipped away from this pair and they don't know what to do with the dissatisfaction that comes with it. Decisions have been made, actions taken, compromises made, and time has hurtled onwards leaving behind regret and resentment. It's so true to life but it hurts to see the pair suffering the same fate the rest of the world must face; I have no doubt in my mind that Jesse and Celine make each other happy but they seem to be grasping at what exactly that is, what makes them happy has evolved and they are trying to adjust to that.
What really resonates about all of the Before films is how the characters talk like real people, sure all of their comebacks and quips are devilishly clever and quicker than you'd imagine, but they actually talk to each other. It's not just a series of monologues about how their life has come to this point, the key is in the dialogue. They dissect and dodge certain aspects and statements and worm their way through and around the issues at hand, their relationship problems. They tackle them head on, but also aren't above walking away from each other when they dislike how things are going, just like real people would. There are some well placed moments of brevity, and explosive bombs lobbed either way, it's just so hard not to be invested in the couple, even if you haven't seen the previous films. (but I would ask why not?) The pairs interactions resonate with everyone I would assume in any kind of long term relationship, but then theirs are strongly personal issues that are specific to their own situation, it's a great thing to see something so specific and yet so all encompassing.
It's a masterful wonderfully written film and although darker than previous entries, it's still achingly realistic and beautiful. I can't compliment the film enough. Just to cap it off, because I feel so invested in the characters, I laughed and cried along with every beat, every exchange. It's hard to feel sometimes and this pair bring out of the best in me, I felt everything and that is significant to me in a film. I just hope we can watch the pair grow old together and see another film in nine years time, I'd be so happy to watch them talking forever.
Life is one long compromise, don't ask me why, that's just how it is, don't pretend that it isn't. My pessimistic view on everything is that life forces you into situations where you find yourself making decisions you didn't expect; time then erodes all those plans and ambitions you thought you had forever to attain. Nothing speeds up this process than being in a relationship, then you have two lives and ideals to contend with, then comes the children, the baggage of this mortal coil, and compromises multiply like a disease until time turns you into the exact thing you didn't expect to be; old and full of regret. Well, I'm 22, I have no major ambition, and my expectation of life is essentially that it will be full of occurrences that don't mean anything, I'm aware that I'm unoriginal even in my malaise.
I have strong memories of my Dad turning to me, tears in his eyes, alcohol flowing through his system, telling me his life isn't what he expected, it just seemed to me that an inexplicable fatigue was all that was stopping him from doing anything about his dissatisfaction, because doing something, changing something, was just too much effort and life had already moulded him into what he didn't want to be; old and full of regret.
What is essentially the most heartbreaking thing about Before Midnight is that the magical romance of Jesse and Celine isn't as mystical and perfect as I had hoped, how can I be hopeful in a world where even my favourite cinema couple are saddled with the same problems and regrets that the rest of the world suffer? How can I go on knowing that their unique and beautiful love is as decayed and unstable as everything else in this world? Now I know that life is exactly what I anticipate it to be, I have unequivocal proof that everyone grows to be the same, old and full of regret.
But that doesn't necessarily make life bad, it just makes the good aspects more important, taking what we can from our experiences and grasping what makes us happy and never letting go. Before Midnight was a hard film to watch because of it's realism, the arguments were standard ones that couples have and I didn't expect or want this from Jesse and Celine. I am so used to this pair being so openly honest with each other and that leading to more and more intimate knowledge being revealed and their love growing and their connection strengthening; in direct contrast with the previous Before films, the more the pair talk the more the fractures show and the more frustrated they become with one another and their endless talking instead of bringing them closer together seems to drive them apart; it's heartbreaking!
Perhaps I should give a little bit more information. Richard Linklater created a lovely romance film in 1994 about a pair of young, bright strangers meeting on a train and spending an evening in Vienna exploring the city and each other. The whole concept hinges on the fact that the pair don't expect to see each other again and therefore their rambling becomes more intense as they feel free to open up and let themselves be honest about everything, up to and including their feelings; Before Sunrise!
Then nine years later we have Before Sunset, arguably the better film for a couple of reasons, first and foremost the time-frame is smaller, a couple of hours wandering around Paris, thus the conversation moves better and with that we are literally seeing every second of the pairs reunion. Then there is the fact that Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy (the stars) had a greater hand in the script and the production of the film, Delpy sings her own song, Hawke was going through a divorce from Uma Thurman at the time, and the dialogue was mostly written by the actors; it was more personal.
We see the pair rekindle their romance in a way but it is left ambiguous as to whether they ended up together, but the end of the film was so painfully beautiful I'll let them off.
Yet another nine years later Linklater and the lovely cinema couple, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy returned and from the trailers endlessly repeated at the cinema I work at, it's apparent they are together now over the peak of forty, with their own children and, God help us all, baggage. Before Midnight takes the formula of the previous two films and plays about with the rules. The rules are the pair are out of their element, in a foreign country (I know Celine lived in Paris in Before Sunset but Jesse didn't, and it's still a different country...) and they spend most the film merely talking with only brief interludes from other minor characters. Previously the pair spent the majority of the film alone and in each other's company talking openly and honestly with little or knowledge of any history they had before.
Before Midnight places the pair in Greece with a set of twins and Jesse's stepson leaving to return to America after spending the Summer with his Dad. Some intervention from a friend means the pair are plonked alone in a hotel room for their verbal spar, we do have a lot of walking and talking as before, but it's the couple's history and their lives together which become the core subject of their conversation. The first section of the film weaves a picture of the makeshift family for the viewer, the pair have a set of twins (I feel strangely joyful about that particular fact), they aren't married, Jesse only sees his son from his first marriage during holidays, and his ex-wife isn't particularly happy with the situation, Celine is in the process of changing jobs, and Jesse is still writing books. He wrote a second one based around events from the second film and afterwards, luckily my assumptions that he stayed with her were true, and there was lots of sexy times, good on them! They interact with other people in Greece and we see them on their own and at a little dinner party, before we manacle them together for the other two thirds of film and we have classic Jesse and Celine discussion. But it's not classic, because there's so much more history, and so much less joy to be had, they are older and wiser and there's more going on than just getting to know each other.
The crux of this film is how life and all that comes with it wears on a relationship, even a seemingly perfect one like that of Jesse and Celine. Time waits for no man and it has slipped away from this pair and they don't know what to do with the dissatisfaction that comes with it. Decisions have been made, actions taken, compromises made, and time has hurtled onwards leaving behind regret and resentment. It's so true to life but it hurts to see the pair suffering the same fate the rest of the world must face; I have no doubt in my mind that Jesse and Celine make each other happy but they seem to be grasping at what exactly that is, what makes them happy has evolved and they are trying to adjust to that.
What really resonates about all of the Before films is how the characters talk like real people, sure all of their comebacks and quips are devilishly clever and quicker than you'd imagine, but they actually talk to each other. It's not just a series of monologues about how their life has come to this point, the key is in the dialogue. They dissect and dodge certain aspects and statements and worm their way through and around the issues at hand, their relationship problems. They tackle them head on, but also aren't above walking away from each other when they dislike how things are going, just like real people would. There are some well placed moments of brevity, and explosive bombs lobbed either way, it's just so hard not to be invested in the couple, even if you haven't seen the previous films. (but I would ask why not?) The pairs interactions resonate with everyone I would assume in any kind of long term relationship, but then theirs are strongly personal issues that are specific to their own situation, it's a great thing to see something so specific and yet so all encompassing.
It's a masterful wonderfully written film and although darker than previous entries, it's still achingly realistic and beautiful. I can't compliment the film enough. Just to cap it off, because I feel so invested in the characters, I laughed and cried along with every beat, every exchange. It's hard to feel sometimes and this pair bring out of the best in me, I felt everything and that is significant to me in a film. I just hope we can watch the pair grow old together and see another film in nine years time, I'd be so happy to watch them talking forever.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Man of Steel
Superman is an icon, not because of his pants over spandex revolution, not because of his super-duper powers, but because as a man, he is all powerful and he stands for what is right. Now that's not down to where he is born or his genetics or anything like that, it's all down to his environment and well... some super powers to help him along the way. That environment? Well the guy was raised in small-town USA (Smallville - duh-doi!) and he is a product of what it is to be a hard-working, honest and good ole American, with all the values and plaid shirts that come with it. This is what makes Superman just so super, he is the best of America, replete with flying and indestructibility. Man of Steel works hard to create this impression for us, it almost just about rams it down our throats but it has other business too, cultivating Clark Kent's alien lineage.
If this had been a film just about Superman coming to be an all American man with an incredible gift working out his identity; throw in a threat which he can just about overcome by being the honest hardworking lovely guy he is, well we'd probably say it was boring and go home. To be honest this overblown piece of space ridiculousness was boring to me. This is supposed to be an origins story, throwing the biggest threat you can straight at Superman just seems like a waste and just too much, either have the biggest threat and concentrate on that, or let the origins story do the talking and break us in gently, doing both is... Well it's idiotic, but the way this is entire film went, it's not surprising. It spends a great chunk of it's time dispatching with any storytelling and just gives us mindless action sequences to yawn over - yup, what an origins story that is.
I feel like I know what Snyder and Nolan were trying to do, they had a core idea, part of that was mine, he's all American alien out to save the world from those who originated from the same birthplace. It was a good idea but the execution was... A mess. Oh Zack Snyder, I really keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your delectation for overblown action setpieces can be reigned in, especially when you have the likes of Christopher Nolan guiding you, but alas, senseless violence is what you truly seem to love above all else, and it might distract some people from the glaring dullness of your film, but not me. I did not enjoy this film, this disappoints me immensely. It's quite something to sigh and wonder if the next spray of smashing glass will be your last? Will it? Of course not! Will the fact that not one but two cities, probably more, are levelled in the space of the two hours phase you even slightly? It won't.
Nolan's hands are on this project and I will defend him in saying that Superman is a completely different kettle of fish to the Batman. Just to define it, Superman had a relatively healthy if traumatic upbringing with loving parents, he also has a shitload of superpowers, he is also an alien from another planet, but a corn-fed farm-boy, the comparisons are manifold, this is an entirely different set of foundations to work with than Batman, tortured billionaire playboy with an uncontrollable rage and a healthy bank balance to fund saving his corrupted city. But what was Nolan doing? Did he decide that sense had to go out of the window as well as any real plot? As far as origin stories go, this is one of the least coherent I have ever seen, not just because the film throws in random out of sequence flashbacks into the mix for kicks at any point it fancies. Where is Clark's emotional journey? Answer, there isn't one, not really, we just get a bunch of sequences telling us how he got to the point where General Zod arrives, but we don't see him grow, we just see bits and pieces of him reaching a certain point. It's just such a mess.
Don't get me started on the supporting characters. Lois Lane? Complete cipher, apart from her seeming loyalty to Superman because he helps people, or does things for the right reasons, she has no other reason to have any emotional attachment to him, the whole romance is a complete joke, putting two people within kissing distance of one another at several points does not a legitimate love story make! In fact, I still don't know why they kissed! Although, looking at him... But still! Perry White, now there's a character who needed absolutely no fleshing out, could have actually lasted the entire film without him but he's there just to remind us that people might actually be in a bit danger while everywhere is getting blown to shit, but only for about five minutes out of what feels like an hour of explosions. The Kents, well they are there to give Clark emotional bursts of energy it would seem, Martha should have been seriously injured but we'll let her off because she prompts a Superman rage fit. The Els? Lara, farewell to thee mother, you looked and sounded like a mother should... Jor-El? I have no idea what the hell you were doing at all in this film. Literally no discernible clue, you hurl yourself through Avatar/Gallifrey world and then you die and then... Well you just keep appearing for no reason other than to magically move the plot along, a walking deus ex machina. General Zod, I hate your beard.
Now the bile is gone, I feel I must mention something I did like in this film. The cape. The flying sequence was strangely a nice one for me, if only because I felt strangely happy watching it. More to the point it was just a nice simple sequence demanding nothing more than my enjoyment, nothing was blown to shit (much) and no one looked helplessly on, it was, dare I say, almost harmless fun. Also I now must invest in a long red cape and run around with my arms straight in front of me and my fists clenched, this will cheer me immensely...
Otherwise Man of Steel, what an absolute waste of my time. I felt like I had something important to say about this film but I suppose I did not. The action sequences went on far too long, any semblance of a plot made literally no impact, or sense, the fact that I didn't care what happened made the whole thing ring so hollow. Whatever message the film was trying to convey it failed when it just smashed and obliterated it's way through scene after scene of pointless bloodless violence. It was pointless draining nonsense. Nothing, not even Cavill's glorious cheekbones, can save this film from being soulless garbage.
If this had been a film just about Superman coming to be an all American man with an incredible gift working out his identity; throw in a threat which he can just about overcome by being the honest hardworking lovely guy he is, well we'd probably say it was boring and go home. To be honest this overblown piece of space ridiculousness was boring to me. This is supposed to be an origins story, throwing the biggest threat you can straight at Superman just seems like a waste and just too much, either have the biggest threat and concentrate on that, or let the origins story do the talking and break us in gently, doing both is... Well it's idiotic, but the way this is entire film went, it's not surprising. It spends a great chunk of it's time dispatching with any storytelling and just gives us mindless action sequences to yawn over - yup, what an origins story that is.
I feel like I know what Snyder and Nolan were trying to do, they had a core idea, part of that was mine, he's all American alien out to save the world from those who originated from the same birthplace. It was a good idea but the execution was... A mess. Oh Zack Snyder, I really keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your delectation for overblown action setpieces can be reigned in, especially when you have the likes of Christopher Nolan guiding you, but alas, senseless violence is what you truly seem to love above all else, and it might distract some people from the glaring dullness of your film, but not me. I did not enjoy this film, this disappoints me immensely. It's quite something to sigh and wonder if the next spray of smashing glass will be your last? Will it? Of course not! Will the fact that not one but two cities, probably more, are levelled in the space of the two hours phase you even slightly? It won't.
Nolan's hands are on this project and I will defend him in saying that Superman is a completely different kettle of fish to the Batman. Just to define it, Superman had a relatively healthy if traumatic upbringing with loving parents, he also has a shitload of superpowers, he is also an alien from another planet, but a corn-fed farm-boy, the comparisons are manifold, this is an entirely different set of foundations to work with than Batman, tortured billionaire playboy with an uncontrollable rage and a healthy bank balance to fund saving his corrupted city. But what was Nolan doing? Did he decide that sense had to go out of the window as well as any real plot? As far as origin stories go, this is one of the least coherent I have ever seen, not just because the film throws in random out of sequence flashbacks into the mix for kicks at any point it fancies. Where is Clark's emotional journey? Answer, there isn't one, not really, we just get a bunch of sequences telling us how he got to the point where General Zod arrives, but we don't see him grow, we just see bits and pieces of him reaching a certain point. It's just such a mess.
Don't get me started on the supporting characters. Lois Lane? Complete cipher, apart from her seeming loyalty to Superman because he helps people, or does things for the right reasons, she has no other reason to have any emotional attachment to him, the whole romance is a complete joke, putting two people within kissing distance of one another at several points does not a legitimate love story make! In fact, I still don't know why they kissed! Although, looking at him... But still! Perry White, now there's a character who needed absolutely no fleshing out, could have actually lasted the entire film without him but he's there just to remind us that people might actually be in a bit danger while everywhere is getting blown to shit, but only for about five minutes out of what feels like an hour of explosions. The Kents, well they are there to give Clark emotional bursts of energy it would seem, Martha should have been seriously injured but we'll let her off because she prompts a Superman rage fit. The Els? Lara, farewell to thee mother, you looked and sounded like a mother should... Jor-El? I have no idea what the hell you were doing at all in this film. Literally no discernible clue, you hurl yourself through Avatar/Gallifrey world and then you die and then... Well you just keep appearing for no reason other than to magically move the plot along, a walking deus ex machina. General Zod, I hate your beard.
Now the bile is gone, I feel I must mention something I did like in this film. The cape. The flying sequence was strangely a nice one for me, if only because I felt strangely happy watching it. More to the point it was just a nice simple sequence demanding nothing more than my enjoyment, nothing was blown to shit (much) and no one looked helplessly on, it was, dare I say, almost harmless fun. Also I now must invest in a long red cape and run around with my arms straight in front of me and my fists clenched, this will cheer me immensely...
Otherwise Man of Steel, what an absolute waste of my time. I felt like I had something important to say about this film but I suppose I did not. The action sequences went on far too long, any semblance of a plot made literally no impact, or sense, the fact that I didn't care what happened made the whole thing ring so hollow. Whatever message the film was trying to convey it failed when it just smashed and obliterated it's way through scene after scene of pointless bloodless violence. It was pointless draining nonsense. Nothing, not even Cavill's glorious cheekbones, can save this film from being soulless garbage.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Behind the Candelabra
Working at a cinema sometimes fills me with a unique sense of despair. A lady told me the other day, 'I heard they were making that Great Gatsby into a book.' My immediate reaction was to yell 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME?' but instead I went with the sobre response 'Yeah, it might be like that one they brought out in the 1920s.' Another person felt compelled to tell me our sign for a film called 'Populaire' was spelt wrong, 'You need to get that checked.' Then, to my horror a member of staff described Behind the Candelabra to a customer as a film about someone called 'Lib-er-ace' like the ace of spades. Speaking of which, Ace of Spades totally gets shit done, like writing a blog entry... Not really, I keep getting distracted.
So Behind the Candelabra charts the love affair between Michael Douglas and Matt Damon - I never thought those two would be so compatible! Here's where it gets kind of awkward, Matt Damon plays for most of the film, a teenager, ouch, that is a stretch. Are we supposed to believe that Matt Damon is a teenager sleeping with a flamboyant pianist in the madness of the 70s? Well... It's odd, because my main issue with big actors is that their work precedes them and influences how I see them in each new role. Hence why Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/Cloonster/Di Caprio et al, seem to have the unfortunate issue of their Hollywood personas bruising their acting roles. Don't get me wrong, they are all great actors, the best by some standards, but they have a lot of noise distorting the purity of their performances. So imagine my surprise when, not only did Matt Damon pull off the youthful role of Scott Thorson, but also, even with the horrifying facial prosthetics, managed to make me believe in the reality of the person. Also, regardless of the fact the man is clearly past the 40 benchmark, he still manages to look young and innocent, which is... Well intriguing more than anything, and his past performances don't detract from what is a jolly good crack at being a gay lover, sorry, bisexual lover of a man nearly three times his age, mistake!
Michael Douglas probably also needs a pat on the back, playing a big old queen with the gusto and exuberance that really just shines through, he looks like he's enjoying himself, and hey good for him, it shows, and it's impressive. I can't critique his performance, because there is such a knowingness and a vulnerability to him, an honesty, clearly this man has had a bizarre and incredibly unusual life going from his overbearing mother (played by Debbie Reynolds of all people!) having him play piano every day to insane superstardom, that would damage just about anyone and it's telling that the film plays out the usual gripes of the rich and famous but still manages to create something believably honest and almost touching. I do want to smack Liberace's over-surgically enhanced face several times in the film but to be honest if made me feel something. I was following the story, I felt invested in the love affair and felt genuinely saddened, elated, touched, all those feelings while watching. I don't usually feel much watching anything nowadays apart from slightly bored as I predict what's happening in front of me. Sure the story is a predictable one, relationships all go through a similar cycle, although this one had flourishes of drug addiction, plastic surgery and the fact that it's a biz called show. Everything decays and this follows suit with familiar beats but it doesn't stop it from hurting, even after how insanely emotionally attached the pair become.
The whole story is a one which is hard to believe if it weren't for the fact that for the most part it's true, there are arguments that Liberace didn't force Thorston to have plastic surgery to resemble a younger self, but the whole drugs and the purported adoption part seem to be true. These salient details all make it all the more intriguing, and darkly humorous - there is a lot of black humour in this film, that suited me just fine, I can sit and giggle away for hours at jokes that aren't particularly funny to the rest of the audience which consisted mostly of over 50s.
Behind the Candelabra does a lot of things, it juggles a biopic with some knowing humour, outrageous outfits and set pieces, with some frankly hilarious visuals. One thing I really have to point out is Rob Lowe. Godamnit man. I love you. I love you so much even with your face that way, every scene he is in just illicits laughs from the fact he literally can't move his face and people are just totally unphased. I could watch the whole damn thing again just to see Rob Lowe, in fact why aren't there more scenes with him in? Well that descended into me laughing at someone with overtly obvious plastic surgery... Why don't I just look at Joan Rivers more often?
I really can't describe this film in too much detail as I feel I have already let slip the most important aspects inadvertently... Will you like this film? (Are you there God? It's me, Nicola.) Well, do you love big old gays having a gay old time? Do you like watching intensely overdependent relationships disintegrate before your very eyes? Sure you've seen it a thousand times before, but not like this. This is something else! Plus it's a really well made film, there are visual representations of Liberace's manner with his youthful lovers as we see at the start of the film and watch as Scott falls into such patterns. As Liberace tries to free himself but control Scott as he exerts himself, as they have domestics just like real people. It's just a fascinating insight if anything, all bolstered by the excellent acting of the main players.
Obviously as a footnote to this whole adoration for the in-depth look at the relationship between Liberace and his gay lover, I feel I must stress this, it's not so much a film about Liberace as it is a film about his relationship. An old couple were intrigued by it and asked me to describe it, I told them there were a few scenes with Liberace playing piano but to be honest the core of the film was a love story. The pair rolled their eyes and sighed and seemed suddenly disinterested in this possibility, they didn't want to know about Liberace's love affairs, as discrete as they were at the time and a legacy all by themselves. It's an insight into what was going on behind closed doors but... Well, let's just say I'm not sure big fans of Liberace would particularly find themselves particularly enamoured by the direction of the film. Just a feeling more than anything, as I described the plot to two older people who clearly had a taste for Liberace they didn't seem at all impressed by it even though I was very complimentary of the film. 'Oh no, we don't want to see gay sex.' For a film about Liberace's secret private life, gay sex is a no-no. Go figure.
It's really not that often I am genuinely surprised by a film and this was a spur of the moment decision that I just walked into out of curiosity rather than interest. I think I must be in an emotional agreeable state, because I felt incredibly strongly that I liked this film upon walking out of the screen. It's not often my immediate inclination is so strong or positive, usually I'll have found a loose thread to tug on as my dissatisfaction grows - expect this to happen with Man of Steel which I intend to see in the coming week. So yeah, unexpected but extremely enjoyable, seek it out, find out for yourself.
So Behind the Candelabra charts the love affair between Michael Douglas and Matt Damon - I never thought those two would be so compatible! Here's where it gets kind of awkward, Matt Damon plays for most of the film, a teenager, ouch, that is a stretch. Are we supposed to believe that Matt Damon is a teenager sleeping with a flamboyant pianist in the madness of the 70s? Well... It's odd, because my main issue with big actors is that their work precedes them and influences how I see them in each new role. Hence why Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/Cloonster/Di Caprio et al, seem to have the unfortunate issue of their Hollywood personas bruising their acting roles. Don't get me wrong, they are all great actors, the best by some standards, but they have a lot of noise distorting the purity of their performances. So imagine my surprise when, not only did Matt Damon pull off the youthful role of Scott Thorson, but also, even with the horrifying facial prosthetics, managed to make me believe in the reality of the person. Also, regardless of the fact the man is clearly past the 40 benchmark, he still manages to look young and innocent, which is... Well intriguing more than anything, and his past performances don't detract from what is a jolly good crack at being a gay lover, sorry, bisexual lover of a man nearly three times his age, mistake!
Michael Douglas probably also needs a pat on the back, playing a big old queen with the gusto and exuberance that really just shines through, he looks like he's enjoying himself, and hey good for him, it shows, and it's impressive. I can't critique his performance, because there is such a knowingness and a vulnerability to him, an honesty, clearly this man has had a bizarre and incredibly unusual life going from his overbearing mother (played by Debbie Reynolds of all people!) having him play piano every day to insane superstardom, that would damage just about anyone and it's telling that the film plays out the usual gripes of the rich and famous but still manages to create something believably honest and almost touching. I do want to smack Liberace's over-surgically enhanced face several times in the film but to be honest if made me feel something. I was following the story, I felt invested in the love affair and felt genuinely saddened, elated, touched, all those feelings while watching. I don't usually feel much watching anything nowadays apart from slightly bored as I predict what's happening in front of me. Sure the story is a predictable one, relationships all go through a similar cycle, although this one had flourishes of drug addiction, plastic surgery and the fact that it's a biz called show. Everything decays and this follows suit with familiar beats but it doesn't stop it from hurting, even after how insanely emotionally attached the pair become.
The whole story is a one which is hard to believe if it weren't for the fact that for the most part it's true, there are arguments that Liberace didn't force Thorston to have plastic surgery to resemble a younger self, but the whole drugs and the purported adoption part seem to be true. These salient details all make it all the more intriguing, and darkly humorous - there is a lot of black humour in this film, that suited me just fine, I can sit and giggle away for hours at jokes that aren't particularly funny to the rest of the audience which consisted mostly of over 50s.
Behind the Candelabra does a lot of things, it juggles a biopic with some knowing humour, outrageous outfits and set pieces, with some frankly hilarious visuals. One thing I really have to point out is Rob Lowe. Godamnit man. I love you. I love you so much even with your face that way, every scene he is in just illicits laughs from the fact he literally can't move his face and people are just totally unphased. I could watch the whole damn thing again just to see Rob Lowe, in fact why aren't there more scenes with him in? Well that descended into me laughing at someone with overtly obvious plastic surgery... Why don't I just look at Joan Rivers more often?
I really can't describe this film in too much detail as I feel I have already let slip the most important aspects inadvertently... Will you like this film? (Are you there God? It's me, Nicola.) Well, do you love big old gays having a gay old time? Do you like watching intensely overdependent relationships disintegrate before your very eyes? Sure you've seen it a thousand times before, but not like this. This is something else! Plus it's a really well made film, there are visual representations of Liberace's manner with his youthful lovers as we see at the start of the film and watch as Scott falls into such patterns. As Liberace tries to free himself but control Scott as he exerts himself, as they have domestics just like real people. It's just a fascinating insight if anything, all bolstered by the excellent acting of the main players.
Obviously as a footnote to this whole adoration for the in-depth look at the relationship between Liberace and his gay lover, I feel I must stress this, it's not so much a film about Liberace as it is a film about his relationship. An old couple were intrigued by it and asked me to describe it, I told them there were a few scenes with Liberace playing piano but to be honest the core of the film was a love story. The pair rolled their eyes and sighed and seemed suddenly disinterested in this possibility, they didn't want to know about Liberace's love affairs, as discrete as they were at the time and a legacy all by themselves. It's an insight into what was going on behind closed doors but... Well, let's just say I'm not sure big fans of Liberace would particularly find themselves particularly enamoured by the direction of the film. Just a feeling more than anything, as I described the plot to two older people who clearly had a taste for Liberace they didn't seem at all impressed by it even though I was very complimentary of the film. 'Oh no, we don't want to see gay sex.' For a film about Liberace's secret private life, gay sex is a no-no. Go figure.
It's really not that often I am genuinely surprised by a film and this was a spur of the moment decision that I just walked into out of curiosity rather than interest. I think I must be in an emotional agreeable state, because I felt incredibly strongly that I liked this film upon walking out of the screen. It's not often my immediate inclination is so strong or positive, usually I'll have found a loose thread to tug on as my dissatisfaction grows - expect this to happen with Man of Steel which I intend to see in the coming week. So yeah, unexpected but extremely enjoyable, seek it out, find out for yourself.
Friday, 7 June 2013
Hangover Part III
Oh well... I wanted so badly to enjoy this film, I was actually willing to give it a chance, a real go, I went in completely prepared for a good old belly laugh. This film was not funny. What a waste!
So the first Hangover, was actually genuinely quite funny, mostly because of the bizarre situation the gang found themselves in, tiger in the bathroom? Random chicken just hanging out? Baby in the closet? Missing incisor? Good. All of these ridiculous things blended together to create a fun adventure through Las Vegas, plus the unfortunate destruction of a really nice car. I'll grant you, the end was beyond ridiculous, sure we knew the guys were idiotic and prone to playing cruel tricks, also we had the infamous Jagermeister shots on the roof... and the mattress was chucked off the roof randomly, but seriously give the audience something more!! Maybe... Actually I take it all back, it was a pretty tightly plotted, dare I say, almost clever film? It actually maintained mystery throughout of where Doug was, and what the hell happened the night before; each scene addresses either of these mysteries throughout the film, also with a decent slew of jokes to keep us laughing. It was good! It was funny!
So the second Hangover came along, essentially a carbon copy of the previous one pandering to the public's want for more drunken shenanigans - well Hollywood's desire to cash in, also it was set in Bangkok. Everything that made the previous film funny, the shock factor, the waking up and tracing your steps through a previous night of debauchery, were all gone, the jokes were less funny, everything was just, not that good.
Now we have Hangover Part III, gone are the waking up the morning after and retracing our steps, instead there is a convoluted plot involving Chang and some gold bullion oh and John Goodman. I admire the fact that they tried something new, and in theory it did actually sound funny. But in practise, it just played out... Damn, it was just boring. This is one of those films in which the trailer does everything for you. In the trailer, the biggest laughs are essentially given away, it's quicker, and it looks halfway decent and a whole lot of fun. What instead you get is... Well a long film posing as a comedy trying to make you laugh with jokes which are painfully unfunny. What is unseen in this film is actually funnier.
For example: (Here be spoilers) In the trailer we see Alan driving along with his giraffe in the trailer about to meet it's inevitable doom. But the trailer cuts the scene together much better and quicker, Alan waves at a kid, drinking a beer, says he bought a giraffe, he's the happiest chap alive, cue to giraffe seeing the bridge, then a pile up, cut to Alan making a mildly irritated smile, aw shucks. It actually took longer to write this than see it. In the film it just takes too long, they drag it out and there is literally no need to see a decapitated giraffe, how would that even work? The scene was way funnier in the trailers because of the fact we didn't see the soaring head, and had to watch the whole scene play out, also our imaginations filled in the gaps and that's the funny part.
Another example of not needing to see things, Alan's romance. Completely superfluous. Oh no wait, that's the whole point of the story, Alan will become a normal human being, will be less of an arse, if he gets a girlfriend? Really? That's what we've learnt from all this? Really? Really!?!
Another example of not needing to see things: note, the whole film.
Seriously though, let me just talk about Alan. Are we expected to sympathise with this guy? Because he is a pretty repulsive guy, sure in the first film, just a bit deranged, the second too... They all do and say some pretty terrible things but this time around Alan is just extremely irritating rather than humorous. If the writing is sending flags it's that his parents indulged him for too long, clearly he has some un-addressed issues, but does that give him any excuse? And what? The whole cure to his life long insanity is to have a girlfriend? Wait am I being too harsh... Nope. I'm not. It's stupid. Have I lost the light in my eyes? Shouldn't I just be happy that Alan is happy? Doesn't he deserve a bit of happiness? Hmmm, well... No. Because did I mention this film was boring?
This is completely down to the plot. The idea of sending Alan to a funny farm and getting intercepted by some cons along the way is a funny one. The execution? Not so much. How little I cared that they were all connected to the previous insanity, sorry Black Doug, sorry John Goodman. Then the ensuing plot just felt like an escalation, but not in a funny way, it was just a shapeless mass of moving around and not really getting anywhere, mainly because you knew any situation the trio got into would be solved to some degree because, hey there's another hour of film to go, god help me. You knew they'd all be fine, therefore not an ounce of drama, or an inch to care about. It's blatantly obvious regardless of what happens in-between there would be a happy ending, a completely unearned one.
Bradley Cooper, I love you, but get out. Ed Helms, with those glasses you almost look hotter than Bradley Cooper, especially with that sweaty shirt, I ogled the pair of you for lack of anything else to do, go figure, it was more fun.
The funniest part for me, was Chang singing 'I Believe I Can Fly' whilst floating along on a parachute. Another part completely ruined by the trailers. Why did that make me laugh and not the line about cocaine? (I know, haha line.) Because it was actually funny and not at someone's expense, it was just him having a strangely good time. Bah! I don't want comedy where everyone just hugs and gets along, I love black humour, tar black. This wasn't that, it was just people trying to be funny by saying cruel things, oh and a whole mess of gay jokes. Because that's funny. I can't describe how unfunny this film was, it's irritating.
Basically, watch the trailer, do not waste your precious time watching this film; you would basically being indulging a bunch of spoilt little boys.
*I am aware that Ken Jeong's character is actually called Mr Chow in this film, he will always be Chang to me. The guy is Korean and making a name for himself playing Chinese characters, Hollywood.
So the first Hangover, was actually genuinely quite funny, mostly because of the bizarre situation the gang found themselves in, tiger in the bathroom? Random chicken just hanging out? Baby in the closet? Missing incisor? Good. All of these ridiculous things blended together to create a fun adventure through Las Vegas, plus the unfortunate destruction of a really nice car. I'll grant you, the end was beyond ridiculous, sure we knew the guys were idiotic and prone to playing cruel tricks, also we had the infamous Jagermeister shots on the roof... and the mattress was chucked off the roof randomly, but seriously give the audience something more!! Maybe... Actually I take it all back, it was a pretty tightly plotted, dare I say, almost clever film? It actually maintained mystery throughout of where Doug was, and what the hell happened the night before; each scene addresses either of these mysteries throughout the film, also with a decent slew of jokes to keep us laughing. It was good! It was funny!
So the second Hangover came along, essentially a carbon copy of the previous one pandering to the public's want for more drunken shenanigans - well Hollywood's desire to cash in, also it was set in Bangkok. Everything that made the previous film funny, the shock factor, the waking up and tracing your steps through a previous night of debauchery, were all gone, the jokes were less funny, everything was just, not that good.
Now we have Hangover Part III, gone are the waking up the morning after and retracing our steps, instead there is a convoluted plot involving Chang and some gold bullion oh and John Goodman. I admire the fact that they tried something new, and in theory it did actually sound funny. But in practise, it just played out... Damn, it was just boring. This is one of those films in which the trailer does everything for you. In the trailer, the biggest laughs are essentially given away, it's quicker, and it looks halfway decent and a whole lot of fun. What instead you get is... Well a long film posing as a comedy trying to make you laugh with jokes which are painfully unfunny. What is unseen in this film is actually funnier.
For example: (Here be spoilers) In the trailer we see Alan driving along with his giraffe in the trailer about to meet it's inevitable doom. But the trailer cuts the scene together much better and quicker, Alan waves at a kid, drinking a beer, says he bought a giraffe, he's the happiest chap alive, cue to giraffe seeing the bridge, then a pile up, cut to Alan making a mildly irritated smile, aw shucks. It actually took longer to write this than see it. In the film it just takes too long, they drag it out and there is literally no need to see a decapitated giraffe, how would that even work? The scene was way funnier in the trailers because of the fact we didn't see the soaring head, and had to watch the whole scene play out, also our imaginations filled in the gaps and that's the funny part.
Another example of not needing to see things, Alan's romance. Completely superfluous. Oh no wait, that's the whole point of the story, Alan will become a normal human being, will be less of an arse, if he gets a girlfriend? Really? That's what we've learnt from all this? Really? Really!?!
Another example of not needing to see things: note, the whole film.
Seriously though, let me just talk about Alan. Are we expected to sympathise with this guy? Because he is a pretty repulsive guy, sure in the first film, just a bit deranged, the second too... They all do and say some pretty terrible things but this time around Alan is just extremely irritating rather than humorous. If the writing is sending flags it's that his parents indulged him for too long, clearly he has some un-addressed issues, but does that give him any excuse? And what? The whole cure to his life long insanity is to have a girlfriend? Wait am I being too harsh... Nope. I'm not. It's stupid. Have I lost the light in my eyes? Shouldn't I just be happy that Alan is happy? Doesn't he deserve a bit of happiness? Hmmm, well... No. Because did I mention this film was boring?
This is completely down to the plot. The idea of sending Alan to a funny farm and getting intercepted by some cons along the way is a funny one. The execution? Not so much. How little I cared that they were all connected to the previous insanity, sorry Black Doug, sorry John Goodman. Then the ensuing plot just felt like an escalation, but not in a funny way, it was just a shapeless mass of moving around and not really getting anywhere, mainly because you knew any situation the trio got into would be solved to some degree because, hey there's another hour of film to go, god help me. You knew they'd all be fine, therefore not an ounce of drama, or an inch to care about. It's blatantly obvious regardless of what happens in-between there would be a happy ending, a completely unearned one.
Bradley Cooper, I love you, but get out. Ed Helms, with those glasses you almost look hotter than Bradley Cooper, especially with that sweaty shirt, I ogled the pair of you for lack of anything else to do, go figure, it was more fun.
The funniest part for me, was Chang singing 'I Believe I Can Fly' whilst floating along on a parachute. Another part completely ruined by the trailers. Why did that make me laugh and not the line about cocaine? (I know, haha line.) Because it was actually funny and not at someone's expense, it was just him having a strangely good time. Bah! I don't want comedy where everyone just hugs and gets along, I love black humour, tar black. This wasn't that, it was just people trying to be funny by saying cruel things, oh and a whole mess of gay jokes. Because that's funny. I can't describe how unfunny this film was, it's irritating.
Basically, watch the trailer, do not waste your precious time watching this film; you would basically being indulging a bunch of spoilt little boys.
*I am aware that Ken Jeong's character is actually called Mr Chow in this film, he will always be Chang to me. The guy is Korean and making a name for himself playing Chinese characters, Hollywood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)