Modern Movies are Crap
Because we're all a bit thick, Hollywood, & the rest of the film industry (except independant's, obviously...) deems it necessary to spoon feed up muck. Don't let it dribble down your chin.
Subscribe by Email
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Because we're all a bit thick, Hollywood, & the rest of the film industry (except independant's, obviously...) deems it necessary to spoon feed up muck. Don't let it dribble down your chin.
Subscribe by Email
I found this...
...the least you could do is look at it... well.... GO ON THEN!
- Yeah... I was thinking about kicking back this weekend and doing some Meth. Nice
- I wanted to buy some art for my daughters nursery. No Fluffy Bunnies here.Lovely
- Are you a bit bored?Why not transform your skirt into a soda vending machine
- Art or Abuse? You decide (Warning, this is not for the feint hearted)
- A list of lists
- Just in case you find yourself accidentally in a Zombie Apocalypse, you might want to read this
- Books, online for Free, no catch. Now, read something...
- You know what you've done? You've sharpened that pencil all wrong. Idiot!
- Burning Man Festival (hard to describe...)
- Fark! sounds rude don't it?.
- Live Plasma, sort of a a-z of music, movies and stuff that's all nicely collated and that.
Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive.
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
is, purely and simply... heartbreaking.
With a script by Charlie Kaufman (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) and direction from Michel Gondry (later to make the excellent, if slightly incomplete Science of Sleep) you are getting a lot of film for your money.
Brilliantly written, perfect dialogue (I would actually say painful, haunting and passionate dialogue) incredibly creative direction, this is one of those Science Fiction/Love Story/Comedy type things that come along once in a while, right(?). Well, actually, no...
Fair enough, it is difficult to put this into a genre, but, that just makes me like this film all the more.
I'm struggling here to give this it fair criticism, without weeping into a week old tissue. OK, it's far from perfect, and if you don't like Jim Carrey, or Kate Winselt, then you are a bit buggered, but hell, they are both flawless in their roles.
For an absolutely brilliant synopsis of what they hell this is all about, you'd do worse to look here.
but in a brief style, here's what you need to know about the story:
"A couple undergo a procedure to erase each other from their memories when their relationship turns sour, but it is only through the process of loss that they discover what they had to begin with"
It won the Oscar for best original screenplay, and Kate Winslet was nominated for best performance by an actress in a leading role. (Which is nice)
Now, excuse me while I go a big wobbly one and die of dehydration from all tears I've shed... you have been warned.
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned"
2) The Color of Money (1986)
Backing up a bit here...... in, err.... 1959, an author by the name of Walter Tevis wrote a book called "The Hustler". It was a big hit, and just under two years later became the film that put Paul Newman back on the map, as the cool pool shark, "Fast" Eddie Felson.
faaaaast forward just around 30 years, and some smart Alec thought it would be a great idea to make the sequel to "The Hustler", called: "The Color of Money" into a film. Clever little shit...
But.... they asked themselves, who could possibly play the cocky, rough diamond to Newmans uber cool, shady but learned elder? Who, huh? Who Damn it!.
The question must have been one of the toughest on the table. I mean, you've got Newman, who's practically royalty by this time, but hadn't really had a hot film since Slap Shot in 1977 (and even then we're not talking about a block buster). The last thing they wanted is for someone to upstage his highness....
But on closer inspection, to a large degree, the Book is about exactly this. Younger generations looking bemused at the older generation of hustlers "code of the game".
someone must have been given a really rather large bonus when "Tom Cruise" agreed to sign on the line that is dotted:
The Cruiser had been, well.... err, "cruising" along really rather quite well. 1983, already in the can was "The Outsiders", and also in '83 were "Risky Business" & "All The Right Moves". Then came the film that pretty much sold a zillion pairs or RayBan's (I bought a pair too) "Top Gun".
OK, we'll save all the discussion about Mr C for another time. Suffice to say that he was about a B.I.G as you could be at the tender age of 12 years old (or whatever, he looks about 12 in the poster)
And so to the film:
So what we got?.
- Have we got two ego's big enough to fill the roles, and therefore fill cinema seats?. Check.
- Have we got a massively influential Director, much praised and respect for his ability to raise the bar in modern Cinematic terms, not to mention summing up the word "zeitgeist"?. Check. (Scorsese, you dummies...)
- What about a script. Check! (Richard Price, later to write Sea of Love....)
Well fuck me silly, we've got ourselves a movie!.... go go go go.
And now see, here's the thing: this film sort of didn't do quite as well as everyone expected. What!. Why?...
Looking back at the hype prior to release you can see why people might have been disappointed. Cruise, whilst really, really good in this film, just doesn't prepare the audience to not like him too much. Newman, on the other hand is smooth, smouldering and extremely fucking cool. I don't think anyone was really ready for his character to be so... complete. Newman had come from another time, to show Cruise how it's done. The ending might even have seemed unsatisfactory, leaving many story threads unresloved. Just like life does, sometimes
If you're going to read on good review of the time (good, as in well written) go here
Now, in 2007, I suggest this is one of the purest films of the 1980's. Scorsese here is a man at the top of his game. Not showing off using circus tricks in his filming, editing, cut scenes. The script is honest, sassy, and almost entirely believable. The soundtrack is really good, and there's not a hint of the saccharine taste that so many films of the time left in your mouth.
you only have to look at how both actors progressed through the late 1980's and into the 1990's. Both of whom still appearing in influential films to this day. OK, "The Color of Money" may not of been a box office hit. It may not be either star's best work (or the Directors...) but it is brave, honest, gritty and above all entertaining. if you have already, I strongly suggest you watch this movie.
"We were always small time, but we were never clowns"
People often laugh about the popular movies of the 1980's. And, to be fair, there are some good reasons too. What then, seemed like honest to goodness story telling, or a fantastically new idea, or just plain family values, now, can seem, saccharine, plodding, manipulative rubbish. And don't even mention the clothes.
but, amongst the, err... well... shit, there were also some really, really, really good films. I'm not going to attempt to list a zillion 1980's beauties , that would be really fucking boring, but I am going to attempt a list of of about five you've probably forgotten to remember:
So, to start us off, is this little gem:
1) The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989)
A very brief synopsis:
Brothers, Jack and Frank Baker, have been playing lounges as a piano duo for over 30 years. But things are changing, the world is not so interested in their idea of “entertainment” anymore, in fact, they’re getting paid to not play. Frank decides they need a female vocalist to keep the act going. During auditions the come across Suzie Diamond, who can really put a song over, and the act takes off. But when relations between Suzie and Jack, the younger, less committed, and more talented brother, briefly becomes more than professional, tensions surface between all three
OK... You got Director, Steve Kloves , (who's now more well known now for the Harry Potter Franhcise) and, doesn't hang about drawing us into what is a memorable, atmospheric city of the never ending night. And immediately we're given visual nods to the two main character's traits(played by real life brothers Jeff & Beau Bridges). Frank, uptight, practical, and a little self righteous, Jack, laid back, cynical, never without a cigarette. (Jeff Bridges is effortlessly cool in this film)
This could be considered a subtle deconstruction of men lost in a time that has passed. These guys live in a netherworld that few can say still exists. And there is just enough cheese, chintz and cocktail umbrellas to remind us that the time they've come from has passed for a good reason.
But there's no rush, no hurry to tell this tale.. just like the nigth clubs and lounge bars it so beautifully reconstructs, the film itself understands that the night can crawl along at a slow pace, ebbing it's way through a scotch, a cigarette and a rendition of "feelings"
Oh, and I haven't even got to the best bit yet. It's got Michelle Pfeiffer playing Suzie Diamond, they're acid tonged, femme fatale saviour. You may say to yourself right now "oh yeah, now, where do I know here from", Dangerous Liaisons, & Witches of East Wick came before, sure... but everyone remembers Ms Pfeiffer for this reason:
If you haven't see this film, or are wondeing if it might look remotely 1980's trying to look like the 1950's it so wonderfully alludes to, don't worry. It doesn't.
What this film has in spades is pure, unadulterated, class, not to mention a script that will have you wryly smiling, as well as feeling slightly hot under the collar looking at the sublime Ms Pfieffer (and that 'aint a word I use too often). There is just no way that you cannot enjoy this story unfolding.
and underneath it all, the story has so many facets that just keep you coming back time after time. It's about Brothers, Family, bonds that cannot be broken, and dream that often are.
I dare you not to lbe moved by this movie.....
" I'm not a gangster. I'm a businessman whose commodity happens to be cocaine"
Holy shit! – If you haven’t seen Layer Cake: here are some reasons you should right now!
Daniel Craig: Mr Craig is fast becoming The Man of The Moment – “Layer Cake” was released a whole year before the announcement the he was to be the next James Bond (watch for the subtle Bond reference in LC…) But Craig has been storming all over the screens since the early nineties – earning well deserved recognition for his memorable performance as Geordie in “Our Friends in the North” (this also opened gates for Christopher Eccleston, & Mark Strong)
Highlights of Craig’s career so far are “Road to Perdition” , “Sylvia” , “Enduring Love” “Munich” “Casino Royal” all made within a short 5 years – this guy is no slouch, and was the far most deserving candidate to take the Bond baton (also working on I, Lucifer, & Bond 22.) He is the bollocks.
Michael Gambon: Put Simply – if you Don’t like Michael Gambon, you are dead to me. I first came across him in “The Singing Detective” (watch it, no…. seriously, watch it….) Here he is the world weary, bollock breaking underworld boss that everyone would kill to work for. Every word uttered is poetry, spoken with a slightly broken cockney voice that is not in any way put on – Gambon is a joy to behold on screen.
Stephen Walters: Until now, people will have seen Stephen Walters in small British Soap parts, or might recognise him for small, but worthy film parts in “51st State” or the awful Vinnie Jones remake of “The Mean Machine”. (also Guy Richie’s “Revolver, & most recently “Hannibal Rising”).
But the two most memorable parts he has played so far are as Dr. Vaughan in the criminally overlooked channel 4 “Oz” - like masterpiece “Buried” – subtle, steady, reserved and fucking excellent. And, of course, playing Shanks in Layer Cake. Stephen might only be on screen for roughly six minutes, yet his opening gambit sets the stage for some of the most excellent acting in recent history – His performance, to be frank, raises the bar on acting the part of affected , sharp “do not fuck with me” characters that are almost always hammed up…..
Supporting Cast:
Tamer Hassan (Football Factory , The Business, The Calcium Kid)
Dexter Fletcher ( Bugsy Malone, Rachel Papers, Lock Stock)
Kenneth Cranham (Shine ON Harvey Moon, Shiner, just about everything)
Jason Flemyng (for about 30 wonderful seconds….)
& Of course Sienna Miller (Who you may have heard of?.)
The Script:
J.J. Connolly wrote Layer Cake originally in Novel form, and then went on to write the Screenplay;
The novel is about a successful cocaine dealer who has earned a respected place among England’s Mafia elite and plans an early retirement from the business.
Writing a book, and then transferring your baby from page to screen is always a painful affair – But this is a pure work of enjoyment, love of the genre, and a knowing wink to all those other films that walk straight through the clichés’ and fucks around with them.
The Direction:
Not intentionally seventh on the list, Matthew Vaughn ’s Direction is pretty close to flawless. You may not know that he Produced Guy Ritchie’s “Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels”, “Snatch” & “Mean Machine”… (two out of three aint bad).
Richie was originally touted to take the helm of Layer cake, but bowed out, so Vaughn took over. I think this might well be the best of a line of “London Underworld” Genre that Lock Stock kicked off in 1998. Yes, Lock stock was well executed, yes Snatch made good use of inter-cutting to take what was essentially a “caper” movie and make it something a bit more “zany”, but Vaughn’s Layer cake takes essentially an excellent story, and makes it just that bit better. He may have had the Midas touch as a Producer, making his mark on British Cinema, (and giving us Vinnie Jones) toward the late 1990’s and earl 2000’s – but as a Director, he’s more than proving he can fight above his weight –
There’s nothing “wacky” or “Zany” about Layer Cake – it’s just, bloody good.
The Music:
There’s no Ocean Colour Scene, Paul Weller, Robbie Williams, or lame 90’s covers here – The music really does take the film to another level: There’s none of that “Mockney” self conscious row here – (you can buy it at http://www.amazon.co.uk/ )
A mixture of Chill Beats and some old classic tunes you’ve forgotten you know – the soundtrack alone is quality stuff, added to the mocing picture, well……..
If you’re at all interested in true “British Crime Movies”, that are as good as The Long Good Friday, Monia Lisa, Get Carter, The Italian Job, then you should definitely add this to your list: if that’s not really you’re bag, then you’re probably not reading this anyway.
"The Street is Watching, She's Always Watching"
Carlito's Way was originally released in 1994: for Al Pacino, it's sandwiched right between The Scent of a Woman & Heat. It's interesting to note that this was not as widely successful as either of them. But it is equally as good as Heat, and a far superior movie, in every sense, to Scent....At first, it seems that Director, Brian DePalma is entering into familiar themes addressed in his previous movies Scarface or even (on closer inspection) The Untouchables, which are both excellent examples of the "Gangster Genre". Of course, Depalma and Pacino are practically begging you to think of Scarface and Carltio's Way in the same sentence...
These are obvious comparisons; all three movies are connected in their main story themes, which are, essentially the bad guys versus the good guys,
But, from the first scene that we see Pacino, and hear his voice over, we are entering into a very different world than either Scent, or Heat:
DePalma perfectly sets the tone , immediately sending you into a Carlito's world. There is absolutely no ambiguity from the get go. You know that Carlito is a bad man. But you're preconceptions of Pacino allow for interesting play on what it means to be "bad" because, as we learn very quickly, Carlito has turned a page and is beginning to believe he can escape his past, make good the future...move on.
This theme echoes in his brief but significant meetings with one "Benny Blanco (from the Bronx)" the superb John Leguizamo. Benny see Carlito as a figure of authority, yet someone to challenge. They are inextricably linked, the past and the future of the underworld. Carlito's is reminded of himself in Benny.
As we are drawn so immediately into Carlito's world, the interplay between himself and the other main characters is never over played. It's incredibly real. Pacino does an outstanding job of being a man in the middle of a slow & painful moment of clarity...
Sean Penn plays David Kleinfeld, Carltio's sometimes Lawyer & friend and a complete liability , just kicks ass!". Carlito is consistently being drawn in to Davids seedy business deals and hilarious coke fiend rants... Sean had not really blown up in 1994. Sure, there were some excellent pieces on his CV (At Close Range, Colors, Casualties of War) but in Carlito's Way, he surpasses all expectations. Less than two years later, he was in Dead Man Walking, and that is a man at the top of his game.
This is a film that takes a really, really deep breath, and holds it for just about as long as you can before you bust something. There is the feeling that maybe a metronome is playing somewhere in the back ground, dutifully ticking off the seconds until something really bad happens.
People are forever banging on about Scarface. No doubt, because it really is a "piece of work"; every time you see it, yes, something else of note does opens itself up, requiring reconsideration of what the film really is about. I agree...( Blah blah blah...)
But there's something in Carlito that is not, nor ever will be in Scarface (and, to be fair it was never intended...) which is why, to my mind you just really cannot compare the two:
Carlito's story is a "true" tale of one mans' decision to change, no matter what, and the forces outside his control that make this decision an impossible task to undertake. In Scareface, the message is the total opposite- sheer force of will can get you anywhere you want.
Carlito's Way stands head and shoulders above most "gangster" genre from the last 10 years. It stands above films from many Genre.
The Film, Heat, ironically left me cold. I appreciate Michael Mann's style. (Manhunter, Ali, Collateral) but there is something soulless, almost deliberately, about his movies -
Depalma is not necessarily well know for having heart: but the magic is all there is Carlito's Way. Without an ounce of unneeded sentiment, this film will have Men of a certain age go a big wobbly one.
"You promised me that everything was gonna be ok, remember?"
I haven't read the book, so, to be fair, I can't comment on how close it follows the narrative.
One thing I do know is this: Requiem is one of the most relentless movie rides you could ever experience. But you constantly want to get off.
Like wincing at road kill, the use of montage is cleverly interwoven with stark images that, try as you might, you simply cannot turn away from.
I have watched this film several times, and it always has the exact same affect. I sit there slack jawed and tense for a couple of hours, seemingly unable to draw breath - but the other night I watched it with my best friend, who had never seen, or heard of it before: seeing his reaction was almost as hard to watch as the movie itself. It was then that I knew that what this film does so well, is really get under the skin and right smack bang into the centre of the darkest soul of things.
The music just adds weight to everything you're seeing: intense & running the same theme throughout. This has to be one of the most exhausting films ever made - the story itself is not particularly hopeful, but the way the Directory Darren Aronofsky draws you in is like nothing else.....
Ultimately, you could argue that films like this are self indulgent, that movies should be happy, jolly, fun and uplifting affairs. But I disagree; whilst this films messages are essentially seen as;
"Hey!.....Drugs are bad, addiction is bad, we're all doomed, your dreams will diminish to nothing, leaving you empty and wanting"
That's actually OK with me. I don't want to be protected - I want to see behind the scenes, I dig the hideousness;
If you're a little like this too, then this film will have a profound effect. if it's not your bag, then try sticking your head in the sand.
Shut your raggedy-ass up, and sit the fuck down!
While everyone else in the room is getting in a dizzy tizz over Quentin Tarantino's new Movie Grindhouse, (yes, I know it's a double bill with Robert Rodriguez sharing Director's credit...) I got to thinking; What is my Favourite Tarantino movie?. Which of his films, when all is said and done, can I go back to and enjoy as much now, as the first time I watched it?. I have to say, for my money, that would have to be Jackie Brown.
Jackie Brown was Tarantino's 5th time in the ring as a Movie Director, only this time the subject matter was drawn from a Elmore Leonard novel "Rum Punch"; Tarantino had, by this point, written Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers & Pulp Fiction, and was carving a very plausible reputation as the Zeitgeist of the '90 film industry. It seemed, whatever he had a hand in, turned to gold...
Re-writing the novel into screenplay is always going to change the plot in some ways. That Tarantino manages to retain the essence of the story whilst altering some of the plot only magnifies his talent.
Also interesting is his casting: using A- Lister's such as Deniro & Keaton in smaller parts, whilst handing over the leading roles to veterans such as Pam Grier & Robert Forster, just shows a man at the top of his game, with laser like accuracy, he nailed every single part perfectly.
But what I like more than anything else about Jackie Brown, is the pacing. Tarantino has the ability to turn up the heat (reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill Vol's 1&2, Natural Born Killers), but here we're seeing an obviously more pensive view through the lens. Every shot is allowed to slowly unfold onto you. this is not like many other films of it's time, crashing and shouting all the way to the end without much to say. Damn it this film has depth, soul even.
And if you think you know what the film is "about", look again. There are at the very least four story lines occuring all at once, every bit as complex as say, The Godfather, or No Way Out or Glengarry Glen Ross. As the pace is so perfectly kept, you're almost seduced into believing that all these stories are one and the same thing. Like I said, look again.
I'm very exited about Grindhouse too. It seems that in the last fifteen years that I have become so interested in film, Tarantino has been an imminent force, every now and again back on the radar with a new box of tricks. Grindhouse, no doubt will expertly reinvent a genre that many didn't even know existed. No doubt there will be the obligatory Grindhouse copies in the next 18 months or so. No doubt Tarantino will be asked to dissect every frame of his new film.
But I wonder if this signifies another kind of departure. Jackie Brown was probably the most mature of him first five movies. People will pick their favourites, but none could deny that the characters within Jackie Brown are "real" enough to care for, can we actually say that of any other character, in any of his 4 films before?
The Story, the Script, the Dialogue, the Characters, it's all here: Jackie Brown is hard to beat.
"This is England"
“This is England” Sean Meadows film offering, comes off as something of a beautiful lament for the 1980’s. But there is nothing saccharine about the images he draws from: The Falkland War, our Iron Lady Maggie Thatcher, Miners Disputes, Unemployment:
Acting as the backdrop to something like the “everyday tale of a young boy’s short distant travel in the summer of 1983”, from bullied & oppressed flared wearing ginger, to skinhead. His charming indoctrination into a small, tight knit crew of skins is dealt with admirably, and without much deliberation.
The original skinheads, their sensibilities and beliefs are only briefly touched on – these, remember, are 2nd generation skin’s – what there about, to begin with, seems more like benign resignation that life in England in the 1980’s had little to offer; and of course, to a certain faction, they were absolutely right:
But focus is put, quite rightly, on the positives of belonging to something; something with meaning, something solid – a feeling our main character is certainly in desperate need of:
What Meadows does so perfectly here is understated reality. Every character feels so very, very real. If you, like me, where 13 years old in ’83 – then this is incredibly familiar territory
Unlike the films of say “Scum, or Made in Britain that were made in the 80’s and were dealing with similar topics on a grander scale:, the anger, frustration, pessimism & confusions of the time are kept to just one character here – who’s return into the crew brings change, and ultimately this is where the films heart rings out. (You might want to compare some of the more darker commentary to American History X,)
This is, quite honestly, one of the most beautifully accurate and painful films to come out of England in a very long time. It does not try to answer questions; it tries to show how a seemingly good souls can become seduced, changed & Ultimately, damaged:
Meadows’ lament may well be the most poetic British cinema we’ve seen so far this decade
An Imitation of Life
It's courted controversy is now as established into the cult & pop psyche as the movie itself. The dubbed voice over, The final edited scene, The addition of a Unicorn. Ridly Scott on /off relationship with the financiers These have all added weight to the story of a film about Replicants.
But Phillip K Dick's Novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? , of which the film is tenuously based on, did not lend itself well to the medium of film . The language is difficult to translate, and the dystopian landscape within can be hard to imagine, it's full of the uncomfortable colour of a world gone wrong.
The central story line of the book is disjointed and difficult to sum up in a few words. I can imagine trying to pitch the book to a Hollywood producer would bring even the best out in a sweat.
The book was originally released in 1968 and was received about as well as any book describing a mans decent into confusion and doubt can ever be. Flash forward to the early 1980's and Dick's work was in development with some of the central characters intact. The rest came from the hearts and minds of screenwriters Hampton Fancher & David Peoples. On it's original release, Blade Runner did not receive particularly favourable reviews, and audiences did not necessarily embrace this idea of the future.
When the VHS rental phenomena began in the mid to late 1980's in the UK, the film begun to get its legs. Now of course, it's unusual to meet someone who hasn't seen it, and most of who have, consider it at least a work of weight and interest.
2007 will see what I think will be called "Blade Runner (25th Anniversary Final Cut)" which I believe will be Ridley Scott's attempt to put all the bits of all the other previous releases (of which there have been 7 so far) into some coherent order with extra scenes, deleted scenes, interviews, trivia etc into one 3 disc set (or something).
It's interesting to note that, as a philosophical comment on what it means to be "human", Blade Runner has few contemporary Science Fiction films on which it can be compared. As a visual aid to what an imagined future may look like, it's undeniably close to what we're living in now. Technologically speaking, many of the "Hi Tech" gadgets we see fleetingly in the film are commonplace items today:
But actually, all these effects or visions of a future are really just a backdrop to a very human question which threads throughout Blade Runner.
"Who am I?"
And, in fact, the one character that portrays in some way the pursuit for an answer is Roy Batty (pictured above), though his conclusion may not be a reassuring one, it is a most certain truth for his character; The irony of course, is that he is essentially far from human.
Some of Batty's last words reflect the truth of things;
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe...All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
You don't have to be a fan of Science Fiction to Enjoy this film. You don't have to be an advocate of all things new. There's a sense throughout the film that actually technology is taking over human space, and certainly not always in a good way.
Oddly, for a film with very little dialogue, this is in someways an extremely pensive view on frailty.
...See this film:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
