Change Your Image
polos_are_minty
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
A Matter of Britain and America
The film starts with an impressive look at the universe, which itself is interestingly voiced over. This scene is probably one of the films most impressive when you consider the era in which it was made. Soon though we join the lead on board his rapidly plummeting Aircraft. It is quickly established that he has no way of surviVing this situation, the plane is too badly damaged, his parachute is shot through and his friend is dead. We hear Peter discussing all of this with a young American female who is at the other end of the radio and instantly we can tell that these characters, given the chance would be a perfect match However too soon Peter has to jump into the fog and to his death...
As I watched this film I had a nagging sense of annoyance building inside me, I wasn't quite sure what caused it, other than perhaps the unsatisfying nature of the film after the initially promising opening scenes. The film itself is based around quite a unique concept, a man being missed by Heaven, he then subsequently falls in love and is given the right to appeal the decision of his death. What bugs me though is that the realisation of this idea was not everything it could of been and the film instead focuses to much on the relationship between Britain and America as opposed to, in my opinion, the far more interesting one of life and death.
It makes perfect sense that the film was designed as a propaganda piece to boost Anglo-American relations. After all it did come at a time when there were a few difficulties between the nations. What doesn't make sense though is the way the film is so obvious in its attempts to improve and cement that relationship. This, inevitably, brings me on to the trial. Where do I start with the Trial? I give it that it was entertaining, amusing and good fun. What I don't give it though is much credit for anything else. I thought that the trial, perhaps naively, would be more about Peter and his life and why he should be allowed to continue to live. Alas though it wasn't, instead we are given a debate about which country is better, Britain or America. There is not much more to the trial than this and sadly, despite the amusement I got out of place from the scene, it kind of ruins the film. The scene is so out of place with the rest of the film that it jars horribly and feels somehow shoehorned in.
I want to briefly mention Frank, he is perhaps the best character in the film but I think that he is unnecessarily killed. We are told by the French operator that anyone who has ever lived could be Peters defence in the trial, which of course indicates that Frank could perform the role even whilst alive. Alas no though, the character is killed in perhaps the most contrived motorcycle crash of all time and is then taken up to Heaven were he is given the role of Peters defence Despite this though Frank is an interesting character, he is not over the top like the Operator, nor is he a caricature like Peter himself, he is just a normal person
So in all it is an interesting film but it is one which makes things difficult for itself. It offers a lot of interest, but not on the subjects you would of thought. By no means a masterpiece but neither is it junk
6/10
Shallow Grave (1994)
Shallow Grave
Shallow Grave
Danny Boyles first ever film, Shallow Grave is a solid and enjoyable thriller. The film definitely exhibits some very Boyle characteristics, from Nudity, to realism, and the film using two of Boyles preferred actors, Eccelstone and McGregor.
I really enjoy this film, at 89 minutes it is a short film by most standards, yet it fits a lot of action and plot into that time. The 3 lead characters are all great, they are all supposed to be cold hearted and horrible people. The acting of Eccelstone in particular though is amazing. I really enjoy watching him going crazy on screen. I also enjoy the other characters reactions to his increasing Paranoia.
Mcgregor is also good, a lot of people criticise his acting in recent years, yet I think a lot of his earlier films show that he is actually a very talented individual. I really enjoy how his two counterparts become more and more worried about what they've done, whilst it really doesn't affect him at all, until his sudden bout of self serving concern towards the end of the film.
I really enjoy the setting and the music in the film as well. The music, it could be said is very standard thriller stuff, but to me it adds a lot to the picture and builds up the on screen suspense well. As I say I also think the setting is good, I like the flat, and I think it certainly increases the sense of creeping madness, with the deliberately toned down colour scheme and the long spiralling staircase.
I do have some criticisms, there are some obvious gaffes, on occasion there is camera or crew visible. Also the film does seem to steal a lot of it's aspects from many other thrillers, especially Psycho.
I do enjoy the ending, it is certainly a surprise. I also like the small amount of ambiguity, we know enough to make assumptions about the film, but beyond the obvious it is unsure what happens. For his first film, Boyle has done a good job and he has clearly laid the foundations for Trainspotting
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Bridge on the River Kwai
I enjoyed the Bridge on the River Kwai a lot more than I initially remembered doing. Not having seen it for a considerable time a lot of the plot points and story where lost to me. In a lot of ways it is very similar to most other war films. A lot of the characters are certainly the same and are almost interchangeable.
My favourite part of the film is probably the first hour. I really enjoy the coming to terms scenes of the two Conoels. It is well acted and portrayed in a believable and enjoyable way. The interplay between the two characters is well done. Alec Guiness portrays the stuffy Conoel Nicholson perfectly, he is once again superb. I especially enjoy the scene where he and the other officers stare down a machine gun, reflecting the courage and tenacity which was common place in the military of that time.
The two story threads, one attempting to complete the bridge, one to destroy it, are an obvious contrast to each other, yet they work well and it gives the viewer a sense of knowing dread for both sides as the climax approaches. The bridge building part of the story is the superior to the two, I simply prefer the characters and enjoy watching Alec Guinness slowly descend into obsession with completing the bridge.
The character I really dislike is the American. He embodies all the irritating and stereotypical characteristics which are so common amongst cinematic versions of American characters. It is perhaps a redeeming feature of his character that he is killed rather than saving the day, which is what many would expect such a self righteous character to do.
The ending is fun. The obvious question it leaves is, did Nicholson mean to destroy the bridge or not?
American Graffiti (1973)
American Graffiti
American Graffiti at first glance appears to be a typical American High School film, with all the stereotypes that go with it. On watching I'm afraid it does very little to alleviate that sense, yet it is an important film for it's genre and probably created many of the stereotypes which are common place today.
I think a lot of the films value probably comes from nostalgia and having grown up in similar times, with events like this going on around you. I can't really relate to any of the characters, that doesn't in any way mean I don't find some of them interesting, I just think that most of the time they are too obvious.
The film is well made, and certainly proves that Lucas can direct without entering too deeply into the realms of fantasy. The music of the film certainly fits it perfectly, and adds to the flavour and feel of the piece.
It is definitely a believable film as well, whilst watching you certainly get the idea that this actually happened and the characters, even if horribly 2-D, are reflections of real people.
It was also a novel experience to see actors like Harrison Ford and Ron Howard so young on screen. Apart from the novelty factor though that really doesn't add anything to the film.
I would say that American Graffiti is a good solid film, but it is no way one I can profess to love.
Black Swan (2010)
Career Best Performance from Portman
A lot has been made of Natalie Portmans performance in Black Swan and rightly so. To put it simply, she is spectacular. Having seen her in many other films and thought her average in those, I was surprised at how well she performs in this. The amazing thing is that this is the same person who played Queen Amidala in Star Wars. She is completely unrecognisable.
I think a lot has to be said for the Director, he has clearly managed to connect with Portman on a level which George Lucas was never able to. Aronofsky masterfully uses intrusive shots and clever camera work which seem to go hand in hand with Portman's delicate portrayal of Nina.
The premise is simple, young female Ballet Dancer lands role of Swan Queen in a production of Swan Lake. As soon as we reach the scene where Nina confronts the choreographer and asks him for the lead role, we know where the story is going. The film can only end one way from this point onwards but I don't think that damages it. The fact that it is a typical Psycho Drama in which the lead descends into insanity is not what is great about this film, as anyone could tell a story as simple as that. What's great about Black Swan is how the story is told.
Performance wise and Direction wise I think the film has everything. I especially enjoyed the way the dancing scenes where shot, with the Camera moving with Portman as she danced. I also adored the scenes showing Nina getting ready to dance. There is something very compelling about watching preparation on screen and the scenes with Nina's Ballet shoes are no exception.
All in all a High class, adrenaline filled thriller, with some magnificent performances and brilliant direction.
9/10
Ravenous (1999)
Good, but doesn't really leave me hungry for more.
OK so Ravenous. What do you expect when you see the film's synopsis, to be honest you expect a run of the mill Hollywood flick. Yet what you get is not such a thing, whilst the film definitely is a very Typical piece of Anerican film making, it does have a few interesting and different tricks up it's sleeve. I would say that it is an enjoyable picture, but it has sone very obvious and irritating flaws, although I'm able to suspend my disbelief for the duration of the film, it is not without some difficulty, which is somewhat surprising as there are many other films with far stranger plots that I find easier to be pulled into.
Robert Carlyle, for me, is the best thing about this film. His acting is great, whatever scene he is in he manages to bring real life and energy to, which is something the lead seems to lack. The lead is obviously supposed to be a coward and a wimp, I am however unsure wheter the actor manages to pull this off. In many ways he seems subdued overly quiet and looks like a fish out of water, I am however inclined to think that this has nothing to do with his portrayal of the character, but more to do with his inabillity to act.
My personal favourite scene is the fight on top of the mountain, where Carlyle reveals his true, if not somewhat obvious, colours. The scene is cleverly shot, making use of a wide range of interesting angles, I noticed a 'Vertigo' shot, the famous zoom in and tack back shot. The music is also fun and adds a lot to the pace of the film. Although at moments, it seemed to remind me of the Benny Hill music, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as I don't think the film was supposed to be taken entirely seriously.
The films concept, cannibalism, has been used in so many films that it often becomes boring, and unexciting. I have seen a lot of films where the fact that Humans eat other Humans is supposed to be scary, that usually when people try to do it, it becomes a snooze fest. However with Ravenous, I think that they have managed to change the basic idea of cannibalism about a bit, so that there is a at least an interesting plot playing out on screen, and not just humans eating.
Whilst definitely not the greatest film I have seen, it is a long way from being the worse. Like I say it is an enjoyable film, it doesn't get too bogged down, and it moves forward at a good pace. It does have numerous flaws, like being shot in a blue tone, which I could really see little or no reason for. Overall I would say a solidly average film, it can never be more that that, but honestly I don't think it even wanted to be.
7/10
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Brilliant
Well, where to start. The beginning seems a very good idea, I first saw this film in 2000, although at my then young age I was put off by some elements of the film, I generally loved it. It's possibly the quirkiest and strangest film I own. It is surreal, and has an original, clever and funny plot. It is rare to find a film quite like this one, the acting is superb, especially the title character of John Malkovich. Cameron Diaz is also worth a mention, for an engaging and brilliant performance, I would like to see a lot more of this sort of thing from her, as opposed to the usual stuff she makes. Her appearance in this film proves that she can act.
Spike Jonze, the films director, previously made his name directing music videos. Being John Malkovich, was his first foray into the feature film, in my opinion he has acquitted himself honourably. The direction is brilliant. Especially, a lot of the puppet sequences, which were fantastic and show real skill. Jonze has also filled the film with quirky little touches, for instance when Craig first discovers floor 7 1/2 it is exactly 7 minutes and 30 seconds into the film. While adding nothing at all to the film, it does come across as a clever thought. Another clever clue, is when Lottie ( Diaz) enters the Malkovich room in Lesters house, if you look at the door knob, it is precisely the same one as on the portal door.
One of my favourite scenes of the film is when Malkovich himself enters his own mind. The first time I watched the film I had a due sense of horror and dread as he crawled along the little tunnel. I really had no idea what was going to happen. It is rare to find a moment in a film which is as clever as it is funny, yet when Malkovich enters his own mind we are rewarded with just a moment.
The pacing of the film is excellent, in films of this variety, it normally works that the build up is excellent, but the ending is a total let down, on thus occasion I don't think that is the case at all. Throughout the films entire length, you're eyes are glued to the screen. The story moves forward at exactly the pace you want it to, I never once feel desperate for the ending, and I don't have any unanswered questions at the end of the film, which is always a good sign.
I must talk about John Malkovich, who I tghink was crucial for the film to work. In my eyes had you replaced Malkovich with any other big name actor the film wouldn't of worked. Malkovich's acting was excellent, and you can clearly tell that he had fun playing a fictionalised version of himself. On some omissions actors clearly go for a role they know will be fun, I think that is what Malkovich has done here. Taking on an extremely rare opportunity to portray himself. Well I say portray himself, for that is another brilliant part of his performance, how he is able to get the audience to suspend their disbelief and really believe there is someone else controlling his body, actions and life. I can't speak highly enough of Malkovich, he has taken everything in his stride and has clearly had a good time, and is a very good sport for allowing certain childhood scenes to be shown, when most actors would of refused.
The film does have some serious issues, for example it does offer an opinion on the American publics growing obsession with celebrity, and the desire to achieve fame and wealth. The films tag line 'Ever Wanted To Be Someone Else?', sums this up. The film does show the lengths some people are willing to go to, to get what they want. But it does it in a light hearted and funny way.
All this said, there admire things about the film I don't like. The surrealism at times goes to far, with the flashbacks to the Monkeys childhood being a particular example of this. The character of Maxine is also very weak when compared with some of the others, being shallow, self serving and with little depth. However on the whole I can't really fault it on these two grounds. It is a cult classic, and is perhaps one of the most loved independent American films for a very good reason.
I am dubious where to score this, I know it definitely deserves an 8, but reading what I've written it is going to be...
9/10
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Average
Planet of the apes was released mere days after 2001: A space odyssey. It is unusual for two such films to be released in close proximity. I think that 2001 has a considerable advantage over this film. I don't by any means think it is a bad film. It has lots of elements and features of a good one, good music, a good story and an interesting plot. What I think brings it down is its lead actor Charlton Heston and its long winded and often irrelevant talking scenes.
Obviously films need to use dialogue and conversation between characters to make the film work. The impossibility of this film without dialogue is obvious. However what I found is that many of the scenes were basically Heston sat talking to the camera and whatever other characters appeared on screen. The film made very little use of it's potential for large visual sequences, there were a couple of instances of this, but mainly I thought, in something like planet of the apes, which has so much potential for such scenes, it was lacking. Instead relying mainly on dialogue to push the story forward.
There are exceptions to the above, like the child's doll which is found in the cave. When the doll makes the noise, it is a brilliant moment, the look of triumph on the humans faces, compared to that of shock and dismay on the Apes, is a great contrast. The soundtrack is also good, with the music almost always fitting the moment in question on scene, what I will say is that some of it could be quite repetitive, with the same music sequence being used for several scenes. However that barely matters, because I still maintain that the film would of lost some of its effect with no soundtrack.
The cinematography is pretty standard, there is nothing paticyualy exciting about any of the shots. The camera Is often stationary, and I did sometimes think that the characters were just talking heads.
I feel that my point on dialogue needs expanding. The things I enjoyed about this film were some of the more visual scenes. Whilst I accept that the film does need some dialogue to move the story forward and to explore the society and system, what I don't accept is that dialogue is the best way to do it. There are some films which solely rely on dialogue, but these are of a different sort and on a different sort of scale. With Planet of The Apes, which is essentially about exploration and discovering a new world, I would of expected more to be done with this. Yet what we get is essentially characters sat on screen and talking. This can work as other films I have seen have shown, but really here the talking is dull and unimaginative, with some of the characters spouting some terrible one liners. What I think the film needed was more scenes like the awesome chase scene, when Taylor tries to escape from the Apes custody. This scene is probably one of the best in the film, and all it is is Charlton Hedton running around the screen being pursued by a group of Apes. Yet it is more interesting than a lot of the dialogue which was mainly unimaginative and lacked anything to keep my interest.
I want to mention the chase scene, which to me was one of the best bits about the film. Yes it's a tried and tested formula. But I really enjoyed it, I loved how the supposedly inferior human first escapes from the cell and then goes on to allude capture against a vastly larger force for far longer than expected. To me this is more telling than a lot of the dialogue, and is a direct demonstration of one of the ideas of the film which is the superiority of certain classes etc.
I can appreciate that other people may find this film more entertaining than I and that they like the commentary on society that the film offers. I do accept that there is an awful lot of this, but in my eyes it is unsubtle and very obvious. Maybe it's meant to be obvious, but even so I don't think that this does the film any credit and I would rather have a more subtle commentary on our society. As in some ways the way the film is means that this part of the story takes over, and doesn't leave much room for manoeuvring other more minor plot points, and leaves little room for character development, with Charlton Hestons Taylor being an obvious example of this.
The ending of the film, if you haven't seen the film is a shocker. As Heston rides along the beach, it leaves you wondering how the film is going to end. It is a good ploy, because the main action sequence has played put, and it feels like everything is coming to a close. In some ways I still expect to see the Horse ride off into the distance, and the credits roll. So when the real ending emerges it is definitely a shock. It is perhaps a cheeky trick by the director, and it is not acted in the best way. But nevertheless it is enjoyable, and that is what really counts
7/10
Shutter Island (2010)
Starts very well, but is ultimately let down by a poor resolution
I was looking forward to seeing this film, I had heard plenty of good things about it, and I know that some of the directors previous efforts are excellent films. I was also looking forward to seeing Dicaprio in this role, as recently his acting has improved so much that he is unrecognisable from some of his earlier films. However I was again disappointed, this seems to have been a step back for him, as opposed to forward. His acting swung from extremely wooden, to bouts of massive overacting.
The film however does have good production values, and the cinematography is good. The film is a pretty standard idea for a psychological thriller, detectives hunting down missing person. It is however slightly different. The director deliberately uses a confining technique, setting the film on an island. It is a clever idea, it creates a sense of entrapment and helplessness. It also allows things to stay small scale, rather then the pan America man hunts some films of this type have become.
The way the film is shot is interesting, there seems to be a reliance on flashbacks to push the story forward, which I think is not a good technique. Rather then finding out what is happening in the here and now, we are slowly drip fed information from the past not all of which is relevant. The set up is interesting, the two agents have not previously worked together, allowing for a better way for the audience to get to know the characters. As the characters relationships develop, so does our knowledge of their backgrounds.
I have commented on Dicaprios acting, which I feel was poor at best. However I must add praise for Sir Ben Kingsley, who in my opinion is brilliant. The actor clearly appreciated the role, because his acting is great. Kingsley is truly the star of the show, and for me steals the lime light from the lesser Dicaprio. What is testament to his skill is that even the most awfully written scenes are delivered faultlessly, like the terrible scene in the lighthouse.
The first half of this film had so much atmosphere, tension and power, I am at a loss as to explain where it goes to after that. But strangely everything seems to disappear after that point. The ending is predictably bad, I mean it seems to be a cheap imitation of so many other films. The ending is so cliché, that it was even used in The Simpsons as a joke several years before this films release. I'm afraid the use of the unreliable narrator was this time poor, it reminded me of the ending of Fallen. Which was in many ways better than Shutter Island.
I still can't quite fathom what happened in the second half, and how they managed to waste such grand potential. I'm afraid this can be scored no more than 6/10
This Is England (2006)
This is Cinema
This is England is a very engrossing and enjoyable film. From the opening titles, which is the brilliant montage of images from the 1980s, right through to the closing scenes of the film keeps a high level of entertainment and of brilliant cinematography.
The director, Shane Meadows, has made a collection of small and independent dramas. Many of which are worth viewing, I however think that This is England is by far his best film. Meadows when shooting encourages actors to ad lib when they are not the centre of attention, he says that this leads to a more natural look, and creates more realism. I completely agree with him on this note. The film is nothing, if not realistic. The characters are endearing, the shots are natural, and the dialogue is really how people speak.
The film has a very serious message at its heart, which is of course the dangers of a certain type of national pride. Although it is set in the 1980s it is definitely not only a commentary on that era, but on modern day England. However despite its serious message the film manages to install a lot of humour into many of the scenes. The character of Gadget is mainly used for this purpose, being the obvious comic relief, when compared to the far more serious leader figures of Woody and Combo. That said, although Gadgets presence is for comic relief, he still manages to be a useful and important character on the serious side of things.
The acting of the lead is impressive to say the least. I am normally not a fan of many child actors. I often find them lacking in range and ability compared to their adult counterparts. However Shaun is very impressive for someone so young. He adds so much to the film, and without his presence it would really lack a lot of the authentic feel that the picture has.
The film screams 1980s. The opening titles serve to take us back to the era in which the film is set, at the same time conjuring up a sense of nostalgia amongst the viewers. The colouring and way the film is shot, also makes for an authentic 80s picture. Nothing about it says modern day, and there are no anachronisms that I have noticed. The authentic period feel is important in making the viewer actually believe that what they are seeing is the 1980s. Everything from the clothing, to hair styles, to cars was correct. Without these things it wouldn't work, and I'm thankful that Meadows has an eye for the minor details which combine to make this film work.
The major theme is of course about the dangers of racism, although hinted at in the early parts of the film, it doesn't really come into full fruition until about half way through, with the appearance of the excellent Combo. The character of Combo is brilliant, although his racist views and some of his attitudes are of course abhorrent, the character is still an interesting one. Throughout the film he portrays this image of a hard man, who has done time, he presents him self as someone who is proud to be white, he comes across as typical of certain members of the National Front groups. Yet, as is the point of the film, his character is shown to be human, the scene with Lol in the car is particularly memorable.
I have mentioned the opening montage, but I must briefly mention one of the others. The montage which shows, Seans transformation into the racist skinhead is fantastic. The interplay of the flag, and the music in this scene really come together to create a compelling and drawing scene. Meadows manages to grab hold of your attention, and refuses to release it.
I do have criticisms about this film. Its sentimentality is both one of its impressive and its irritating features. It seems to me that Meadows, is in someways longing for a time which was in many ways terrible. He also sometimes allows his own personal views to take over, and this is reflected in his attacks on Margaret Thatcher, and his glorification of certain types of unemployed layabouts. The film is also, like 2001 better viewed at the cinema. However these criticisms feel a lot like nitpicking, in light of what is actually a truly great film and a fine example of what cinema should be.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
An enjoyable, if not forgettable Clooney vehicle.
O Brother, Where Art Thou is a visually impressive film, with a great soundtrack, amusing characters, a few passing references to Homers epic Odyssey and a slightly above average plot.
In a lot of ways the Coen Brothers have taken all the elements which make a blockbuster, added in a few extra ingredients of their own, stirred it all together and come out with what is an enjoyable little story. Many people cite the films references to the Odyssey as an important part of the story, I don't however see this. That's not to say there aren't any, what I am trying to say is that the film is more reliant on it's own unique and interesting characteristics, as opposed to those of a 4000 year old text.
The colour in which the film is shot, is possibly one of the most important elements in generating the character of the picture. I think that shooting the picture, without the colour correction which was used in O Brother, would of detracted from the feel of the film. The dusty look, sums up the character of the Southern states. It also gives something of a dirty and lower class feel, which is perhaps important when we consider the backgrounds of the three lead characters.
The music of the film is another important element. Which is again one of the things the film would not be able to be as enjoyed nearly as much without. The music adds to the rustic feel that the colouring of the film does. It also helps push through the spirit of the era in which the film is set. A particularly strong example of this is the Baptism scene. Christianity is obviously an important part of life in Ameirca, and the Gospel bands that have appeared in that area have spread throughout the world. This scene is particularly entertaining, and the music enhances the effect. If they had chosen any other type of Christian Hymn the scene would weaken considerably.
However I am critical of the lead Actor, George Clooney. He dominates the film, in a larger then life manner. But, I don't think this is a good thing. From the opening moments, Clooney grabs the film by the throat and doesn't let it go. There is rarely a point where he is not centre of attention, and he always seems to position himself so that he is the dominate figure in a scene. Even in cases where he shouldn't be. The scene in the Barn is particularly irksome, with Clooney hogging the camera. I was amazed to learn that he earned a Golden Globe for this performance, because I really think that this is George Clooney at his screen hogging worst.
I won't however fault what is an otherwise entertaining film on the basis of one actor. It is overly an interesting and enjoyable film. It is not something which I would ever own, or even something I would go out of my way to watch. But nonetheless I think it has a unique appeal and is certainly something worth having seen at least once.
Gake no ue no Ponyo (2008)
A Paler Little Mermaid
I recently saw this film at the cinema. I was unsure as to whether I would enjoy it. It was billed as a Japanese Anime version of the Disney classic The Little Mermaid.
The film does everything I expected it to, but not in an amazing way. I feel it is a very typical example of the often emotionally overbearing films of Studio Ghibli. Like other films of its type and calibre, the film starts full throttle on attempting to emotionally manipulate its audience. The almost instant and undying love declared by the protagonist for Ponyo, is sudden,overplayed and obvious. Unlike this films predecessor The Little Mermaid, where the attraction between the leads is instantaneous, but the love between the characters is built up gradually throughout the film.
As is usual, the animation seems to take precedence, over the plot and storyline. The design of the film is faultless, and looks wonderful. It is a shame that the screenplay wasn't and leaves you thinking that this was just a vehicle to show of the animators art skills.
I did enjoy the soundtrack, it was a brilliant score. It truly sums up the feel of the piece and allows for the building up suspense, tension, and it is a perfect way to allow the relationship between the characters to develop.
Overall, it is an enjoyable, but remarkably average picture. It is let down by its many and obvious flaws, and is only partially saved by its great animation.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Great but aloof film
2001: A Space Odyssey is a fantastic example of cinematography. It is also an example of how films can be theme driven as opposed to story driven. I don't think that it is however as good on every level as some of the other films that we have seen so far.
Stanley Kuberick is famous and celebrated for being one of the best directors of all time. The reasons why this is are evident throughout the film. Kuberick uses perfect visual and sound based techniques in setting out what he wishes to achieve. An excellent example of this is the strange but surreal opening few minutes, with nothing but a black screen and music playing. Or perhaps, the excellent shot which has already been mentioned of the bone being thrown into the air which then fades into the modern day space craft.
What this film lacks in simple narrative, it makes up for in it's use of themes. There is perhaps one main theme which the film is presenting, with many minor ones used to back it up and to move the plot forwards. However everything in the film, I think, links into the central theme of Evolution. The character of HAL, is perhaps one of the most talked about, and remembered parts of this film, and this is for a reason, without HAL the film would lack a certain edginess. The use of HAL to back up the theme of evolution is apparent. Where as the Obelisk uses slow advances, teaching the apes to use tools, the humans make massive and uncertain jumps, making a machine which is more intelligent and powerful then themselves. In some ways this could be seen as a religious agenda, with the Obelisks as a god like force, who progress humanity in a correct and sensible way, but with the humans themselves playing God, and ultimately getting it very wrong.
Arthur C Clark, the writer of the screenplay and novel, is an interesting figure. He has stated during his life that he was 'Fascinated by the idea of god'. This statement is proved to be correct in much of his work, especially 2001. However, I wouldn't like to say that Clark uses the film as a vehicle for God, or any such statement. In my view the film is perhaps more of a commentary on how God can be explained as a part of the universe, and not outside it. Although the film has strong religious and divine tones, I would still strongly argue, that the focus is still more on this being a natural as opposed to a supernatural phenomenon.
I must talk briefly about the ending of the film. Since it's release the ending of the picture has been one of the major talking points about the film, and rightly so. It can be interpreted in many different ways what the ending of this film actually means. I like the ambiguity of it, to me it fits with the way the film works. The film is all about Evolution and how we evolved into our current situation, the main option the film offers is of course the Obelisk/God route. However by making the ending so ambiguous it is perhaps a nod to the fact that we don't and are unlikely to be able to know how we came to be, as that fact itself is ambiguous to the extreme. The widely accepted, and my personal view of the ending, is that it is the Obelisk pushing humanity on to it's next big step, and Dave's seclusion and life is his being prepared for what he will become.
There are flaws with the film, and it is by no means perfect. I think that much of the acting is very substandard, although this film was never about the acting I still think that it is a let down to what is otherwise a great film. The only actor I can truthfully say did a good job was HAL. Also the film, as has been said, is really not one to be watched on a Small screen. The full effect of the film is better grasped when viewed in a cinema. Although the narrative is missing for a reason, and has been replaced with the themes, I still think that the film suffers for this.. Something which lacks a strong narrative is likely to become too aloof, and will be hard to follow for many people. The films lack of narrative definitely dents the accessibility of the film, and has given it a somewhat pretentious and intellectual reputation, which in a lot of ways it does deserve, but is still a shame as some people will be missing out on a fine example of what a film should be.
I give 2001 a solid 9/10
Animal Farm (1954)
Animal Farm
Animal Farm is an amazing book. I think however it is nowhere near as good in it's film version.
The film certainly offers a broad and interesting interpretation of both Orwells book and Soviet Russia. All of the chatacthers have a purpose, and it is perhaps one of the better on screen adaptations of an original book.
You can really tell that the film received funding from the FBI, as some aspects of the film have been fairly Americanised. The alteration of the original ending, having Napoleon overthrown instead of having him nename the farm Manor Farm and the other animals being unable to tell the difference between him and the humans, is one of the worst changes. It annoys me that nothing can be left unaltered, and that because of the Americans dislike of anything vaugley left wing, they have to alter a great ending.
This is one film where Animation is guaranteed to be a better take on the story then live action. Only because you couldn't make such a picture work properly with real animals, as I am told is proved with the 1990s remake.
For me a good film, with some very enjoyable characthers. Even if Napoleon is a bastard I admire his force of will and his abillty to rule the other animals. Mr. Jones though should never of been overthrown, It was afterall his farm in the first place...
But on a serious note, an enjoyable 70 odd minutes, but not something I could watch reguarly, or even for quite a while after the current showing.
7/10
Abre los ojos (1997)
Open your eyes
i Open Your Eyes is an amazing piece of film. One of my all time favourite pieces of cinema. I was first made to watch it at school during an A-level Philosophy class. The first time I saw it I was dubious as to whether I would enjoy it, it seemed from my teachers synopsis to be another lovey dovey romance film, plus the idea of Spanish language film was a big turn off. Never the less I watched the film and thoroughly enjoyed it. Everything about it was immensley cool.
The characther of Cesar is your average, up his own backside 20th century guy. He is a idiot, but yet just a little bit charming. His the sort of guy, you begrudgingly admire. I am very glad the makers of the film didn't try and attempt to make him reform throughout the course of the picture, as is so often the case, I like that he stays shallow, for me it makes him far more believable.
One of the best shot scenes in the film has to be between Cesar and Nuria, when they are travelling along, after Cesar spent the night at Sofias flat. The shooting is really well done for this moment, with clever editing and interplaying of the shots as the scene progresses. The music also adds perfectly to the scene, adding to the effects of the cameras to show the fragility of Nuria, and the bewilderment and bored of Cesar.
I really adore the interplay of Cesars prison cell and his retelliing of his story. Cesars psychiatrist, Antonio, is one of my favourite characthers. I love his steady and calm approach to things. The contrast is brilliant, as Cesars world slowly unravels he remains the one steady rock.
I must talk about the ending, I do like the fact that it is left entirely open to any interpretation. I love the fall from the building, and how you have no idea what is going to happen. My mind always calls out to the film to reveal what happens. All I get though is a black screen, and then a voice... The film starts as it began with the words, Open Your Eyes. The pause between these words and the credits is enough to make me feel a revelation will happen, but thankfully, it never does.
9/10
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Kind Hearts
Will Rabagliati Well that was definitely the best film I have seen, which I haven't chosen, thus far. It is one of those old Black and Whites which at first glance you think is going to be another typical piece of 1940s British cinema. This opinion could not be further from the truth. In the 1940s, the majority of British Film released was heavy Drama, and Wartime films, things like Kind Hearts were entirely neglected. So I feel it is a nice break from your average piece of 40s film.
There are so many little things about this film which combine to make it one of the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The naration of the lead is brilliant, and without it I feel the film would lose marks. I love the calm, collected and often hilarious way in which he goes through his story and all the terrible things he has done.
The picture is totally charming, the cinematography and direction seems to capture the feel of what is supposed to be going on perfectly. I love the fact that the director often manages to give the film a look of charming and happy innocene, whilst the protagonist is in the process of some terrible deed. One particular scene sprigns to mind as the scene in which Henry D'Ascoyne dies. I love how our Hero sits calmy in the idyllic English countryside with his murder victims wife, calmly taking afternoon tea, and when he sees smoke from the explosion he makes some comment about burning leaves. Brilliant.
The trial in the House Of Lords is one of my favourite scenes from the film, I again love the collectedness of the protagonist as he sits through his trial. I also really enjoy seeing the House of Lords being used as it should be, not ruined by these awful modernists.
The film is awesome. The story is great, a man low down in the sucssesion trying to become Duke. What more could you want? It's a comedy, so I didn't expect well defined characthers and a finely tuned story, so was surprised to get one.
The ending of the film is possibly one of the greatest and funniest film endings I have ever seen. It seems to be a recurring theme recently that we never find out what happens at the very end... All in all9/10
The Great Dictator (1940)
Great Dictator
Having previously seen this film only once and really enjoying it. I was very pleased at the opportunity of a second viewing. I was however disappointed and the film was not as good as I remember it being. It however is still a classic and good film.
I think that Charlie Chaplin was possibly the greatest slapstick comedian of all time. In some of his earlier pictures this is displayed more effectively than in The Great Dictator. The Gold Rush springs to mind, and Chaplin should perhaps be viewed in this picture if you want to see him at his absolute best.
That's not to say there are not sublime moments in Great Dictator, the classic scene with the giant beach ball of the world being paticualy brilliant. I also really enjoy the opening sequence in the first world war. It is perhaps the finest part of the film, with a paticualy good scene being the flight in the aeroplane.
I also think the satire and the obvious rubbishing of Nazi Germany are brilliant. It really shows how the Nazis were a ridiculous group of individuals. The fact that Hitler saw the film twice, is testament to Chaplins brilliance and magnetism on screen.
You can tell that it is Chaplins first talkie. As he is clearly not totally comfortable with the concept of a film of this kind. Some of the strongest scenes are those which remain silent. Chaplins strengths were never in verbal comedy and it is unfortunate in some respects that the spirit of the times forced him to adopt it.
Still it is a very good and very well made film. As I have said, not his greatest picture, but then perhaps his most important and influential. I think without it we certainly wouldn't have a lot of the satire which is around today. It is definitely a benchmark and the starting point of modern satire on the big screen
I was originally going to score this an 8. However I think a 7 is more appropriate for what is a great, but somewhat flawed film.
7/10
Kaze no tani no Naushika (1984)
Nausica
I am not a particular fan of animation. There are several reasons why not, for me I often find the charecthers hard to connect with. I also often find the animation takes precedence over the storyline, and the directors get to caught up with making the film look good. Meaning that animation may look fantastic but lack in substance.
However, putting all of those thoughts aside, I still think I would of found precisely the same faults with this picture if it had been live action.
One thing which I was find annoys me in film is when dialouge is used as the sole means of explaining what is going on, or used to push the plot forward. A lot of the time in the first half an hour, the film seemed to do nothing but this. It seemed to be telling you things you already knew, or were obvious and apparent. I find this detracts from the picture, and doesn't allow you to process the information for yourself.
Another complaint would have to be the ending. The film both loses and gains marks for it. I don't like Deus Ex Machina endings generally, so when this one was sprung out of the box I was less then impressed. I don't see the point of killing a charecther only for 3 minutes later resurrect her, with little obvious explanation. When the princess is dropped in front of the horde of stampedding bugs, my instant reaction was that they were all going to miraculously stop, so I was quite impressed when they didn't. I just feel this was spoiled by the resurrection scene, which in my eyes achieved nothing.
There is a lot of good to though. The soundtrack is awesome, and fits perfectly with what the director is trying to achieve. There are also some fantastic shots, and views of the world. I also like the way the credits are used to continue the story.
Overly, i found it to be a very sentimental film. Which is not what I really like, it was in a lot Of ways the complete anthisist to the sort of picture I usually like.
I'm finding it hard to score this any higher than 6/10
The Dark Crystal (1982)
Dark Crystal
I watched this film many years ago, over 15 I think, and I barely remembered it at all. I mainly watched this film from a nostalgic point of view. It reminded me of many films from my early childhood.
I found this suprislingly enjoyable to watch. Obviously the visual quality and the story were somewhat lacking. It all seemed very cliché and obvious. However that is mainly part of it's charm. The film is rubbish, but it knows it is and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Don't take that as a criticism, it isn't. I really think the badness makes the film.
Perhaps it was silly, it is definitely one for the younger generation. But sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch something which brings on nostalgia and reminds you of years gone by.
So overall three words to sum up the experience; Rubbish,
enjoyable and nostalgia.
6/10
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
Good bad ugly
The good: There is a lot about this film which is absolutely 10/10. The film is very enjoyable. From what I remember of the last time I saw it, which was in French with English subs, I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more. One of the key parts of what made the film entertaining was the score. 99 times out of 100 it fitted the scene in question perfectly, and added to the feeling of the moment perfectly. The camera work was actually surprisingly good too, the use of cameras created tension and build up with out the use of massivley expensive special effects. The one particular scene which I feel sums up the film is the amazing showdown scene in the cemetry. The use of music, cameras and the brilliant acting of our three leads. The scene is awesome, it keeps your eyes stuck to the screen and makes you feel a part of what's taking place. Even if you've seen the picture before and know what's going to happen, you still think it could turn out differently... That is the brilliance of the film.
The bad: Whilst there is a lot of good in the film there are a number of things which dampen the film for me. One of which is the lack of details or explanation to a lot of situations which occour. Like one minute the leads are in one place, and the scene changes and they are in a completely different situation several months later with no intervening details.
The Ugly; Again there is little which is awful about the film. I would moan about the length, but I feel this is a touch hypocritical, considering I have moaned about lack of details. What I will say though is, some of the film could be used to better effect in advancing the plot. It does feel at times as if were stuck in a permanent rut which the film struggles to pull ou of.
Overall the film is very good, and its positives far outweigh any negativity in the film. It's fun, a bit silly, and different from the majority of westerns in existence.
So I'm unsure where this film lies in terms of score, somewhere between a 7 or an 8. I believe i'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt, having read what I have just written 8 seems the fairer score.
8/10
Brazil (1985)
Brazil
i I am going to be one of the only people to give a negative review of this film. It's not like the film wasn't well made, it was. You can clearly see that there are good production values, and that a lot of effort has been put into bringing this film alive. However it is not in the realisation of it's universe that the picture falls down, it is the films overblown humour and inabillity to take it's message seriously that annoys me.
The main idea of cinema is entertainment. Even the most visually stunning film in existence, would fall down without a good story or a good entertaining and enthralling plot. That is one of my main dislikes with Brazil, having designed his beauraucratic and futuristic Britain so well, Gilliam ruins it by inserting an assortment of unbelievable and ludicrous characthers, I'm thinking of Robert Deniro here.
The humour is basically a direct rip of off Monty Phyton, which itself is the most pretensious, overraed, and annoying set of films I have ever had the misfortune to see. Gilliam seems unable to take his humour forward and instead falls back on old clichés from his earlier works. He seems to lack discipline, and jumps all over the place, we go from one strange scene to another, with no explanation of any details.
Gilliam, to me, seems obsessed with hating the world around him. Even though he has never given it a chance, or looked around him and realised that what we have is actually good, despite its faults. Gilliam seems to be, from the pictures he makes, just another typical establishment hater, just because he can't accept that other people have to do things he may not like to keep him alive and safe.
I did not like the story of this film, and what Gilliam is trying to say. However I can appreciate that it is visually impressive, for that alone it gets 5/10
Fallen (1998)
Fallen
Fallen is a film which I was not paticualuly bothered about either way. When looking into it, I had heard it had mixed to negative reviews. So I was not expecting anything brilliant. I was therefore marginally surprised. Not a great film, but by no means a terrible one.
Denzel Washington is usually one of my least favoured actors, he has made some great films, but also some utter rubbish. I would say his performance in fallen fell between the two, and he was average.
Some.of the best parts of the film were in the shooting, some of the camera angles and colours used whilst in 'demon view' were impressive, and actually quite haunting.
One thing I found was, our always seemed to be raining, especially when in the Police station, you could always see it bucketing down through the windows, whether this was done to create tension I don't know, but it made me think the director liked to do stuff with the weather.
I do like a twist ending, the sort that makes you go back and review all that you have seen and view it in a new light. So for me the ending was probably my favourite bit. I mean yes it's cliché, setting it in the desolate forest. But so what, it's quite fun, and definitely entertaining.
For me, a slightly above average thriller, with nothing paticualy special about it. 7/10
Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)
Arsenic
Review: Arsenic and Old Lace.
As one of the few films I hadn't seen on the list, I was quite looking forward to this one. I was told to expect a charming black comedy, I wasn't disappointed.
The premise of the film, two old spinster sisters living together and killing lonely old men, doesn't seem overly appealing. It sounds like an attempt to imitate the quirky British comedies of the same era. However this is something quite different. It is mainly a bit of silly fun. It doesn't take itself seriously at all, and you can tell that most of the actors involved thought that the picture would be something they could have a laugh with.
The energy of the piece is what brings it alive. As I have mentioned, the actors really bring it to life. Carey Grant, for once, is very good. However the actor who play's Teddy deserves a special mention. For me, he makes the film, without his influence I feel it would be a slightly above average comedy. But the sheer amount of one liners, quips, and great acting brings him to the forefront of the film.
I enjoyed this film, but nowhere near as much as Kind Hearts, which is a shinning example of how a dark comedy should be done. Good film, but perhaps overly reliant on Teddy for gags.
8/10
Citizen Kane (1941)
Citizen Kane
Will Rabagliati Citizen Kane is truly one of the greatest films ever made.
Yes the story isn't that original. Yes some of the acting leaves something to be desired. There are points in the film when you wish it would hurry up and get to the point, some of the scenes can be overly long winded. I also found some of the dialogue slightly lacking,
Negatives aside though, Kane is possibly the best example of cinematography in existence. The brilliance and talent of Welles as a director is apparent in every shot of the film. One particular scene which stands out for me is the Breakfast scene which shows the progressing and the disentergration of Kane's first marriage. The shooting of that particular scene is brilliant, provoking and incredibly effective, it says a lot for the film that such a simple trick is so well used.
The ending of the film is also great, in a way it shows a human side to the monster that was Kane, it's Orson Welles's way of adding both a clever and a thought provoking end to the film.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
Rocky Horror
To me, the most telling part of the films title is the word 'Horror'. I found sitting through an hour and forty minutes of it close to unbearable. It's not that there aren't some funny scenes, there are. It's just mainly I find the whole thing to be too excessive, too over the top and extremely over acted.
It's trying to raise issues about Gender equality and Transexualism, it does raise these issues, but I felt a lot of the time it was doing so in a stereotypical and obvious way. People have claimed this is done in a satirical way, but I really can't see this. I think the film is obvious, over acted, and poorly directed. I would say that if anything it is not a weapon against prejudice it in fact encourages it. Everyone has a stereotype of what Transexuals and Transvesties are, and this does nothing to challenge it, it simply confirms peoples stereotyping. If you have actually met someone who is transgender, you will realise that they act nothing like the ridiculous Curry, in fact they usually tend to be down to earth normal people.
Nothing but an over the top, silly and over acted piece of cinematic junk. It is to caught up in blowing it's own over sized trumpet, and doesn't stop for a moment to consider what stereotypes it is pushing into the mindset of the people who watch it.
3/10