Sunday, 25 July 2010
The Karate Kid (2010)
A colourful, fad-embellished money-spinner that forces an epic scope on a small and intimate story. The copy-cat imitation still entertains with it's 'kung-fu' spectacle and risible cheese factor! Doesn't best original - lacking heart and authenticity - but infuses a new sense of cool for kung-fu fighting. Rating: 3.5/5
Friday, 23 July 2010
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Just finished watching now. What the fuck? A real testing of patience...
I SO didn't get it.
Random, I think I know off the top of my head that Geoffrey Unsworth was the photogapher?... Someone definitely connected to Superman (1978). I think perhaps that movie was in tribute to him.
It seemed quite promising, the beginning and middle... But the ending was totally lost on me. I frankly found it grating and irritating. Trying to work it out - for myself... A sort of pallindromic effect?... I'm pretty sure all the answers are in the minimal dialogue.
So the opening. The incredibly prolonged orchestral dissonance kept me wondering if my television was broken or something... Must have been at minimum five minutes worth of blackness and sonic irritation. Rather it was a prelude for The Dawn of Man sequence. Also Spoke Zarathustra precedes. And there's imagery of Moons and planets in line. Cool. Thought I'd lost it right from the start, but following, I think... The ape-like creatures and their daily living. Threatened by a tribal group of similar ape-like creatures for the waterplace. They're intimidated, and forced to leave. They're near death. They share a communal affinity for eachother. In their hibernation, they randomly come across a huge black 'monolith'. They touch it, and are highly intrigued by it, it drives them crazy.
Not long afterwards, one of the ape-like beings discovers the use of a weapon using the remains of another. He and his tribe go back to claim the the water-spot, brutally beating down the singular opposition. It scares the rest of the previously occupying group away. The agressive group no doubt survive for a long time, and perhaps marks that next step in evolution.
The focus on the bone swiftly makes the comparison to a Spaceship in outerspace. The innovation of a bone being used as a weapon is no doubt connected with the imagery of the 'wheel'-like spaceship. A smaller ship is attempting to go into the wheel. This is done using Strauss' Blue Danube. It feels quite joyous and celebratory, almost playful.
Some American dude comes on board. He's a highly respected official. Speaks to his daughter via 'telephone', kinda like the iPhone - lots of Mac imagery!... He's not able to attend his daughter's birthday, as he's away on business. American proceeds to talk to an English Doctor and his crew. They suspect that there has been some sort of outbreak - a rumour, that the American says he is 'not a liberty to discuss'.
Following this meeting, he adresses a panel of officials. The rumour is actually a coverup. Something mysterious on the moon. Can't remember whether at this point they had revealed that it was the first sign of intelligent life. They fly to discover it/analyse it. The imagery is reminiscent of the beginning of the movie, with the ape-like creatures. A voyage of discovery... Whilst on the ground, they too discover the 'monolith'. Upon touching it, people being surrounded by it, a high-shrieking sonic blast is inflicted upon them...
Fast-forward 18 months on a Space Mission to Jupiter.
Khatachurians Gayena Suite playing....
It's rather cold, distant, disconcerting, sad and uncomfortable.
The atmosphere is more thought-provoking than celebratory.
We're introduced to two crew members, we realise three of the members of the initial team are also on-board but in hibernation, and we're also introduced to the HAL 9000 computer. A super-computer that can emulate, or rather, has emotions. This computer is said to have never ever made a mistake. It is infallible. Of significance is the idea of keeping fit, around a wheel, making fighting-like movements near chairs that look like the apes from the beginning. All crew members enjoy a harmony, a sense of purpose together. Until the computer reveals that there is an error with one of the peropheral devices on the ship. When one of the crew goes to check it, he discovers that there is nothing wrong with it. When conferring with home, they discover that it's possbible that HAL was wrong. The two members of the crew confer stealthily that if the device proves to be working properly, that there's nothing wrong with it, they will disconnect HAL. But unbeknown to them, HAL has been lip-reading their conversation. Knowing that the next engagement with the device temporarily distorts communication from home, HAL deliberately aborts one of the crew members into open space, and kills the three other scientists who were in hibernation.
The other member tries to chase after him, successfully. But HAL refuses to let him back in. The remaining crew member has to let go of his friend/co-worker (leave for dead in space) in order to break back into the ship. He does so, and proceeds to switch HAL off. HAL explains that he couldn't let the humans compromise his mission... Is pleading desperately not to be switched off. It is at that point that we realise that on the surface of the moon, 18 months earlier, a signal was emitted direct to Jupiter. It is revealed whilst an automatic video recording is played upon realising the ship is on entry towards Jupiter.
Queue super-annoying music, with colouful montage, like the visual of someone on speed or something. Vaguely recall the moon and planets in sequence. Some Big Bang imagery. It even looked like a pregnant woman at some point. The monolith flying in space. The astronaut growing old. In a white room. Suddenly sees himself an old man eating a meal with his back turned. Then turning again, an old man on his death-bed, pointing at the monolith. Then a big gigantic alien baby in space. Honestly, that's how it was! Only just a little more prolonged. In connection with the opening, I can only surmise that this singular astronaut has discovered a new way to live life, a re-birth of sorts.
A new type of evolution. Perhaps that was what the computer knew, and it was battling the humans for that new evolutionary way of living: the next stage. Yeah, so that's what the movie was about. Human endeavour, and evolution! Given that, I think it was pretty cool, artistic, and thought-provoking. The visuals really are of a timeless on a par with Alien. Can't believe this movie was made in 1968! Incredible, really! Gonna read what a few other people thought about it....
I SO didn't get it.
Random, I think I know off the top of my head that Geoffrey Unsworth was the photogapher?... Someone definitely connected to Superman (1978). I think perhaps that movie was in tribute to him.
It seemed quite promising, the beginning and middle... But the ending was totally lost on me. I frankly found it grating and irritating. Trying to work it out - for myself... A sort of pallindromic effect?... I'm pretty sure all the answers are in the minimal dialogue.
So the opening. The incredibly prolonged orchestral dissonance kept me wondering if my television was broken or something... Must have been at minimum five minutes worth of blackness and sonic irritation. Rather it was a prelude for The Dawn of Man sequence. Also Spoke Zarathustra precedes. And there's imagery of Moons and planets in line. Cool. Thought I'd lost it right from the start, but following, I think... The ape-like creatures and their daily living. Threatened by a tribal group of similar ape-like creatures for the waterplace. They're intimidated, and forced to leave. They're near death. They share a communal affinity for eachother. In their hibernation, they randomly come across a huge black 'monolith'. They touch it, and are highly intrigued by it, it drives them crazy.
Not long afterwards, one of the ape-like beings discovers the use of a weapon using the remains of another. He and his tribe go back to claim the the water-spot, brutally beating down the singular opposition. It scares the rest of the previously occupying group away. The agressive group no doubt survive for a long time, and perhaps marks that next step in evolution.
The focus on the bone swiftly makes the comparison to a Spaceship in outerspace. The innovation of a bone being used as a weapon is no doubt connected with the imagery of the 'wheel'-like spaceship. A smaller ship is attempting to go into the wheel. This is done using Strauss' Blue Danube. It feels quite joyous and celebratory, almost playful.
Some American dude comes on board. He's a highly respected official. Speaks to his daughter via 'telephone', kinda like the iPhone - lots of Mac imagery!... He's not able to attend his daughter's birthday, as he's away on business. American proceeds to talk to an English Doctor and his crew. They suspect that there has been some sort of outbreak - a rumour, that the American says he is 'not a liberty to discuss'.
Following this meeting, he adresses a panel of officials. The rumour is actually a coverup. Something mysterious on the moon. Can't remember whether at this point they had revealed that it was the first sign of intelligent life. They fly to discover it/analyse it. The imagery is reminiscent of the beginning of the movie, with the ape-like creatures. A voyage of discovery... Whilst on the ground, they too discover the 'monolith'. Upon touching it, people being surrounded by it, a high-shrieking sonic blast is inflicted upon them...
Fast-forward 18 months on a Space Mission to Jupiter.
Khatachurians Gayena Suite playing....
It's rather cold, distant, disconcerting, sad and uncomfortable.
The atmosphere is more thought-provoking than celebratory.
We're introduced to two crew members, we realise three of the members of the initial team are also on-board but in hibernation, and we're also introduced to the HAL 9000 computer. A super-computer that can emulate, or rather, has emotions. This computer is said to have never ever made a mistake. It is infallible. Of significance is the idea of keeping fit, around a wheel, making fighting-like movements near chairs that look like the apes from the beginning. All crew members enjoy a harmony, a sense of purpose together. Until the computer reveals that there is an error with one of the peropheral devices on the ship. When one of the crew goes to check it, he discovers that there is nothing wrong with it. When conferring with home, they discover that it's possbible that HAL was wrong. The two members of the crew confer stealthily that if the device proves to be working properly, that there's nothing wrong with it, they will disconnect HAL. But unbeknown to them, HAL has been lip-reading their conversation. Knowing that the next engagement with the device temporarily distorts communication from home, HAL deliberately aborts one of the crew members into open space, and kills the three other scientists who were in hibernation.
The other member tries to chase after him, successfully. But HAL refuses to let him back in. The remaining crew member has to let go of his friend/co-worker (leave for dead in space) in order to break back into the ship. He does so, and proceeds to switch HAL off. HAL explains that he couldn't let the humans compromise his mission... Is pleading desperately not to be switched off. It is at that point that we realise that on the surface of the moon, 18 months earlier, a signal was emitted direct to Jupiter. It is revealed whilst an automatic video recording is played upon realising the ship is on entry towards Jupiter.
Queue super-annoying music, with colouful montage, like the visual of someone on speed or something. Vaguely recall the moon and planets in sequence. Some Big Bang imagery. It even looked like a pregnant woman at some point. The monolith flying in space. The astronaut growing old. In a white room. Suddenly sees himself an old man eating a meal with his back turned. Then turning again, an old man on his death-bed, pointing at the monolith. Then a big gigantic alien baby in space. Honestly, that's how it was! Only just a little more prolonged. In connection with the opening, I can only surmise that this singular astronaut has discovered a new way to live life, a re-birth of sorts.
A new type of evolution. Perhaps that was what the computer knew, and it was battling the humans for that new evolutionary way of living: the next stage. Yeah, so that's what the movie was about. Human endeavour, and evolution! Given that, I think it was pretty cool, artistic, and thought-provoking. The visuals really are of a timeless on a par with Alien. Can't believe this movie was made in 1968! Incredible, really! Gonna read what a few other people thought about it....
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Toy Story 3 (2010)
A hugely rewarding and entertaining finale, with that extra emotional injection to precipitate the waterworks!
What struck me most about this instalment is a very tangible sense that it really didn't seem like a movie for the kids. Rather a tribute and a parting message to the generation that grew up with it: a 'Great Escape' movie with elements of horror and a genuinely evil malevolence that would rival a Tim Burton movie.
With a structure pretty much consistent and in place for the first two movies (toys conveniently misplaced from home, and heroically try to find their way back), this third act doesn't veer too far from that formula. It's not ground-breaking, and it's not supposed to be (much like the quirky, near-ambivalent short accompanying the feature). It's a movie designed to fill in the few gaps left, and polish the product to it's best condition, perhaps to be placed in that metaphorical museum (as hinted at in the second movie) amongst Pixar's all time Hall of Fame works.
Also in common with that second instalment is the rather wonderfully self-indulgent, over-the-top introduction that seems to nod, ear-mark, and tick all the genres it could possibly fit in: Science FIction, the Western, et al. Whist it was a bit much at first, this conflation of all things and themes in such a short space helps to accentuate the drama of the aftermath. I also love the little nods towards cinema elsewhere throughout the movie, notably: Forest Gump (the hat-flying), Mission Impossible (a sky drop centimetres from falling flat on your face), Jurassic Park, Shawshank Redemption (the jail scenes), and Star Wars (the trash scenes). But behind every formulaic convenience there are some riveting turns and surprises that command your attention, and continues to engage.
Stand-out characters for me have to be Ken and Buzz! Whilst Woody and Buzz share near equal screen time and importance for the narrative, it's Buzz that really steals the show!... The most shockingly discomforting characters that stood out for me have to be 'Big Baby', and the 'Monkey' (perhaps off Family Guy and Powerpuff Girls) whom I found to be quite distrubing, and in itself would possibly merit a higher certificate rating!...
The franchise is rounded off quite neatly, in a wholly satisfying way, though not altogether original. Shockingly sad, and scary at times. The heart-strings are pulled and tugged indeed, but in just the right measure for it to be digestible. Certainly the strongest emotional gravitas of the three, Toy Story 3 has a rewarding and satisfying sense of finality, with neat twists and turns along the way ( a touch heavy at times) that embellish the inherent formulaic structure of the franchise - the only reason for a half star less... Otherwise a rather triumphant swansong whose characters will be sorely missed!
Rating: 4.5/5
What struck me most about this instalment is a very tangible sense that it really didn't seem like a movie for the kids. Rather a tribute and a parting message to the generation that grew up with it: a 'Great Escape' movie with elements of horror and a genuinely evil malevolence that would rival a Tim Burton movie.
With a structure pretty much consistent and in place for the first two movies (toys conveniently misplaced from home, and heroically try to find their way back), this third act doesn't veer too far from that formula. It's not ground-breaking, and it's not supposed to be (much like the quirky, near-ambivalent short accompanying the feature). It's a movie designed to fill in the few gaps left, and polish the product to it's best condition, perhaps to be placed in that metaphorical museum (as hinted at in the second movie) amongst Pixar's all time Hall of Fame works.
Also in common with that second instalment is the rather wonderfully self-indulgent, over-the-top introduction that seems to nod, ear-mark, and tick all the genres it could possibly fit in: Science FIction, the Western, et al. Whist it was a bit much at first, this conflation of all things and themes in such a short space helps to accentuate the drama of the aftermath. I also love the little nods towards cinema elsewhere throughout the movie, notably: Forest Gump (the hat-flying), Mission Impossible (a sky drop centimetres from falling flat on your face), Jurassic Park, Shawshank Redemption (the jail scenes), and Star Wars (the trash scenes). But behind every formulaic convenience there are some riveting turns and surprises that command your attention, and continues to engage.
Stand-out characters for me have to be Ken and Buzz! Whilst Woody and Buzz share near equal screen time and importance for the narrative, it's Buzz that really steals the show!... The most shockingly discomforting characters that stood out for me have to be 'Big Baby', and the 'Monkey' (perhaps off Family Guy and Powerpuff Girls) whom I found to be quite distrubing, and in itself would possibly merit a higher certificate rating!...
The franchise is rounded off quite neatly, in a wholly satisfying way, though not altogether original. Shockingly sad, and scary at times. The heart-strings are pulled and tugged indeed, but in just the right measure for it to be digestible. Certainly the strongest emotional gravitas of the three, Toy Story 3 has a rewarding and satisfying sense of finality, with neat twists and turns along the way ( a touch heavy at times) that embellish the inherent formulaic structure of the franchise - the only reason for a half star less... Otherwise a rather triumphant swansong whose characters will be sorely missed!
Rating: 4.5/5
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Inception (2010)
Certainly one of the most challenging works of cinema in a while dealing with the idea of 'consciousness' and dreaming, a few steps further than 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. How the fuck does someone come up with something like this! Thought it was amazing, and it works on so many levels. Literally.
Intensely cerebral, science fiction-y, that makes you seriously question reality in a way that the Matrix hinted at, but Inception hits home with it's 'real-worldliness' aesthetic: there's no mythic apocalyptic creatures here, no Zion-like dystopian future - just Michael Caine, Tom Berenger, and Pete Postlewaithe keepin' it real.
Not sure whether it was because I was wearing both contacts on today (a rarity, as I usually wear just the one to economise), but walking out the cinema seriously made me question what was around me! Hadn't felt like that since watching Nightmare on Elm Street as a 9 -year-old, and was a little scared of walking up and down stairs for fear of being sucked into them)...
So many filmic references, or at least open and inviting comparison. Some that come to mind:
- Shutter Island (particularly DiCaprio's central predicament throughout the movie)
- The Matrix (the first)
- Titanic (the end scenes in particular, as well as the sheer grandiosity of the vision)
- The Prestige (the very end)
- The Bond and Bourne movies (in terms of action, intrigue, mystery, and espionage), particularly in Quantum of Solace with the chase scene starting with Tom Hardy and DiCaprio.
Love how there seems to be a film reference for each main character actor in the movie! With Ken Wantanabe, it's perhaps his association with The Last Samurai, or even as Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. With Marion Cotillard, for sure the use of 'Je ne regrette rien' is an obvious nod to La Vie en Rose. With Tom Hardy, he's the manly cheeky chappy from 'Bronson' even 'Scenes of a Sexual Nature'. With DiCaprio, there's Titanic and Shutter Island. Jospeh Gordon Hewitt retains that puppy romantic sensibility albeit in a more subtle way, but with an air of beefed up manliness that would shoot up and choke-hold all his previous roles to date! Ellen Page - a little Juno-esque, who seems precociously intelligent, insightful, curious, adaptable in youth. The list goes on...
There's been talk of 'fourth time lucky' for DiCaprio for the Oscar stakes. I personally wouldn't go as far to say so. It's a great performance, but one that's a little one-note (as the demands of the character need be) for Oscar. I couldn't help thinking about the politics of the situation, and something a little fishy going on... He started out around the same time as Mark Whalberg and Johnny Depp, (The Basketball Diaries, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape), had reached Box Office heights with Kate Winslett in Titanic, yet he's the one that seems to be the most shining star - a protege of Scorsese in much the style as De Niro, a Speilberg collaborator (Catch me if you Can) and even working with Clint Eastwood next on 'Hoover'.
Enough of my DiCaprio conspiracy theory! Back to Inception.
Wouldn't recommend to everyone though. The packed to sold-out audience I was in attendance with responded with about four people applauding, majority boos, and instant walk-outs upon End Credits (Idiots, for the latter two). But hey, it was a Saturday night at Cineworld, not a special screening at the BFI - what do you expect? Definitely, I'm a film/movie snob. I'm one of those people that feels compelled to stay till the end of the credits (It's part of the movie experience!), and get genuinely angered when the lights go up prematurely, and the staff pressure you or force you out of the cinema (by their sheer presence peering in with brooms and bin bags on standby) so they can clean up quicker...
Nolan's a genius for the timing of this movie - something that needed to be made in my view. Had it been the first thing he had ever done, he might not have had a further career owing to an unsure box office reception. Had it been of his later career, people might have thought he might have lost it and gone all Kubickian. But off the success of The Dark Knight, and sandwiched before Batman 3 - this is certainly an audacious move, a risky and challenging venture that's part of a secure and intact career. For sure, he's no formulaic Apatow. Damn all those (the audience I was in attendance with) who expected him to be so, and perhaps wanted to see some sort of Dark Knight or something... I hope Nolan continues to stick with cinema that's constantly breaking new ground, is challenging, engaging, immersive and absorbing, and hugely entertaining.
Awesome! Rating: 5/5
Curious to check out what other people thought!...
Intensely cerebral, science fiction-y, that makes you seriously question reality in a way that the Matrix hinted at, but Inception hits home with it's 'real-worldliness' aesthetic: there's no mythic apocalyptic creatures here, no Zion-like dystopian future - just Michael Caine, Tom Berenger, and Pete Postlewaithe keepin' it real.
Not sure whether it was because I was wearing both contacts on today (a rarity, as I usually wear just the one to economise), but walking out the cinema seriously made me question what was around me! Hadn't felt like that since watching Nightmare on Elm Street as a 9 -year-old, and was a little scared of walking up and down stairs for fear of being sucked into them)...
So many filmic references, or at least open and inviting comparison. Some that come to mind:
- Shutter Island (particularly DiCaprio's central predicament throughout the movie)
- The Matrix (the first)
- Titanic (the end scenes in particular, as well as the sheer grandiosity of the vision)
- The Prestige (the very end)
- The Bond and Bourne movies (in terms of action, intrigue, mystery, and espionage), particularly in Quantum of Solace with the chase scene starting with Tom Hardy and DiCaprio.
Love how there seems to be a film reference for each main character actor in the movie! With Ken Wantanabe, it's perhaps his association with The Last Samurai, or even as Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. With Marion Cotillard, for sure the use of 'Je ne regrette rien' is an obvious nod to La Vie en Rose. With Tom Hardy, he's the manly cheeky chappy from 'Bronson' even 'Scenes of a Sexual Nature'. With DiCaprio, there's Titanic and Shutter Island. Jospeh Gordon Hewitt retains that puppy romantic sensibility albeit in a more subtle way, but with an air of beefed up manliness that would shoot up and choke-hold all his previous roles to date! Ellen Page - a little Juno-esque, who seems precociously intelligent, insightful, curious, adaptable in youth. The list goes on...
There's been talk of 'fourth time lucky' for DiCaprio for the Oscar stakes. I personally wouldn't go as far to say so. It's a great performance, but one that's a little one-note (as the demands of the character need be) for Oscar. I couldn't help thinking about the politics of the situation, and something a little fishy going on... He started out around the same time as Mark Whalberg and Johnny Depp, (The Basketball Diaries, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape), had reached Box Office heights with Kate Winslett in Titanic, yet he's the one that seems to be the most shining star - a protege of Scorsese in much the style as De Niro, a Speilberg collaborator (Catch me if you Can) and even working with Clint Eastwood next on 'Hoover'.
Enough of my DiCaprio conspiracy theory! Back to Inception.
Wouldn't recommend to everyone though. The packed to sold-out audience I was in attendance with responded with about four people applauding, majority boos, and instant walk-outs upon End Credits (Idiots, for the latter two). But hey, it was a Saturday night at Cineworld, not a special screening at the BFI - what do you expect? Definitely, I'm a film/movie snob. I'm one of those people that feels compelled to stay till the end of the credits (It's part of the movie experience!), and get genuinely angered when the lights go up prematurely, and the staff pressure you or force you out of the cinema (by their sheer presence peering in with brooms and bin bags on standby) so they can clean up quicker...
Nolan's a genius for the timing of this movie - something that needed to be made in my view. Had it been the first thing he had ever done, he might not have had a further career owing to an unsure box office reception. Had it been of his later career, people might have thought he might have lost it and gone all Kubickian. But off the success of The Dark Knight, and sandwiched before Batman 3 - this is certainly an audacious move, a risky and challenging venture that's part of a secure and intact career. For sure, he's no formulaic Apatow. Damn all those (the audience I was in attendance with) who expected him to be so, and perhaps wanted to see some sort of Dark Knight or something... I hope Nolan continues to stick with cinema that's constantly breaking new ground, is challenging, engaging, immersive and absorbing, and hugely entertaining.
Awesome! Rating: 5/5
Curious to check out what other people thought!...
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Get Him to the Greek (2010)
A raucously hilarious well-executed first act, a hum drum middle section, a cheesy and heavily contrived final act - The Wrestler meets Jerry maguire. Funny and entertaining overall. No shakespeare, or a real game changer. Rather: The Russell brand show - The Movie.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Friday, 9 July 2010
Charlie's Angels
Background movie.
Also in the mood for this this morning whilst doing stuff! Something actiony, and stupid silly fun!
Also in the mood for this this morning whilst doing stuff! Something actiony, and stupid silly fun!
House of Flying Daggers
Background movie.
Was just in the mood for this morning, having as a background movie whilst doing clothes washing, and preparing breakfast. Something beautiful, poetic, martial-artsy: the mood I was in.
Was just in the mood for this morning, having as a background movie whilst doing clothes washing, and preparing breakfast. Something beautiful, poetic, martial-artsy: the mood I was in.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
A cross-pollination of television actors!...
2:43pm
Watched the Season Finale of Desperate Housewives last night (don't realy know or care which series). It just occurred to me that I'm beseiged by a sense of bewilderment/fatigue/annoyance by this apparent cross-pollination of actors from the 'popular' stock of television of recent history.
Of Desperate Housewives, the aforementioned latest series (that I half lost interest for throughout it's progression/regression), off the top of my head were:
- John Barrowman (from some British series)
- Adriana La Cerva off Sopranos (and to a lesser extent Joey) having the whole Italian thing being mocked and exploited disrespectfully
- the bloke who murdered his wife in Season 1, was shagging Peggy in Mad Men, and now back in Desperate Housewives for the season cliffhanger
- Joan's ex-Doctor fiancee in Mad Men, now part of the Bree Hodge/Van Der Kamp household
- Rita from Dexter, exploited for her blonde sex bombshell looks, used as a lesbian to make Bree's ex best friend's character seem more interesting.
- And also the appearance of Roz from Frasier, a psychiatrist for Tom and Lynette Scavo
Arrrrggghh!! As much as it is a delightful novelty to incorporate characters of past and present television, I can't help thinking that it's almost as if that they're desperately trying to compenstate for lack of storyline, and the lack of interest in the series. It reminds me of the closing days of Ally McBeal when they were throwing everyone in for people to be kept interest: notably Jon Bon Jovi, Elton John, and even Dame Edna to name ust a few!... Am I just being geeky, identifying random people when this is an occurance that is fairly commonplace; or am I right to identify bad quality television?
There seems to be a serious lack of originality for what were once hugely entertaining vehicles of the past. Dexter tastefully uses character actors from the world of movies and television sucessfully(notably the guest villains) - but that seems to be the exception.
I look forward to Weeds with baited breath - which seems to be following the life energy arc of Desperate Housewives (or lack of) - as well as the new series of Mad Men, which I'm hoping will keep my faith in television entertainment! In the meantime, it's all about the loving up of Big Brother 10!....
Watched the Season Finale of Desperate Housewives last night (don't realy know or care which series). It just occurred to me that I'm beseiged by a sense of bewilderment/fatigue/annoyance by this apparent cross-pollination of actors from the 'popular' stock of television of recent history.
Of Desperate Housewives, the aforementioned latest series (that I half lost interest for throughout it's progression/regression), off the top of my head were:
- John Barrowman (from some British series)
- Adriana La Cerva off Sopranos (and to a lesser extent Joey) having the whole Italian thing being mocked and exploited disrespectfully
- the bloke who murdered his wife in Season 1, was shagging Peggy in Mad Men, and now back in Desperate Housewives for the season cliffhanger
- Joan's ex-Doctor fiancee in Mad Men, now part of the Bree Hodge/Van Der Kamp household
- Rita from Dexter, exploited for her blonde sex bombshell looks, used as a lesbian to make Bree's ex best friend's character seem more interesting.
- And also the appearance of Roz from Frasier, a psychiatrist for Tom and Lynette Scavo
Arrrrggghh!! As much as it is a delightful novelty to incorporate characters of past and present television, I can't help thinking that it's almost as if that they're desperately trying to compenstate for lack of storyline, and the lack of interest in the series. It reminds me of the closing days of Ally McBeal when they were throwing everyone in for people to be kept interest: notably Jon Bon Jovi, Elton John, and even Dame Edna to name ust a few!... Am I just being geeky, identifying random people when this is an occurance that is fairly commonplace; or am I right to identify bad quality television?
There seems to be a serious lack of originality for what were once hugely entertaining vehicles of the past. Dexter tastefully uses character actors from the world of movies and television sucessfully(notably the guest villains) - but that seems to be the exception.
I look forward to Weeds with baited breath - which seems to be following the life energy arc of Desperate Housewives (or lack of) - as well as the new series of Mad Men, which I'm hoping will keep my faith in television entertainment! In the meantime, it's all about the loving up of Big Brother 10!....
Monday, 5 July 2010
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Rating: 3.5/5
Disney really don't want to abandon the has-been successful formula. A predictable, contrived narrative that is brought to substance, and more than compnensated for by: the 'Disney-isms' (spot the Disney reference: Aristocats, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast), the numerous and multiple musical numbers, and the richly embellished characters. A random curiosity: that the main black/african carribbean has a striking resemblance to Obama - as if the production needed this for added likeability...
Enjoyable, and entertainng spectacle nonetheless (with a few awkwardly forced moments of poignancy shoved into the feature) though not as emotional or stimulating as what the best of Disney had to offer.
Randomly, if I was the Director of Disney, I would consider a new strategy... You (Disnety execs) need to abandon the old methods. You need to get back to the core of what Walt Disney stood for: his ideals, his ideas, his spirit. Let originality flow from there. We don't want to see a repeat or rehash of the stock Disney classics, it's regressive, and stunting. They belong to a past age, where more often than not, such works have achieved a 'classic' status. You need to take some steps back, and get back to basics.
Disney really don't want to abandon the has-been successful formula. A predictable, contrived narrative that is brought to substance, and more than compnensated for by: the 'Disney-isms' (spot the Disney reference: Aristocats, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast), the numerous and multiple musical numbers, and the richly embellished characters. A random curiosity: that the main black/african carribbean has a striking resemblance to Obama - as if the production needed this for added likeability...
Enjoyable, and entertainng spectacle nonetheless (with a few awkwardly forced moments of poignancy shoved into the feature) though not as emotional or stimulating as what the best of Disney had to offer.
Randomly, if I was the Director of Disney, I would consider a new strategy... You (Disnety execs) need to abandon the old methods. You need to get back to the core of what Walt Disney stood for: his ideals, his ideas, his spirit. Let originality flow from there. We don't want to see a repeat or rehash of the stock Disney classics, it's regressive, and stunting. They belong to a past age, where more often than not, such works have achieved a 'classic' status. You need to take some steps back, and get back to basics.
L'arnacoeur (2010)
Rating: 4/5
Hilarious if a touch formulaic, certainly not Hollywood-esque though. Romantic comedy.
Hilarious if a touch formulaic, certainly not Hollywood-esque though. Romantic comedy.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
12:38am
One of my favourite movies of all time. Just in the mood for playing it now, in the background, from my recently acquired SKY+ Box.
12:57am
Randomly: Who is Elizabeth Shue's character talking to in hidden camera throughout the movie?... A counsellor/therapist?...
What evidence or justification is there to confirm anything at all?...
One of my favourite movies of all time. Just in the mood for playing it now, in the background, from my recently acquired SKY+ Box.
12:57am
Randomly: Who is Elizabeth Shue's character talking to in hidden camera throughout the movie?... A counsellor/therapist?...
What evidence or justification is there to confirm anything at all?...
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Prince of Persia (2010)
Rating: 3/5
Was 'forced' to see at the cinema yesterday with my sis. After much hype and expectation, together with the enticing ensemble cast, I had been looking forward to seeing this. But after glimpsing Empire's 3-Star Review, reading through the article, I had been less inclined to see, rather preferring to wait for it's release on a more portable, acessible medium (DVD or Blu-Ray) whenever that would be, if at all...
Having seen it for myself, I entirely agree with the verdict - much to the dismay of my sister, who couldn't be muted extolling the praise of Jake Gyllenhall's abs and his recently acquired Parkour faculties.
The opening sequence was pretty damn awesome: a combiination of the opening of Casino Royale, and Disney's 1994 animation Aladdin! There was also an obvious nod to the original game (which I was a fan of upon it's release) with a particular sequence of Dastan breaching and securing the East Wing of a Holy City panning a top-down vertical view camera following/whizzing to Dastan's view - certain to gratify gaming fans. Two ticks off the Director's checklist. But I'm afraid that's about all that I enjoyed about the movie.
All the promise of the rather spectacular action-packed opening, and the premise of an adopted orphan boy's potential story fizzles out, and is stretched out disappointingly to meet the alotted production time.
That the invading army's general/leader forces upon himself to join with the enemy's beautiful princess as 'more than friendship' is a marriage of convenience. I thought this an apt metaphor for the whole movie. Jerry Bruckhiemer's temporary marriage with Disney sucessfully blend ridiculous plot points, implausible characters and dramatic narratives with a pre-fabricated idea (The Prince of Persia franchise) and a blockbuster budget (the over-elaborate and unececessary CGI).
For all the central focus and aesthetic of Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton - who certainly look good together - it seems that a universe of shallow fantasy has been constructed in an attempt to support it.
The majority of the action sequences post the opening, seem comprehensively confused. It's a cross between Batman Begins, Bourne, and Gladiator. I think that applies to the whole movie too. It doesn't know what it wants to be, or rather has no confidence or clear definition of it's identity. The first of the Pirates of the Carribbean movies was a fun formulaic affair, defined by the comedically embellished performance of Johnny Depp. Prince of Persia is blockbuster-formulaic in approach, but only for the budget spent on effects and nabbing big names (Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley) who lend no real authority or credibility to their characters and their storylines.
Suffers from the Deus ex machina. There's also a deliberately affected political dimension to the movie, potentially highly contentious. Comparisons with the invasion of Iraq for Weapons of Mass destruction abound, as does the Democratising of 'foreign' lands in Molina's: "You know the real evil present in our lands? Taxes!" It's funny how all the Arab and Persian people are played by white Westerners, much like in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.
Certainly a novelty, if not very rewarding to watch. Silly action junkie kids would love it, as well as Gyllenhall fans eager to see more flesh than mind. Well beneath Gyllenhalls calibre in my view.
I would have certainly wanted to see more parkour work on exhibition (perhaps like knife-fighting in Hunted) which appears to have been wasted for this movie save for a few choice set-pieces. I would have liked to have seen a higher certificate rating for older kids to see: thereby adding a real sense of danger, of something scintillatingly malicious and evil posing a real threat to the protagonists rather than they're seeming and comic invulnerability and omnipresence - to adhere more to the spirit and ideals of the original game.
Alternatively, for more kid-orientated blockbuster potential, at least something that was handled with more confidence, more character, more drama, and more balance for what seems to be a mishandled conflation of all the popular trends of recent cinema. With dialogue, there could have been something more teasing, challenging and daring (like Han and Leia) rather than the atypical beautiful damsel in distress being saved by a clunky hunk, save for a few prolonged and annoying deceptions here and there.
If you're up for an unchallenging no-brainer spectacle, this is for you right next to Clash of the Titans: the rehash. If you care anything for the integrity and dignity of cinema, you'd probabbly do well to leave it well alone. A disappointing first instalment unlikely to ignite the ashes of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Was 'forced' to see at the cinema yesterday with my sis. After much hype and expectation, together with the enticing ensemble cast, I had been looking forward to seeing this. But after glimpsing Empire's 3-Star Review, reading through the article, I had been less inclined to see, rather preferring to wait for it's release on a more portable, acessible medium (DVD or Blu-Ray) whenever that would be, if at all...
Having seen it for myself, I entirely agree with the verdict - much to the dismay of my sister, who couldn't be muted extolling the praise of Jake Gyllenhall's abs and his recently acquired Parkour faculties.
The opening sequence was pretty damn awesome: a combiination of the opening of Casino Royale, and Disney's 1994 animation Aladdin! There was also an obvious nod to the original game (which I was a fan of upon it's release) with a particular sequence of Dastan breaching and securing the East Wing of a Holy City panning a top-down vertical view camera following/whizzing to Dastan's view - certain to gratify gaming fans. Two ticks off the Director's checklist. But I'm afraid that's about all that I enjoyed about the movie.
All the promise of the rather spectacular action-packed opening, and the premise of an adopted orphan boy's potential story fizzles out, and is stretched out disappointingly to meet the alotted production time.
That the invading army's general/leader forces upon himself to join with the enemy's beautiful princess as 'more than friendship' is a marriage of convenience. I thought this an apt metaphor for the whole movie. Jerry Bruckhiemer's temporary marriage with Disney sucessfully blend ridiculous plot points, implausible characters and dramatic narratives with a pre-fabricated idea (The Prince of Persia franchise) and a blockbuster budget (the over-elaborate and unececessary CGI).
For all the central focus and aesthetic of Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton - who certainly look good together - it seems that a universe of shallow fantasy has been constructed in an attempt to support it.
The majority of the action sequences post the opening, seem comprehensively confused. It's a cross between Batman Begins, Bourne, and Gladiator. I think that applies to the whole movie too. It doesn't know what it wants to be, or rather has no confidence or clear definition of it's identity. The first of the Pirates of the Carribbean movies was a fun formulaic affair, defined by the comedically embellished performance of Johnny Depp. Prince of Persia is blockbuster-formulaic in approach, but only for the budget spent on effects and nabbing big names (Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley) who lend no real authority or credibility to their characters and their storylines.
Suffers from the Deus ex machina. There's also a deliberately affected political dimension to the movie, potentially highly contentious. Comparisons with the invasion of Iraq for Weapons of Mass destruction abound, as does the Democratising of 'foreign' lands in Molina's: "You know the real evil present in our lands? Taxes!" It's funny how all the Arab and Persian people are played by white Westerners, much like in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.
Certainly a novelty, if not very rewarding to watch. Silly action junkie kids would love it, as well as Gyllenhall fans eager to see more flesh than mind. Well beneath Gyllenhalls calibre in my view.
I would have certainly wanted to see more parkour work on exhibition (perhaps like knife-fighting in Hunted) which appears to have been wasted for this movie save for a few choice set-pieces. I would have liked to have seen a higher certificate rating for older kids to see: thereby adding a real sense of danger, of something scintillatingly malicious and evil posing a real threat to the protagonists rather than they're seeming and comic invulnerability and omnipresence - to adhere more to the spirit and ideals of the original game.
Alternatively, for more kid-orientated blockbuster potential, at least something that was handled with more confidence, more character, more drama, and more balance for what seems to be a mishandled conflation of all the popular trends of recent cinema. With dialogue, there could have been something more teasing, challenging and daring (like Han and Leia) rather than the atypical beautiful damsel in distress being saved by a clunky hunk, save for a few prolonged and annoying deceptions here and there.
If you're up for an unchallenging no-brainer spectacle, this is for you right next to Clash of the Titans: the rehash. If you care anything for the integrity and dignity of cinema, you'd probabbly do well to leave it well alone. A disappointing first instalment unlikely to ignite the ashes of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Hell Boy II :The Golden Army (2008)
Rating: 4/5
Watched on Blu-Ray, a Blockbuster Online Rental Service.
Had previously watched glimpses of in passing (on Sky Movies some time ago), and was surprised by how well-done, and engaging it was. Hence the reason for opting for it via Blu Ray rental.
Very Tim Burton-esque, but with slightly more substance and style. The use of Danny Elfman helps to create that atmosphere. The action sequences were jaw-droppingly amazing, and beautiful to watch, borrowing sequences from the best of martial arts cinema. The drama - engaging and compelling, with a few twists and turns well within the realms of credibility and believeability. The characters are all likeable and endearing in their own ways.
A very rich, gothic, and at times a frightening real aesthetic that draws you into the drama, opposed to the quirky spectacle of Burton's vision - the most dominant feature of this movie.
There's a real balance between the quiet contemplative scenes, the action, the humour, and the drama that make for a very accomplished film - with all credit due to the Director.
Not a masterpiece, or a classic piece of cinema. Influenced slightly by the rather apocalyptic overtones of Lord of the Rings, and to a lesser extent TMNT - the premise is not altogether original. Rather a genre excercise (horror, comic-book fantasy), executed with verve, enthusiasm and fun, distinguishing itself from the more serious, challenging comic book fare of recent years (a la Hulk, Spiderman and The Dark Knight) - a gothic aesthetic for the Watchmen era. Just bloody good fun! You'll never hear Barry Manilow's 'Can't smile without you' in the same way again!
Watched on Blu-Ray, a Blockbuster Online Rental Service.
Had previously watched glimpses of in passing (on Sky Movies some time ago), and was surprised by how well-done, and engaging it was. Hence the reason for opting for it via Blu Ray rental.
Very Tim Burton-esque, but with slightly more substance and style. The use of Danny Elfman helps to create that atmosphere. The action sequences were jaw-droppingly amazing, and beautiful to watch, borrowing sequences from the best of martial arts cinema. The drama - engaging and compelling, with a few twists and turns well within the realms of credibility and believeability. The characters are all likeable and endearing in their own ways.
A very rich, gothic, and at times a frightening real aesthetic that draws you into the drama, opposed to the quirky spectacle of Burton's vision - the most dominant feature of this movie.
There's a real balance between the quiet contemplative scenes, the action, the humour, and the drama that make for a very accomplished film - with all credit due to the Director.
Not a masterpiece, or a classic piece of cinema. Influenced slightly by the rather apocalyptic overtones of Lord of the Rings, and to a lesser extent TMNT - the premise is not altogether original. Rather a genre excercise (horror, comic-book fantasy), executed with verve, enthusiasm and fun, distinguishing itself from the more serious, challenging comic book fare of recent years (a la Hulk, Spiderman and The Dark Knight) - a gothic aesthetic for the Watchmen era. Just bloody good fun! You'll never hear Barry Manilow's 'Can't smile without you' in the same way again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
