I think that's the title, I can't be sure... The more I think about the film the less I want to think about it, does this make sense? This movie didn't make much sense... But what was oddly thrilling was that it didn't feel the need to really explain itself too much, sure there was plenty of expository dialogue but there was a whole mess of things the film expected you to keep up with and be aware of. In many ways I admired this film mostly because of the way it blatantly just went about with it's business and didn't stop to allow you much time to really think, because to be honest, it was so damn entertaining. If I stop now and think about the plot holes, the missed explanations, of which there are many, it may irritate me slightly... But for the most part I enjoyed what was happening on the screen so much I didn't care about the leaps in logic, the glossing over and such. Does that make it a good film? I can't really say, the fact I'm willing to say I enjoyed it even though I usually pick at the details until the whole film unravels and loses it's appeal over time is quite telling.
Stand out parts of the film are the way it utilises it's actors, the characters get some short shrift (Ian McKellen for instance does painfully little) but with what they get, it feels like for the ones that count, they get their moments. The core three from the past, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy and Jennifer Lawrence, all great actors, get their moments to flex their acting muscles, Fassbender as ever proving he can be intense and menacing without breaking a sweat but also perpetually charming. Then there's the core three of the veterans, McKellen, Stewart and Hugh Jackman, all providing a backbone and some gravitas to proceedings, all the rest are just add colour, some get more than others Nicholas Hoult for instance gets to play Hank McCoy but still have such a slight role, then Halle Berry literally does so little it's embarrassing, Ellen Page turns up too as one of my favourite mutants with her expanding (yet unexplained) powers, and hints at a Shadowcat/Colossus union are stoked ever so slightly, the fact that they are on screen together pleases me.
Not even mentioning the bit part Quicksilver plays in the film, turning up, stealing the show and essentially disappearing. Now for some complex manouvering which will never make sense to me, Aaron Taylor-Johnson will be playing this character in Avengers 2 with his Godzilla wifey Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch, for some reason I was more excited about seeing the latter's portrayal; with zero expectations I was thoroughly entertained by Evan Peter's performance, as with most of the film, but that kid got some of the loudest laughs in the cinema and had one of the best scenes, rearranging some bullets to hilarious effect. Maybe Mr Johnson will surprise me but after the charisma he brought to Godzilla - an entirely different tone I'll grant, also he'll have a totally different characterisation of course, but at this moment there was a light fun energy to Quicksilver that I don't think can be matched. Basically Aaron has a tough act to follow, no lies, they were inviting comparisons when they both used the same character.
Getting to the film, as I say, the more I write, the more I think about it, the less sense the film made and the more angry I get about the continuity but that's not what the film was about it. It was consistently entertaining and did the whole, let's reset all those past mistakes with a big eraser, rather than just rebooting the whole damn franchise. I admire that, and I also respect that they wished to at least to maintain some semblance of a history as time goes on. Messing with the continuity makes things a bit muddy, but it's satisfying to know as they build this tapestry of films, it's all connected somehow and it feels more organic and more of a franchise than the Marvel Universe that is being built. This has been going on 15 years and it still feels exciting and fun and we are still with the same, core bunch of characters having the same battles, but it's still feeling fresh and entertaining without drastically changing the tone or the message of the series, plus it respects it's audience enough for them to not have to explain itself. I like that, and I'm genuinely surprised by how much I liked this film.
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
Godzilla
If the Halo jump had been the entire film, it would have been the best film I'd ever seen, hands down. As it stands, it was a good film, but the theatrical trailer has outdone it in mood and atmosphere, the two hour film doesn't quite sustain the sheer thrill and exhilaration on that initial viewing of the two minute trailer with Strathairn narrating and the gradual reveal of the beast. How can you genuinely expect to top that? It would appear you can't. What makes the whole thing sore is that the sequence is obviously included in the film but it just didn't have that same impact, perhaps because I'd already seen it a whole bunch of times, perhaps because Strathairn didn't do his voice-over (I hate voice-overs anyway but it felt lacking suddenly...) but also, it just felt slightly out of place. That's my complaint about this movie, the trailer was incredible, the rest was, ok. I could pick at it for a long while.
I admire this film for various reasons and they are particularly good reasons. For instance, it is predominantly set from a human perspective, in fact it just piles on the human impact of the film, it's relentless in trying to make us feel like we're living this film. What kind of fails is the fact that the characters (aside from Bryan Cranston who I'll get to later) are all so slight and hard to care about. They tried to make us care, they gave us such easy people to root for, but they didn't feel like people, just ciphers there to be dropped in on to remind us that there are people about. Other films have done this terribly and Godzilla for it's merits has a good go at making the core set sympathetic, but for such an amazing pedigree of actors, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Ken Wantanabe, Elizabeth Olsen etc, they aren't particularly memorable or noteworthy but they work with what they're given. This is excluding Aaron Johnson who I really want to like (he was great in Kickass...) but is completely stoic throughout the film, call it PTSD, military training, but he is a complete wall with an unchanging expression throughout, he's damn hard to care about, it's actually embarrassing sometimes... Then there's Cranston who genuinely steals every scene he is in, he pours himself into his character and just proves to anyone watching he is a beyond excellent actor, the man chews the scenery like no one's business but he is unmistakeably in an upper stratosphere when it comes to acting.
Going back to the human perspective, not enough films of this ilk actually make us feel like we are part of the action, like there are human lives at stake.All the big set pieces do their utmost to give us the impression that this could be happening in a world not unlike ours. I really admired that about the film, that spent so much time and effort obscuring the beasts in order to add to the confusion and fear. It's clever and not oft done, if we wanted to see giant things punching each other we'd watch a different movie (Pacific Rim because it's awesome...)
There is also a respect for the history of Godzilla and a wide, global scope, as the film stretches across the Pacific spreading the threat and the action. It seems to have a deep respect and understanding of what the original 1954 movie was trying to say, Godzilla at the time being a metaphor for the nuclear threat that loomed over the world after the affects of the atomic bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It briefly reflects on that, even going as far as having Wantanabe referencing his father, and having the same name as the protagonist from the original. Obviously the film doesn't play up the currently global anxieties of nuclear warfare as they aren't as predominant but I appreciated the respect the film paid to it's own history.
What is worrying is that I was thinking all this during the film; a bad sign I felt as time wore on. The film is neatly structured with the bulk of the monster action taking place in the last half and, as ever, focussing less on the monsters grappling, and more on how people were reacting to it. Godzilla, damn, he was impressive, a labour of love if I ever saw one, he looks truly magnificent, I've gone back and forth on how I felt about the MUTOs, I couldn't determine if they were lame or impressive, I was cycling back and forth, obviously we're rooting for Godzilla and I cared more for him than anyone else in the film, but those two big fellow chaps just weren't as impressive; the fights were, what we saw of them, fun for the brief punches and grapples we were entitled to see.
So there you have it, a film I was genuinely excited to see, that had so much potential and promise summed up in a trailer that gave me literal goosebumps; in the end it just didn't quite cut the mustard, it was a good film, a different film, technically interesting, but as far as balls out entertaining or memorable goes, I can't say it was.
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Frank
So here's a new film which is very much worth seeing for many reasons, it's an odd mish-mash but it provides some food for thought and thoroughly entertaining. For one it uses the influence of Frank Sidebottom, a character of popularity during the 80s, my knowledge of him is brief but it was essentially a mancunian man with a plastic head who played keyboard terribly and sang awkwardly and became a cult figure. This film may be called Frank and it may have his recognisable guise as the central figure but this is not a film about Frank Sidebottom, it's a film about a different Frank, a different time and a different person under the plastic head (spoiler, it's Michael Fassbender.) This is important to note going into the film, it may seem like a fun film, with a weird chap making weird music with his buds and acting crazy, it might sound like a comedy but it's not as simple as that, it's more. It's a meditation on talent, media, mental illness, it's derives some humour from that but it's film with an extremely sad and melancholy core. I loved this film.
Some parts, if I were being picky were a bit irksome, it's hard to paint a picture of mental health very delicately on film, but broad strokes are difficult to define such complex issues so the film gives us outlines of these people and their issues but does not strain itself trying to fill in all the minor details. I understand this is a difficult thing to achieve in a film of such a short running time and there is much more going on, the action of the film. A meditation on mental health is not something that would slot neatly into any film, it's there for humour and pathos and drives the film but it all just feels superficial but I won't complain too much. The film is good on so many other levels.
I can't believe I've gotten so far without mentioning the best part of the film, the thing that holds everything together. Domhnall Gleeson, the shining beacon which made About Time not only watchable but on occasion downright delightful, sure he has the beautiful Rachel McAdams standing next to him but it was his film and he was brilliant. He also had a couple of other parts such as Levin (the best character obv) in Joe Wright's Anna Karenina and a bit part in the last Harry Potter Film (which I didn't bother seeing...) but most importantly he piqued my interest starring opposite Hayley Atwell in a heart breaking Black Mirror episode (Be Right Back) and absolutely nailed it. Therefore he has my utmost regard and interest - him along with Dane DeHaan are my ones to watch if anyone gives a shit, obviously I will follow Fassbender to the ends of the earth... He is essentially fronting this film, it's more his film than anyone else's and sure being the straight guy, eyes of the audience, main character, is a tough role to play because to cap it off, not going to lie, the guy is a total dick, but Gleeson has a charm about him that kind of makes his wet blanket loser relate-able. Ok, perhaps I'm being harsh on the guy, to be honest, he's just a normal idiot with no discernible talents but a desire to more than he is. It's a tough one.
Lots of people just coast through life without actually knowing or fulfilling their potential, sure we could all say we want to be famous and recognised and admired for our passions but life never usually works out that way. What the crazy people in this film seem to grasp is that life isn't about the fame and admiration, it's about doing what you love and doing it how you want to do it without pandering to anyone else. It's a human anathema that we wish to be liked, I don't give a shit if you disagree with me, it's the truth, everyone deep down wants to be loved, or liked, that's why we have family, friends, and in this day and age, Facebook, come on, even the word 'like' has become synonymous with some kind of achievement, because being liked is more important than ever in this day and age, not only is it built into our subconscious, now it's built into our society. Frank the film is essentially pointing at media of the modern age and music and talent and smushing them together to make some kind of statement, it's a sad one.
What I've learnt from this film is, talent is something you just have, if you don't have it, you either have to work really hard or you try something else, everything else, until you find something you can do and that you're good at and that makes you happy. And hey if you're not talented but something makes you happy, you just keep plugging away at it - just don't expect any awards. It's a fine line. Being good at something and enjoying something don't have to necessarily be the same thing. If you're bad at something (say for instance, critiquing films on a blog) but you enjoy doing it, just keep doing it, and don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.
Then there's the media thing which basically, this film just makes out to be generally a bit of a hollow lie for the most part but also has it's uses, which is kind of true. Views on a youtube page don't equate to much, followers on your twitter feed don't mean shit, life is happening around you and it's much more fun than quantifying your popularity on social media! (I say this because if it's not obvious, I have no real presence on social media...) It has it's uses and it comes in handy in the latter half of the film but for the most part, as with everything, take in moderation kids!
As always I've dove straight into the boring stuff, you want to know if the film is actually any good; it is, I loved it. The humour is straight up black served in a line of shots, it can get deliriously awkward but it works for the tone of the film which is about damaged people through the perspective of something who is so straight up normal and boring the clash continues to pay dividends (stocks and shares speak, oh yeah!)
I could go on for ages about this film, I won't bore you though. I loved it and I didn't even mention how Michael Fassbender is essentially a walking Adonis even with a fibre glass head. Also boy can he sing... Maybe I was enticed too much by the film but I thought his music was fucking great, I would listen to that album! Fassbender has the ability to look like a world of sorrow is crushing him, he can pull that face off like no one's business, he can just look like sorrow personified and it's amazing, I almost feel like applauding and yell ACTING (in appreciation not mockery) whenever he does (he deserves all the awards.) But this might be one of my favourite roles of his predominantly because he is actually amazingly good at acting with a big round head on top of his head. I will stop now though. This film is great. Go see it. Now.
Some parts, if I were being picky were a bit irksome, it's hard to paint a picture of mental health very delicately on film, but broad strokes are difficult to define such complex issues so the film gives us outlines of these people and their issues but does not strain itself trying to fill in all the minor details. I understand this is a difficult thing to achieve in a film of such a short running time and there is much more going on, the action of the film. A meditation on mental health is not something that would slot neatly into any film, it's there for humour and pathos and drives the film but it all just feels superficial but I won't complain too much. The film is good on so many other levels.
I can't believe I've gotten so far without mentioning the best part of the film, the thing that holds everything together. Domhnall Gleeson, the shining beacon which made About Time not only watchable but on occasion downright delightful, sure he has the beautiful Rachel McAdams standing next to him but it was his film and he was brilliant. He also had a couple of other parts such as Levin (the best character obv) in Joe Wright's Anna Karenina and a bit part in the last Harry Potter Film (which I didn't bother seeing...) but most importantly he piqued my interest starring opposite Hayley Atwell in a heart breaking Black Mirror episode (Be Right Back) and absolutely nailed it. Therefore he has my utmost regard and interest - him along with Dane DeHaan are my ones to watch if anyone gives a shit, obviously I will follow Fassbender to the ends of the earth... He is essentially fronting this film, it's more his film than anyone else's and sure being the straight guy, eyes of the audience, main character, is a tough role to play because to cap it off, not going to lie, the guy is a total dick, but Gleeson has a charm about him that kind of makes his wet blanket loser relate-able. Ok, perhaps I'm being harsh on the guy, to be honest, he's just a normal idiot with no discernible talents but a desire to more than he is. It's a tough one.
Lots of people just coast through life without actually knowing or fulfilling their potential, sure we could all say we want to be famous and recognised and admired for our passions but life never usually works out that way. What the crazy people in this film seem to grasp is that life isn't about the fame and admiration, it's about doing what you love and doing it how you want to do it without pandering to anyone else. It's a human anathema that we wish to be liked, I don't give a shit if you disagree with me, it's the truth, everyone deep down wants to be loved, or liked, that's why we have family, friends, and in this day and age, Facebook, come on, even the word 'like' has become synonymous with some kind of achievement, because being liked is more important than ever in this day and age, not only is it built into our subconscious, now it's built into our society. Frank the film is essentially pointing at media of the modern age and music and talent and smushing them together to make some kind of statement, it's a sad one.
What I've learnt from this film is, talent is something you just have, if you don't have it, you either have to work really hard or you try something else, everything else, until you find something you can do and that you're good at and that makes you happy. And hey if you're not talented but something makes you happy, you just keep plugging away at it - just don't expect any awards. It's a fine line. Being good at something and enjoying something don't have to necessarily be the same thing. If you're bad at something (say for instance, critiquing films on a blog) but you enjoy doing it, just keep doing it, and don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.
Then there's the media thing which basically, this film just makes out to be generally a bit of a hollow lie for the most part but also has it's uses, which is kind of true. Views on a youtube page don't equate to much, followers on your twitter feed don't mean shit, life is happening around you and it's much more fun than quantifying your popularity on social media! (I say this because if it's not obvious, I have no real presence on social media...) It has it's uses and it comes in handy in the latter half of the film but for the most part, as with everything, take in moderation kids!
As always I've dove straight into the boring stuff, you want to know if the film is actually any good; it is, I loved it. The humour is straight up black served in a line of shots, it can get deliriously awkward but it works for the tone of the film which is about damaged people through the perspective of something who is so straight up normal and boring the clash continues to pay dividends (stocks and shares speak, oh yeah!)
I could go on for ages about this film, I won't bore you though. I loved it and I didn't even mention how Michael Fassbender is essentially a walking Adonis even with a fibre glass head. Also boy can he sing... Maybe I was enticed too much by the film but I thought his music was fucking great, I would listen to that album! Fassbender has the ability to look like a world of sorrow is crushing him, he can pull that face off like no one's business, he can just look like sorrow personified and it's amazing, I almost feel like applauding and yell ACTING (in appreciation not mockery) whenever he does (he deserves all the awards.) But this might be one of my favourite roles of his predominantly because he is actually amazingly good at acting with a big round head on top of his head. I will stop now though. This film is great. Go see it. Now.
Sunday, 16 March 2014
Under the Skin
I have so much I really want to say about this film but I'm also concious that I really don't want to spoil the impact of watching it would have on someone. I doubt a title has ever been so apt for a film as I genuinely can't get it out my head, it's literally one of the most mind-bogglingly amazing films I've ever seen. I highly doubted cinema could shock me any more but I stand firmly corrected.
What makes this film so beyond any expectation is just how confident and aloof it presents itself, much like it's protagonist. It's has elements of serious sci-fi to it but then a lot of it is shot in real life Glasgow almost candidly with real life members of the public making up the majority of the faces in the film. It has reality to it which is so familiar but then it plunges us into horrifying yet visually mesmerising unknown. I am genuinely beyond impressed by the presentation of the film. Even the candid scenes with members of the public have a filmic quality to them, it seems like a cheap film to have made but everything feels and looks much more, the music and sound effects enhance it all, sure the soundtrack may come off a bit heavy on the retro sci-fi sounds but it all works so well.
I am anxious to go into detail about this but I'll start with the most magnetic element. Scarlett Johansson, her performance has been cited as iconic, I think that pretty much sums it up. If you go in knowing the basic premise of the film like I did, I think it might have lost some of it's sheen but knowing and understanding where this character is coming from feels important. Scarlett is trussed up in a black wig, cheap fur and red lipstick, she still manages to look otherworldly attractive with a core aspect of this film, she is meant to appear this way even in her tacky ensemble, she still looks devastatingly attractive. This beauty combined with the candid shots of her driving around Glasgow in a white van asking men for directions gives the film a strange anchor in reality.
I really feel somewhat protective of this film, like I don't want to ruin it's alluring mystique... An aspect I adored, was the fact the film has zero exposition, it never stops to explain why and yet it covers all the burning questions I have in my mind. This is all hinged upon Scarlett's performance which is, as I've mentioned greatly helped by her alien-like beauty, but also her ability to convey emotions without even the capability of expressing herself, learning as she goes. She is simply magnetic.
It's probably worth saying now, the core plot of the film, obviously look away if you want to enter the film with zero knowledge of the plot.
The plot of the film is that Scarlett is an alien, as far as I can tell, she seduces men, whilst driving around Glasgow in her white van, and takes them to be essentially farmed for their meat. At a certain point in the film (a heartbreaking part among several...) she breaks away from her role and tries to discover her humanity, if she has any. This is all set in Scotland, which is experiencing it's own identity crisis at the minute which the film light touches on by having a brief radio report mention the referendum taking place this year, I thought it was a nice touch. The film shows us the realities and beauty of modern Scotland, it feels so much like my back-yard it's unnerving... Then Scarlett has a guy on a motorcycle who I'm assuming is her guard/watcher who's purpose is to bring her to being and make sure her job is done properly and unimpeded. There's so much that is left unsaid but it feels like a completely coherent and chilling. There were points in the film where I genuinely was scared, I don't get that nowadays. Funnily enough the film was based on a book written by a 14 year old boy, when it's based it seems so loose because from what I heard of the book I doubt it could ever match the visceral intensity of this film.
This film is simply amazing, iconic, unforgettable.
What makes this film so beyond any expectation is just how confident and aloof it presents itself, much like it's protagonist. It's has elements of serious sci-fi to it but then a lot of it is shot in real life Glasgow almost candidly with real life members of the public making up the majority of the faces in the film. It has reality to it which is so familiar but then it plunges us into horrifying yet visually mesmerising unknown. I am genuinely beyond impressed by the presentation of the film. Even the candid scenes with members of the public have a filmic quality to them, it seems like a cheap film to have made but everything feels and looks much more, the music and sound effects enhance it all, sure the soundtrack may come off a bit heavy on the retro sci-fi sounds but it all works so well.
I am anxious to go into detail about this but I'll start with the most magnetic element. Scarlett Johansson, her performance has been cited as iconic, I think that pretty much sums it up. If you go in knowing the basic premise of the film like I did, I think it might have lost some of it's sheen but knowing and understanding where this character is coming from feels important. Scarlett is trussed up in a black wig, cheap fur and red lipstick, she still manages to look otherworldly attractive with a core aspect of this film, she is meant to appear this way even in her tacky ensemble, she still looks devastatingly attractive. This beauty combined with the candid shots of her driving around Glasgow in a white van asking men for directions gives the film a strange anchor in reality.
I really feel somewhat protective of this film, like I don't want to ruin it's alluring mystique... An aspect I adored, was the fact the film has zero exposition, it never stops to explain why and yet it covers all the burning questions I have in my mind. This is all hinged upon Scarlett's performance which is, as I've mentioned greatly helped by her alien-like beauty, but also her ability to convey emotions without even the capability of expressing herself, learning as she goes. She is simply magnetic.
It's probably worth saying now, the core plot of the film, obviously look away if you want to enter the film with zero knowledge of the plot.
The plot of the film is that Scarlett is an alien, as far as I can tell, she seduces men, whilst driving around Glasgow in her white van, and takes them to be essentially farmed for their meat. At a certain point in the film (a heartbreaking part among several...) she breaks away from her role and tries to discover her humanity, if she has any. This is all set in Scotland, which is experiencing it's own identity crisis at the minute which the film light touches on by having a brief radio report mention the referendum taking place this year, I thought it was a nice touch. The film shows us the realities and beauty of modern Scotland, it feels so much like my back-yard it's unnerving... Then Scarlett has a guy on a motorcycle who I'm assuming is her guard/watcher who's purpose is to bring her to being and make sure her job is done properly and unimpeded. There's so much that is left unsaid but it feels like a completely coherent and chilling. There were points in the film where I genuinely was scared, I don't get that nowadays. Funnily enough the film was based on a book written by a 14 year old boy, when it's based it seems so loose because from what I heard of the book I doubt it could ever match the visceral intensity of this film.
This film is simply amazing, iconic, unforgettable.
Thursday, 13 March 2014
Philomena
Oh man this was a strange one, it's the most middle-class film I've seen in the longest time but it stirred some strange emotions within me, worryingly not all of them were good, not in a, 'Oh that's sad.' sensation as I do like that, but it was more indignant, anger, it kind of curdled what was a pleasant film.
First and first most, I have endless respect for Steve Coogan, I think he's an excellent talented man and I love this film for many reasons, but there are some aspects I understand that were emphasised for dramatic purposes; it's based off the real life story of Philomena Lee and her search for her son with the help of Henry Sixsmith. I get it, lord do I get the importance of making a movie of real life more enthralling than the rigours of reality, the joy of Philomena is that it does quite wonderfully with broad strokes even if some of them feel a little bit cheap.
I highly doubt anyone else in the whole world could have brought as much warmth and joy to a character as Judi Dench, the film essentially hinges on her being wholly sympathetic and she manages it so well even whilst she is clearly grappling with some difficult emotions. But hell, you can't just go about giving Judi Dench all the awards all the time, it just wouldn't be fair on anyone else. In my head though I just kept thinking of her most recent high profile role, M in the James Bond series, it was boggling my mind, 'It's the same woman!' That badass who wouldn't take non of Bond's shit is now reciting the plot to what I can only assume is the latest Mills & Boon, I can't say I wouldn't love to listen to her doing that all day, it's strangely pleasant, plus she sounds so thrilled by the formulaic twists. Now some would say that they are simply using Philomena's naivete at her expense but I think it was just a neat way of depicting how she still finds joy in the world even at her age, and it's there to be a stark comparison to Sixsmith who is essentially a dick-head throughout most of the film with flashes of humanity; I'll let him off, after all he is the catalyst for all this. Speaking of which, it's probably unpopular opinion but this is my favourite of Coogan's performances in a long time (yup that includes Alan Partride) mostly because he manages to make me feel sympathetic for his character, only slightly but it's there, he has good intentions, he just has a few bad habits which middle-aged upper middle class British men seem to all have imbued within them - this doesn't make him a stereotype, it makes him familiar. Plus the film makes a great attempt at putting the two at odds with eachother teasing the best out of them and acknowledging their wholly human frailties. It's a lovely character piece to say the least and it moves along at a healthy clip managing to be both time efficient and heart warming, what more could you want?
Where the film inevitably falls down is it's handling of religion. Oh yes, that hot topic, the one that most people as far I'm aware, in our civilised clued up land of post-modernity, acknowledge as archaic and unimportant in the world, the vestige of a world of thought long extinct. Yet of course religion is the driving force behind some of the worst sins in this world, the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and it's clergy, the assumption that Muslims are all suicide bombers, fanatics who use the Qu'ran to legitimise their violence, the use of the Christian Bibles to prevent women from civil rights such as abortion and birth control, people thanking God for their good fortune and blaming the same power for destruction and pain in this world. Atheism is as much a religion as anything else if you are to believe Dawkins and his ilk. Most people day to day that I spend my time with disregard religion, it's something that's not spoken of, just derided above all. It's probably indecent of me to even mention this, but my belief or search for God is a long story, not particularly exciting or unique. As with most people, when all hope is lost, I turned to religion to try and fill a hole in my life that had been there since being educated in a Roman Catholic environment, I was indoctrinated from a young age. I know my New Testament, I know the hymns and believe me when I say this, there is a feeling unparalleled when singing along to words written by long dead believers citing historical fables as the key to salvation, it has a kind of fervour to it but it feels like it's mining a seam of something deeper, some feeling that is often forgotten, spirituality.
Oh, I sound all hokey, next I'll believe in homoeopathy and witchcraft. Nope, I'm a rational human being I like to think, I don't disregard science, I accept it and the necessities of evil in this world along with all that happens by chance, particles randomly ramming into each other etc. In my mind the Bible can be summed up in a simple statement, in fact all of the core religions in this world, the big six, have one unifying rule I believe we should all follow, the golden rule: 'Do unto others as you have them do unto you.' If people just did that and ignored the rest, well I reckon the world would be much easier, and that's a rule religion has long since the dawn of time championed, among other more specific stuff at the time they were written... But many scholars over the years have spent years reading and writing and thinking and writing and reading and meditating on biblical texts and have written reams on the core meaning of it all, and that's what a lot of them decided upon. Here's where I stand on my soap box and declare something even more inappropriate, I think there is a God, at least in some way. I stand by the belief that may seem quite atheistic but it nonetheless accurate, 'God made man and man made God.' That was a necessity in the past, people were plugging gaps in their knowledge, creating myths to follow to give reason to a world of chaos, making rituals to follow to maintain order. I think deep down, all humans, whether it's biological or evolution, have something inside them, something that's not necessarily seen with the eye, as much as they have the ability to acknowledge their existence, their propensity to live and die, they also have the ability to question the existence of a soul, deep deep down there is something inside them that makes them believe in the possibility of the divine. Is this even making sense? I'm not saying everyone is born deep down with a religious fervour, although it could be that, it could be the willingness to believe in the unknown, to feel something more is out there. I'll grant a lot of us have the knowledge that we are mounds of dust on a rock hanging in endless ether, not that most people let that bother them, some might not have a deep down spiritual sensation, perhaps that too is becoming extinct, perhaps it'll be bred out of us as less and less of us believe, or maybe young children are forced to believe from a young age and know no better (I'm aware that's the most likely option)... But I think that ability to believe in God, in the unknown, the breast beating sensation I experience when singing hymns and look at high vaulted ceilings and stained glass windows, I think that in itself is God. Sure that doesn't sound very convincing, a quirk of the brain, an unsubstantiated belief in the divine, or something implanted into our subconscious from a young age, that's God? That's just stupid. Well you never asked for my opinion, and I never asked for you to read it, it just is what it is; another one of those things in this world that exists, my belief in something somewhere in this world that is more than a sum of it's parts. It means something to me. I spent years looking for an answer trying to puzzle out that sensation of God and maybe that's my wound to cauterise but it's something I will most likely never stop searching for or at least believing in on some level, a mostly hidden unspoken of belief.
Which brings me to Philomena's somewhat guileless handling of the nunnery Philomena's son was taken from. I don't know the whole story so I don't pretend to know what it was that happened but the way the story pretty much flat out depicted the nuns as straight up 'evil' just seemed really unnecessary. I understand the film is poking fun at the fact that a story, a good one that grabs people's interest at least, has good and evil. The film needs a villain and it finds that in the Catholic church, big surprise; it was horrific what they did but sometimes in life, things just happen, life just trundles along and there are no reasons or explanations, life is just cruel like that. It works thematically for the film to have Philomena and Sixsmith to have their big emotional moment with something to put them at odds and present a comparison of their characters, it couldn't just be life being it usual intransigent self... I just didn't like the way they handled the nuns.
So after my big rambling intercourse on my own feelings behind God and the divine, what have I taken from this movie apart from my soap box? Uhmmm. I really liked how truly unparalleled Judi Dench is an actress and how Steve Coogan continues to impress me in his less comedic roles. Also the writing was good and it worked it just didn't need evil nuns, it could have done anything but had evil nuns; it's too easy to have evil religious types in this day and age, think outside the box chaps. It essentially ruined what could have been a heart warming interesting 'human interest' tale.
First and first most, I have endless respect for Steve Coogan, I think he's an excellent talented man and I love this film for many reasons, but there are some aspects I understand that were emphasised for dramatic purposes; it's based off the real life story of Philomena Lee and her search for her son with the help of Henry Sixsmith. I get it, lord do I get the importance of making a movie of real life more enthralling than the rigours of reality, the joy of Philomena is that it does quite wonderfully with broad strokes even if some of them feel a little bit cheap.
I highly doubt anyone else in the whole world could have brought as much warmth and joy to a character as Judi Dench, the film essentially hinges on her being wholly sympathetic and she manages it so well even whilst she is clearly grappling with some difficult emotions. But hell, you can't just go about giving Judi Dench all the awards all the time, it just wouldn't be fair on anyone else. In my head though I just kept thinking of her most recent high profile role, M in the James Bond series, it was boggling my mind, 'It's the same woman!' That badass who wouldn't take non of Bond's shit is now reciting the plot to what I can only assume is the latest Mills & Boon, I can't say I wouldn't love to listen to her doing that all day, it's strangely pleasant, plus she sounds so thrilled by the formulaic twists. Now some would say that they are simply using Philomena's naivete at her expense but I think it was just a neat way of depicting how she still finds joy in the world even at her age, and it's there to be a stark comparison to Sixsmith who is essentially a dick-head throughout most of the film with flashes of humanity; I'll let him off, after all he is the catalyst for all this. Speaking of which, it's probably unpopular opinion but this is my favourite of Coogan's performances in a long time (yup that includes Alan Partride) mostly because he manages to make me feel sympathetic for his character, only slightly but it's there, he has good intentions, he just has a few bad habits which middle-aged upper middle class British men seem to all have imbued within them - this doesn't make him a stereotype, it makes him familiar. Plus the film makes a great attempt at putting the two at odds with eachother teasing the best out of them and acknowledging their wholly human frailties. It's a lovely character piece to say the least and it moves along at a healthy clip managing to be both time efficient and heart warming, what more could you want?
Where the film inevitably falls down is it's handling of religion. Oh yes, that hot topic, the one that most people as far I'm aware, in our civilised clued up land of post-modernity, acknowledge as archaic and unimportant in the world, the vestige of a world of thought long extinct. Yet of course religion is the driving force behind some of the worst sins in this world, the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and it's clergy, the assumption that Muslims are all suicide bombers, fanatics who use the Qu'ran to legitimise their violence, the use of the Christian Bibles to prevent women from civil rights such as abortion and birth control, people thanking God for their good fortune and blaming the same power for destruction and pain in this world. Atheism is as much a religion as anything else if you are to believe Dawkins and his ilk. Most people day to day that I spend my time with disregard religion, it's something that's not spoken of, just derided above all. It's probably indecent of me to even mention this, but my belief or search for God is a long story, not particularly exciting or unique. As with most people, when all hope is lost, I turned to religion to try and fill a hole in my life that had been there since being educated in a Roman Catholic environment, I was indoctrinated from a young age. I know my New Testament, I know the hymns and believe me when I say this, there is a feeling unparalleled when singing along to words written by long dead believers citing historical fables as the key to salvation, it has a kind of fervour to it but it feels like it's mining a seam of something deeper, some feeling that is often forgotten, spirituality.
Oh, I sound all hokey, next I'll believe in homoeopathy and witchcraft. Nope, I'm a rational human being I like to think, I don't disregard science, I accept it and the necessities of evil in this world along with all that happens by chance, particles randomly ramming into each other etc. In my mind the Bible can be summed up in a simple statement, in fact all of the core religions in this world, the big six, have one unifying rule I believe we should all follow, the golden rule: 'Do unto others as you have them do unto you.' If people just did that and ignored the rest, well I reckon the world would be much easier, and that's a rule religion has long since the dawn of time championed, among other more specific stuff at the time they were written... But many scholars over the years have spent years reading and writing and thinking and writing and reading and meditating on biblical texts and have written reams on the core meaning of it all, and that's what a lot of them decided upon. Here's where I stand on my soap box and declare something even more inappropriate, I think there is a God, at least in some way. I stand by the belief that may seem quite atheistic but it nonetheless accurate, 'God made man and man made God.' That was a necessity in the past, people were plugging gaps in their knowledge, creating myths to follow to give reason to a world of chaos, making rituals to follow to maintain order. I think deep down, all humans, whether it's biological or evolution, have something inside them, something that's not necessarily seen with the eye, as much as they have the ability to acknowledge their existence, their propensity to live and die, they also have the ability to question the existence of a soul, deep deep down there is something inside them that makes them believe in the possibility of the divine. Is this even making sense? I'm not saying everyone is born deep down with a religious fervour, although it could be that, it could be the willingness to believe in the unknown, to feel something more is out there. I'll grant a lot of us have the knowledge that we are mounds of dust on a rock hanging in endless ether, not that most people let that bother them, some might not have a deep down spiritual sensation, perhaps that too is becoming extinct, perhaps it'll be bred out of us as less and less of us believe, or maybe young children are forced to believe from a young age and know no better (I'm aware that's the most likely option)... But I think that ability to believe in God, in the unknown, the breast beating sensation I experience when singing hymns and look at high vaulted ceilings and stained glass windows, I think that in itself is God. Sure that doesn't sound very convincing, a quirk of the brain, an unsubstantiated belief in the divine, or something implanted into our subconscious from a young age, that's God? That's just stupid. Well you never asked for my opinion, and I never asked for you to read it, it just is what it is; another one of those things in this world that exists, my belief in something somewhere in this world that is more than a sum of it's parts. It means something to me. I spent years looking for an answer trying to puzzle out that sensation of God and maybe that's my wound to cauterise but it's something I will most likely never stop searching for or at least believing in on some level, a mostly hidden unspoken of belief.
Which brings me to Philomena's somewhat guileless handling of the nunnery Philomena's son was taken from. I don't know the whole story so I don't pretend to know what it was that happened but the way the story pretty much flat out depicted the nuns as straight up 'evil' just seemed really unnecessary. I understand the film is poking fun at the fact that a story, a good one that grabs people's interest at least, has good and evil. The film needs a villain and it finds that in the Catholic church, big surprise; it was horrific what they did but sometimes in life, things just happen, life just trundles along and there are no reasons or explanations, life is just cruel like that. It works thematically for the film to have Philomena and Sixsmith to have their big emotional moment with something to put them at odds and present a comparison of their characters, it couldn't just be life being it usual intransigent self... I just didn't like the way they handled the nuns.
So after my big rambling intercourse on my own feelings behind God and the divine, what have I taken from this movie apart from my soap box? Uhmmm. I really liked how truly unparalleled Judi Dench is an actress and how Steve Coogan continues to impress me in his less comedic roles. Also the writing was good and it worked it just didn't need evil nuns, it could have done anything but had evil nuns; it's too easy to have evil religious types in this day and age, think outside the box chaps. It essentially ruined what could have been a heart warming interesting 'human interest' tale.
Saturday, 8 March 2014
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Wes Anderson films always provide me with an unparalleled sense of joy. Not just because they are meticulously crafted, visually stunning, heart-warming and quirky, but because without a doubt they are always damn good films. I know I was late to see Moonrise Kingdom and for my sins that was rectified by multiple viewings... But I have to say, out of Anderson's work The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to have eked out all that have come before it just by being flat out dazzling the time round. Rushmore is my favourite Anderson film (mostly because Bill Murray is pretty much perfect in it I could write essays about why) but that took a long time to appreciate, multiple viewings to truly understand the depth and attention to detail imbued within the film. Where the underlying aspects of TGBH might take more viewings, at this moment, for sheer entertainment, it is joyful.
I doubt Anderson has ever been so outright funny, which is tempered by the melancholy of the fact the core story is set in the past and the outcome is presented to us from the very start. A Wes Anderson film is never just one thing, I could describe it as a caper, but it could also be a mystery (although it's kind of obvious who has done what...) it could also be the closest Wes Anderson may ever get to a 'thriller', it's ostensibly a comedy but it's so many things all rolled into one with homages I probably couldn't even begin to recognise because as is usual, they are all so elegant.
If we were to stand by the assumption the film is first and foremost a comedy then most of the humour comes from Ralph Fiennes unbelievably outstanding performance as M. Gustave, essentially the main and most important character. As an actor his most famous roles are Voldemort, Amon Goeth and M in the latest Bond film as well as his Shakespeare roles for which he has earned heaps of praise. Why has this man not done more comedy? He is sublime in this role, it works so well for him? Sure I spent half the film laughing every time he said 'fuck' or any other swear word, or mentioned his sexual exploits or basically said anything, even his poetry is deliciously demented; I'll grant the film may almost over-abuse the hilarity of having Ralph Fiennes breaking his upper-crust exterior and swearing like a posh sailor a little too often but it just works so delightfully well and it just never gets old.
I wouldn't want to go into how much I love this film through fear of basically recounting every scene, and I must stress every single shot of this film is beautifully thought out and symmetrical, and perfect to observe. Every colour, every second has had so much thought and care lavished upon it and it's just so lovely to watch.
There is a distinct lack of innocence in the film and it's the most overtly sexual/violent of Anderson's work which makes it all the more shocking and unpredictable as events spiral out of control. There is murder, intrigue, a slew of familiar faces turning up - all of the usual suspects from Anderson's world, but also a few new faces who fit seamlessly into this universe, such as the young Zero, Gustave's protege and the beating heart of the story, special shout out to Lea Seydoux as the anxious French maid with a mincing little run, I hope she turns up again in a bigger role, she seems to be a perfect fit in Anderson's world. Then there is also the prison break (which was ridiculously elaborate and hilarious throughout) which was incredibly brilliant, not least because the brains behind the operation was a particularly intimidating inmate who was also a master artist who drew a perfect map but his prison tattoos (which covered his bare chest) looked like they'd been doodled by a thirteen year old girl; I don't know why but it's small unspoken flourishes like that which make Wes Anderson's world that much more fun to be in than reality... Whether the characters are breaking into poetry or insulting one another or stating the most dubious things or just flirting, it's all just so delightful.
With The Grand Budapest Hotel, if you can't find humour, warmth, excitement or a familiar melancholy, then you clearly aren't looking hard enough. This is film as is as close to perfection any form of entertainment could ever be; it transports you to a fictional beautiful world that is so like our own but just so much better, you won't ever want to leave.
I doubt Anderson has ever been so outright funny, which is tempered by the melancholy of the fact the core story is set in the past and the outcome is presented to us from the very start. A Wes Anderson film is never just one thing, I could describe it as a caper, but it could also be a mystery (although it's kind of obvious who has done what...) it could also be the closest Wes Anderson may ever get to a 'thriller', it's ostensibly a comedy but it's so many things all rolled into one with homages I probably couldn't even begin to recognise because as is usual, they are all so elegant.
If we were to stand by the assumption the film is first and foremost a comedy then most of the humour comes from Ralph Fiennes unbelievably outstanding performance as M. Gustave, essentially the main and most important character. As an actor his most famous roles are Voldemort, Amon Goeth and M in the latest Bond film as well as his Shakespeare roles for which he has earned heaps of praise. Why has this man not done more comedy? He is sublime in this role, it works so well for him? Sure I spent half the film laughing every time he said 'fuck' or any other swear word, or mentioned his sexual exploits or basically said anything, even his poetry is deliciously demented; I'll grant the film may almost over-abuse the hilarity of having Ralph Fiennes breaking his upper-crust exterior and swearing like a posh sailor a little too often but it just works so delightfully well and it just never gets old.
I wouldn't want to go into how much I love this film through fear of basically recounting every scene, and I must stress every single shot of this film is beautifully thought out and symmetrical, and perfect to observe. Every colour, every second has had so much thought and care lavished upon it and it's just so lovely to watch.
There is a distinct lack of innocence in the film and it's the most overtly sexual/violent of Anderson's work which makes it all the more shocking and unpredictable as events spiral out of control. There is murder, intrigue, a slew of familiar faces turning up - all of the usual suspects from Anderson's world, but also a few new faces who fit seamlessly into this universe, such as the young Zero, Gustave's protege and the beating heart of the story, special shout out to Lea Seydoux as the anxious French maid with a mincing little run, I hope she turns up again in a bigger role, she seems to be a perfect fit in Anderson's world. Then there is also the prison break (which was ridiculously elaborate and hilarious throughout) which was incredibly brilliant, not least because the brains behind the operation was a particularly intimidating inmate who was also a master artist who drew a perfect map but his prison tattoos (which covered his bare chest) looked like they'd been doodled by a thirteen year old girl; I don't know why but it's small unspoken flourishes like that which make Wes Anderson's world that much more fun to be in than reality... Whether the characters are breaking into poetry or insulting one another or stating the most dubious things or just flirting, it's all just so delightful.
With The Grand Budapest Hotel, if you can't find humour, warmth, excitement or a familiar melancholy, then you clearly aren't looking hard enough. This is film as is as close to perfection any form of entertainment could ever be; it transports you to a fictional beautiful world that is so like our own but just so much better, you won't ever want to leave.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Her
Disappointed. I can't even begin to describe the depths of such a let down like this but I figured I may as well try, who knows, it could be therapeutic in some way.
Getting the obvious out of the way, Being John Malkovich is one of the greatest films ever made, because it's so deliciously insane but so effortlessly done it is essentially cinematic perfection. Spike Jonze, without the pen of Charlie Kaufman (who is my favourite in the world.) guiding you things just don't seem to work as well. Where the Wild Things are was a beautiful film but it wasn't perfect, it took a simplistic children's tale and added layers to it (some would say were unnecessary) but I'm more than willing to let it off for being ambitious and wider in it's scope, I think it worked adequately, it just wasn't mind-blowing.
Turning the tables Her is the opposite of Jonze's last endeavour, this time around it's a complicated idea with a much wider scope, it doesn't have the same structure, the same train tracks guiding things along, like an excellent screenplay or a book. The idea was borne from Jonze interest in creating a love story around the ever growing and present Artificial Intelligence, in short, 'Let's fall in love with Siri.' It's a simple idea but it ruminates on the realities of relationships and the feelings of love and inevitable decline. I think they were shooting for bittersweet but somewhat missed the mark.
The essential thing that anchors a love story is the two people involved, learning about them, getting an idea of what makes them tick, why they belong together, what makes them good, their weaknesses, how this could come between them, how they would overcome this; you know really exploring what makes a relationship between two people work, so you know we can invest in them and believe in them.
Her feels like a failure for completely failing on every level to make me sympathise with the main character. Olivia Wilde pops up for five minutes and declares he's really creepy, from that moment onwards I couldn't get that out of my head, he actually is genuinely creepy. I would say I try my hardest not to judge people, and I was willing to let this whole 'falling in love with my computer' thing not completely throw me off, if they could convince me it could work then I would be impressed! But they just didn't.
The thing that drives me insane about hearing about love is how selfish people are when it comes to finding that special person they wish to spend their life with. 'I want this, I want that, my perfect person has to be this that... They are great but they just aren't perfect. The spark isn't there!' Why do people do this to each other? Whittle each other down, demanding those fireworks, demanding each other be the ideal version of who they want them to be. If love at first sight is falling in love with the way someone looks alone, do you see what you want in someone and then spend the time you have with them trying to manifest that image of them you first saw? Are you simply trying to make something out of someone that doesn't exist? Most importantly, why... why... are people so adamant that no one is good enough for them. Everyone has their fears, their faults, they anxieties, issues, baggage so to speak, and yet if you're with someone don't you have to share all that including the great stuff? I know, I know it's easier said than done but still, it's part and parcel of life.
This brings me to Joaquin Phoenix's character once again. A guy who manufactures other people's feelings because people just get to the point in the future where they don't even bother trying to express themselves any more and get some sad sack in chinos with a moustache to do it for them. The irony of course is that this guy, with all his eloquent expression can't even fathom how he feels. The guy is just a mess, and coincidentally there are alarmingly few redeeming qualities that I can parse out of his character. Why does he fall in love with his computer? Because she's free of human weakness, no issues, no past, no problems, just a funny, warm, witty, and interesting sexily voiced lady (Scarlett Johansson essentially knocking it out of the park) and this damp squib of a human being manages to drag her into the mire with his human weakness. Silly humans, they are given something pure and they mess it up with their personalities.
The film brims with Jonze's typical visual flair, it's set in a world where everyone dresses out of the Uniqlo catalogue and walk around in world dipped in a bright cream/beige hue. The music is particularly low key and it's got Arcade Fire and Karen O; it's so pretty and laid back and by far the coolest soundtrack I've heard in a while. Special shout out for Owen Pallet nominated for an Oscar for his Original Score who presided over the music in the film, I have his Final Fantasy albums on my computer (I accidentally downloaded an album called He Poos Clouds one day, it was pretty good and my musical education began) and to be honest, I think the soundtrack is lovely. But a good soundtrack, a good does not make. All style and no substance is an error in my eyes.
It's a shame too because Her tries it's best to grapple with the future of how we interact with each other, how we perceive love and how it could grow. It asks big questions and explores a world that we should be really intrigued in. It just doesn't have the skill to pull all these big ideas in any particularly convincing way. What should feel authentic and real, instead feels manufactured and limp, and it's a shame because I've never wanted something to work more.
What is this film trying to do? Well, I think it's trying to answer a simple question. What is love? It's having someone there to catch you when you fall, and that's hard if they don't have arms.
Getting the obvious out of the way, Being John Malkovich is one of the greatest films ever made, because it's so deliciously insane but so effortlessly done it is essentially cinematic perfection. Spike Jonze, without the pen of Charlie Kaufman (who is my favourite in the world.) guiding you things just don't seem to work as well. Where the Wild Things are was a beautiful film but it wasn't perfect, it took a simplistic children's tale and added layers to it (some would say were unnecessary) but I'm more than willing to let it off for being ambitious and wider in it's scope, I think it worked adequately, it just wasn't mind-blowing.
Turning the tables Her is the opposite of Jonze's last endeavour, this time around it's a complicated idea with a much wider scope, it doesn't have the same structure, the same train tracks guiding things along, like an excellent screenplay or a book. The idea was borne from Jonze interest in creating a love story around the ever growing and present Artificial Intelligence, in short, 'Let's fall in love with Siri.' It's a simple idea but it ruminates on the realities of relationships and the feelings of love and inevitable decline. I think they were shooting for bittersweet but somewhat missed the mark.
The essential thing that anchors a love story is the two people involved, learning about them, getting an idea of what makes them tick, why they belong together, what makes them good, their weaknesses, how this could come between them, how they would overcome this; you know really exploring what makes a relationship between two people work, so you know we can invest in them and believe in them.
Her feels like a failure for completely failing on every level to make me sympathise with the main character. Olivia Wilde pops up for five minutes and declares he's really creepy, from that moment onwards I couldn't get that out of my head, he actually is genuinely creepy. I would say I try my hardest not to judge people, and I was willing to let this whole 'falling in love with my computer' thing not completely throw me off, if they could convince me it could work then I would be impressed! But they just didn't.
The thing that drives me insane about hearing about love is how selfish people are when it comes to finding that special person they wish to spend their life with. 'I want this, I want that, my perfect person has to be this that... They are great but they just aren't perfect. The spark isn't there!' Why do people do this to each other? Whittle each other down, demanding those fireworks, demanding each other be the ideal version of who they want them to be. If love at first sight is falling in love with the way someone looks alone, do you see what you want in someone and then spend the time you have with them trying to manifest that image of them you first saw? Are you simply trying to make something out of someone that doesn't exist? Most importantly, why... why... are people so adamant that no one is good enough for them. Everyone has their fears, their faults, they anxieties, issues, baggage so to speak, and yet if you're with someone don't you have to share all that including the great stuff? I know, I know it's easier said than done but still, it's part and parcel of life.
This brings me to Joaquin Phoenix's character once again. A guy who manufactures other people's feelings because people just get to the point in the future where they don't even bother trying to express themselves any more and get some sad sack in chinos with a moustache to do it for them. The irony of course is that this guy, with all his eloquent expression can't even fathom how he feels. The guy is just a mess, and coincidentally there are alarmingly few redeeming qualities that I can parse out of his character. Why does he fall in love with his computer? Because she's free of human weakness, no issues, no past, no problems, just a funny, warm, witty, and interesting sexily voiced lady (Scarlett Johansson essentially knocking it out of the park) and this damp squib of a human being manages to drag her into the mire with his human weakness. Silly humans, they are given something pure and they mess it up with their personalities.
The film brims with Jonze's typical visual flair, it's set in a world where everyone dresses out of the Uniqlo catalogue and walk around in world dipped in a bright cream/beige hue. The music is particularly low key and it's got Arcade Fire and Karen O; it's so pretty and laid back and by far the coolest soundtrack I've heard in a while. Special shout out for Owen Pallet nominated for an Oscar for his Original Score who presided over the music in the film, I have his Final Fantasy albums on my computer (I accidentally downloaded an album called He Poos Clouds one day, it was pretty good and my musical education began) and to be honest, I think the soundtrack is lovely. But a good soundtrack, a good does not make. All style and no substance is an error in my eyes.
It's a shame too because Her tries it's best to grapple with the future of how we interact with each other, how we perceive love and how it could grow. It asks big questions and explores a world that we should be really intrigued in. It just doesn't have the skill to pull all these big ideas in any particularly convincing way. What should feel authentic and real, instead feels manufactured and limp, and it's a shame because I've never wanted something to work more.
What is this film trying to do? Well, I think it's trying to answer a simple question. What is love? It's having someone there to catch you when you fall, and that's hard if they don't have arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)