Change Your Image
blythyboy
Reviews
Shame (2011)
A film of sexual obsession. Is it taken seriously?
When I first read the synopsis for Shame I was a little unsure. It's a very unique idea to follow and could definitely have gone well or gone extremely bad. However when I found out Michael Fassbender was involved I started to be won over by it. Fassbender seems to turn all of his films to gold with his excellent ability in front of the camera and has a piercing look about him that can really make you uneasy.
I must admit that I heard of Steve McQueen (the director) because my Dad recommended I watch Hunger but I never got round to it. So this is my first experience with McQueen and I heard about how much of an artist he is when it comes to striking imagery and alternative camera-work.
So Shame follows a successful businessman, has a great job and a lifestyle that embodies the heart of everything that is New York. However deep down he hides a very serious obsession with sex and the film shows how serious his state of mind is when it comes to watching pornography, obsessively staring at women in the street or at work and masturbating. It all sounds like a good time for the viewer as you think you are going to sit down to 100 minutes of naked women and gratuitous sex, you couldn't be more wrong.
Shame portrays the terrible burden his obsession has become, it strongly follows a man whose life is starting to unravel because of it. It's actually a very difficult role to fill as it does involve a lot of sex but not in a way that would be erotic in any sense. Michael Fassbender has done a wonderful job of this, he has been able to overcome the on screen humiliation his character must go through by portraying these sexual acts but also show how shameful he feels after it's all said and done. Reason why the title works well. Fassbender couldn't have completed the film on his own, however. Cary Mulligan plays his younger sister, a character that seems to be the polar opposite of Fassbender's from the outside.
I saw her in Drive where she played a humble character who could be liked by everyone. This role is certainly different from that as she has to play someone who is very outgoing and bursting with energy but hides a damaged past with family and ex-boyfriends. Mulligan shows off her amazing talents by singing a slowed down version of Frank Sinatra's New York New York. The camera followed Mulligan, Fassbender and James Badge Dale who plays his boss in real time to capture genuine reactions to her singing ability. The scene is by far the most wonderful part of the film and had me completely drawn in, an affect that I rarely come across.
As she continues to live with her brother, his way of life seems intruded upon which results in his condition getting worse. This is all made more disturbing by McQueen's art direction, using strong blue and red lighting and the added element of a haunting soundtrack. It's nice to know that the subject matter has been taken very seriously and in no way does it glorify or sexualise his condition.
I was pleasantly surprised by how well the additional character played out, New York. The city seemed to be such an important artistic feature of the film and for someone who has never visited New York, it seemed to reveal its wonderful glamour and dreamful lifestyle but also show its darker regions. By shooting most of the film at night, it did well to bring out the harsh lighting and 'city that never sleeps' attitude that we have all come to know and love.
I loved Shame. I thought the plot was structured very well and was able to show the rest of the world that these unfortunate obsessions exist and it did it without any risk of being offensive to the real life victims of sexual obsessiveness. The performances by the two lead actors were outstanding and should be congratulated on creating such a genuine chemistry that you pray for their happiness when the credits roll. Steve McQueen has directed a wonderful film and I look forward to his future projects.
RoboCop (1987)
Interesting ideas but not without its problems.
I first saw Robocop when I was 5 years old...yes I was only 5. I've got my grandparents to thank for that little mistake. I remember being absolutely petrified by it. Walking armoured machines with really sinister voices saying I had 20 seconds to comply, Murphy's disgustingly disturbing death, Robocop's struggle to hold onto his humanity....and THAT scene (which I'll get to in a moment).
22 years later, the remake has been announced with a few impressive names attached to the film and with the first Omnicorp viral doing the rounds I thought it may be time to revisit Detroit's finest. So for the second time in my life, and considering my ever-growing experience watching fantastic pieces of work, was it any good? Hmmm sort of.
What I would say immediately is that (believe it or not) Robocop is not really about a cyborg policeman. The film tries to relay a message so much bigger than the future of law enforcement. Paul Verhoeven and Ed Neumeier have gone on record to say as much. To be honest without their conformation the film does blatantly show this. Robocop is an attempt to expose America for what they think it is, money hungry. The film is bathed in images and dialogue which portrays a disgusting country that has lost its sense of pride.
In my opinion, the best parts of the film involved key executives of Omnicorp, the villainous organisation that has its grip firmly on Detroit. The suits are portrayed as the school frat boys of business desperately wanting get ahead of the other in popularity and riches. The famous ED-209 scene in the board room is particularly important to show this. To this day it was still pretty scary to watch and incredibly violent, but what was interesting to see was how dumbed down the reactions were from the members of the board. I don't think this was a case of bad acting or direction, I think this was an intentional move to show that to us it's a tragic death, to Omnicorp it's a set-back.
I was also surprised by its attention to media brainwashing. Showing us news coverage and full screen commercials as if the movie has stopped for a break, suggesting WE need a break to here from their sponsors, like WE need a product fix. The catchphrase "I'd buy that for a dollar" is used so much over the course of the film that it becomes embedded and never goes away. The affect works very well. I've talked quite a lot there about Robocop's intention as a social satire but what about the literal plot that most people remember the film for.
Unfortunately in its literal sense, Robocop as a few flaws. Don't get me wrong, Murphy's transition from human to robot is great. The shots are well planned and gripping and Robocop himself looks amazing but it falls pretty flat by the lack of emotion shown by other characters. Murphy's so-called partner Lewis is so wooden that it's hard to believe that in such a short space of time that she has become emotionally involved in Robocop's problems. She is pretty forgettable to be honest.
Another real problem with this film is that its action sequences to me are pretty dull. I honestly don't think they pack any sort of punch to keep anyone interested and unfortunately the soundtrack is awful. Listening to the main theme that has become so iconic over the years made me feel a little embarrassed to the point where it can't really be taken seriously as an 18 certificate action flick. But having said that, Robocop has one of the most disturbing sequences in the history if film involving a vat of acid.
It was a sequence that really disturbed me as a 5 year old boy and the affect has not worn away. It's so relevant to early David Cronenberg body horror images that it feels extremely out of place for a film of this nature. However, this scene alone cannot save Robocop from its bland action moments.
So, did I like it? From the many 80's action films that came our way it's definitely the worst I've seen. It tried to take a lot from Terminator and certainly didn't have the grit and horror that James Cameron achieved. On the plus side, Robocop has some really interesting ideas to try and explain where we are as a society and where we are heading. These parts are brilliantly done, I just wish the final product had more meat on the bone so we could watch it for what it is, not for what it was trying to say.
Sunshine (2007)
Good science fiction is rare. You won't be disappointed.
I thought I would finally do a review for Sunshine and it seems a bit overdue after seeing it for the first time about 3 years ago. For some stupid reason it took me this long to actually buy it and watch it for a second time. I wanted to get myself familiar with it before writing this because I remember my first experience with Sunshine being a brilliant one.
One thing that suddenly crept up on me after watching it again is that Danny Boyle has never made a bad film (in my opinion) he shows an eagerness to try every genre once and he has done a brilliant job. Whether it's a thriller, drama, horror or science fiction, he puts a lot of passion into his work and is slowly becoming one of my favourite directors.
The story of Sunshine revolves around the potential end of the world as a result of the sun dying. The fate of mankind rests with a group of scientists who attempt to travel to the sun to deploy a bomb that will ignite a miniature star within the sun in order to prevent the death of our planet. As you would expect, things don't go to plan. I make that sound as if the plot is predictable and in certain moments it can be. What makes the film stand out however is the total devotion to making it as real as possible within a science fiction environment.
For starters, the interaction between the group is outstanding. The cast lived together for quite some time prior to shooting in order to make the acting natural. When watching this I was reminded of Alien, quite a lot. The crew of the Nostromo were truckers not heroes and this was reflected in the performances and how natural the dialogue was. Granted that the plot of Sunshine is completely different and the dialogue is going to be slightly sexed up to keep it gripping but it kept Alien's natural flow and seemed totally convincing.
Professor Brian Cox had a lot of involvement with the science behind the film. There is nothing worse than a sci-fi movie trying to take itself seriously and then get the science totally wrong (Armageddon). The film works well because of its attempt to make the science convincing whether that's through acting or through visuals. There has been some criticism regarding certain aspects of the science but these seem to be things that would have jeopardised certain shots or certain plot points and this could have quite possibly affected the end product.
One thing that I had a real problem with first time round watching Sunshine was the final 20 minutes where it becomes a bit too fast paced and it certainly stands out from the rest of the film. After watching it again I realised that it isn't as bad as what I made it out to be, however it could have possibly been avoided.
So my final verdict is a good one. Sunshine is a good, solid science fiction movie that is taken extremely seriously and is done with a very strong essence of realism. The visuals are absolutely outstanding and the characters are beautifully played. You care about their fate because they are heroes and their actions throughout the film have come naturally to them because you know that they are genuinely great people who want to help humanity.
Danny Boyle has openly said that he would never do sci-fi projects again. Let's just hope he changes his mind.
Killer Joe (2011)
Simple plot but excellent group of characters.
To start with, I'm a bit of a William Friedkin fan. My all time favourite film is The Exorcist and any other film I see from him gets me slightly worried because I know he has a pretty sketchy body of work.
So I saw the obvious other Friedkin choice and that was The French Connection which I thought was really good. I saw his first play adaptation, Bug, which I thought was pretty special and I started to realise how much he pushes the performances of the actors and this is clearly his priority over any other aspect of film making. Yes it has to be visually appealing but the subject matter of his work is always reliant on performances.
So Killer Joe is another adaptation of a play by Tracy Letts and again has to rely on strong characters with convincing effort to make it come to life. Thankfully Killer Joe delivers on this. In fact, if it wasn't for William Friedkin's ability to add extreme pressure onto the actors by limiting the shooting to two takes per scene, I honestly think it would have lost it's attraction pretty quickly.
The film takes you into the bowels of low-life Texas and really emphasizes the grim reality of life for some unfortunate families. It was surprising to discover a black comedy breeze come over the film and it did come at you pretty surprisingly (especially scenes including Thomas Haden-Church). The cinematography improved on that point by having close up shots of Joe Cooper preparing himself for his first on-screen appearance to the world and blasting mere seconds of TV trash full screen to the audience to make a clear point on red-necks having a low attention span. All of this made me chuckle but it still kept me interested by providing a simple enough plot and letting the great performances carry it along.
Of course there has been a lot of talk regarding the late scenes of the film. Joe's well spoken manner and calm demeanour are pushed to the edge and his rage is unleashed like a shaken coke can that's been opened up. It came as a real shock to me and the suspense was unbearable enough to make your heart pound. Whichever way it makes you feel at the end, I'm sure you would leave the characters behind knowing it's ended in a really good way and is sure to be discussed well after the credits.
All in all, it's a good piece of work. The effort from the actors far outweigh the visuals which is perfectly fine for a story like this. I'm pretty sure Killer Joe is going to be a reasonable success at the box office and will certainly grab a lot attention when the eventual DVD release comes our way.
Kill List (2011)
Bites off more than it can chew.
So I heard a few things about Kill List and the feedback it got was very mixed. When I heard it was a British indie film about assassins, I started to get a little intrigued and thought I'll give it a go.
The film follows a family man with typical family problems who is suffering from an apparent disastrous mission failure in Kiev which has left him unstable. As an ex-soldier he now carries out contract killings with his friend Gal and the film tries to follow them from one target to the other, hence the title.
The film starts with a few great scenes which introduces the characters in a way that throws you into the deep end. A nice reminder of how great British drama can be.......however, I'm afraid to say that's where the positives end.
As the actual killings begin, the tone of the film just completely changes. The film starts in such an emotional way and the tension built between the husband and wife is so well done that it cannot possibly prepare you for the rest of the film. By this stage the film has already lost it's grit and blinds you with so many needlessly violent moments that it just feels out of place and to be honest gets a little boring.
Unfortunately it doesn't end there. The film is all over the place. After an hour spent watching stupid violence and troubled tempers the plot just becomes an absolute mess. I physically pulled a confused face which said 'huh?'. It leaves disconnected dots concerning a few characters and you are literally saying 'who?, what?, where?, why?' for most of the time......and this is BEFORE the climactic moments which has left a lot people angry and frustrated.
The film's director Ben Wheatley has obviously had a head full of great ideas for this film and tried to cram as much of it as he can into 90 minutes. For a low budget film it's been way too ambitious and has fallen flat on its face.
What a shame.
Cosmopolis (2012)
Cronenberg moves from the body to the mind.
One of the hardest things I've done this week is try to explain to my wife the synopsis for Cosmopolis. It's a very complicated film to break down but I will try.
First and foremost I liked it. The thing you have to remember with Cronenberg films is that he has a tendency to make them where the characters are blatantly caricatures of certain stereotypes. This is also evident before the character even says a word, the camera angles in Cosmopolis are unconventional, very close up and not getting much of the environment they are in which in this case works as a lot of the film is set inside a limo and adds a closed, locked-in atmosphere.
It has a very cyberpunk-ish feeling to it and this is made even more so by Howard Shore's amazing soundtrack which is very subtle and blends perfectly with the mood of the film. The plot I feel is pretty simple with the idea of Packer wanting to get his haircut but feels it desperately needs to be cut at a particular barber shop on the other side of town. in-between the journey he meets an array of characters with their own unique look on life and these emotions are played out in a very out-there way which emphasizes the idea that the film is not always meant to be taken seriously, because of this it is hard to get totally engaged with the characters as it moves at such a fast pace. Whether this is intentional or not is up to the viewers but I feel this is typical Cronenberg and to me that's fine.
It's hard to say much more about Cosmopolis without giving anything away to be honest. The Robert Pattinson fans I think will be disappointed but the David Cronenberg fans should be pleased with this work, as long as they prepare themselves for an attack on the mind and not the body.