|
What's worth seeing at the cinema? Cablo Gula knows. This page gives you the opportunity to find out what Cablo Gula
thinks are the coolest films out now and coming soon!
Pirates of
the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006)
With: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Bill Nighy, Keira Knightley, Tom Hollander, Jonathan Pryce
When the first Pirates of the Carribean
film came out, it was a surprise hit. Based on a theme park ride, it introduced the best pirate movie in decades, Keira Knightley
(thanks a lot!), cool special effects, boat-loads of dark summer fun and of course: Jack Sparrow. Director Gore Verbinski
certainly proved he deserved to be respected as an action fantasy director. With a crowd-pleasing Oscar nomination for Johnny
Depp and about $654 million in the pocket, it soon spawned not one but two sequels (the final part due for next summer) and
gave Disney a reason to live again. Dead Man’s Chest, the first sequel to the Pirates trilogy, starts off quite dramatically
with Elizabeth and Will Turner’s wedding interrupted by their sudden arrest. In order to free himself and his beloved,
Will must find Jack Sparrow and return a certain compass to the uptight Lord Beckett. Meanwhile, Jack finds himself cursed
by Will’s father who tells him Davy Jones is looking for him. The latter turns out to be a creepy pirate with a…squid…beard
and a…fishy crew and a…big…squid…thing he can control. Silly? Hell yeah! Fun? Damn right. If you thought
the skeletons were bad, wait till you get a load of these creeps. Very soon, it’s clear that this instalment is a bit
darker than its predecessor, 10 minutes in we have an eye being poked out by a crow and Jack paddling with a poor soul’s
severed bony leg in a casket at night. Oh, and we have a whole bunch of cannibals later on. This is a less-kid friendly and
slightly more gothic affair, it’s also a bit long. I must say though, that I wasn’t bored one second. With the
confident and impressive action scenes kicking in one after the other with gusto and the excellent special effects and score
working their magic, this is non-stop preposterous summer fun. Depp is, as ever, brilliant and his loveable Jack Sparrow offers
welcome comic-relief and a bit of rock and roll. Sadly, Orlando Bloom is as bland as ever and his Will Turner still has no
real personality, he does well during the action scenes though. As for Keira, the good news is she’s much less annoying
than in the first film, um, except for that cringe-worthy bit at the beach, and by the end of the film you’ll still
end up hating her guts, oh well. Surprisingly underrated by the critics, this is a very good sequel that will not disappoint
fans of the original. It all ends in a cliff-hanger so lets just hope the final part is as good as this one and doesn’t
end in a dull Matrix Revolutions-type fiasco. Overall, terrific fun, me hearties, Yahrrrrrr!
Overall:
****/5
Marie
Antoinette (2006)
With: Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Steve Coogan, Judy Davis
Sofia Coppola’s last film, Lost
in Translation, is certainly a tough act to follow. Now a modern classic romantic comedy it was an instant hit upon its release.
Coppola’s follow-up is ambitious to say the least. A period piece it tells the story of French/Austrian dauphine Marie
Antoinette and her relationship with a young Louis XVI. Period films may not seem too exciting but Coppola has cleverly added
a modern twist to the proceedings. Mozart is mostly replaced by an atmospheric 80s and 90s soundtrack, a daring gimmick which
admittedly doesn’t always work but which makes the whole thing so much more original and entertaining. There’s
also an oddly cool “fuck it” attitude concerning getting the accents and languages right. It may be off-putting
at first to hear Kirsten Dunst’s Marie Antoinette speaking with an American accent but pretty soon you stop caring and
go with it. Sofia Coppola’s visual style works surprisingly well with the setting and the film looks fantastic from
start to finish. If you’re expecting something grandiose and epic like Barry Lyndon forget it, this is an indie movie
through and through. Sofia Coppola is not concerned with 100% authenticity or making a historical epic. This is a character
study that’s all about Marie Antoinette. And even though she was according to the film unfaithful and selfish in many
ways she is made very human, completely believable and irresistible not just thanks to Kirsten Dunst’s superb performance
but thanks also to Coppola’s honest, sweet, delicate and candid style. Jason Schwartzman is fun as Louis XVI, a young,
quiet, naïve boy with a good appetite and a liking for locks and keys. What makes this film so original is that it sees its
main protagonists for what they were: teenagers. This is a coming of age story where Marie Antoinette, at first innocent and
naïve, becomes a woman and a mother, but maybe too late. This is a surprisingly well crafted little gem, especially visually.
It’s perfectly acted and has a delightful indie tone as well as a subtle wit. Sadly its flat ending is a little disappointing
and the lack of any sight of the city of Paris and its inhabitants is a bit frustrating. Every so often someone runs in and
tells Antoinette either “your mother’s died” or “The Bastille’s been taken”. Sure it shows
how detached from the political world she was but for us it’s a bit repetitive and gets quickly tedious. Other than
that Sofia Coppola’s new film is a delight. Overall, a flawed but irresistible little gem.
Overall: ***1/2 /5
The
Lake House (2006)
With: Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock, Dylan Walsh, Christopher Plummer
Years after Dennis Hopper stressed the
hell out of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock with that unstoppable bus, they return to the screen together in this remake of
little-know Taiwanese film Il Mare. Reeves is loner architect Alex Wyler, who moves into a quiet lake house which his cold
father built. Meanwhile, 2 years later, Kate Forster (Bullock), a new doctor at the city hospital who used to live in that
very house begins an impossible relationship with Alex: they send each other letters that somehow time travel to the other’s
mailbox at the lake house. Now, I know what you’re thinking, yes, it is a bit far-fetched, preposterous even, and at
first it’s a little hard to warm up to that odd premise. But as the relationship progresses and the protagonists try
to find new ways to interact with each other, the film grows on you and you find yourself accepting the whole letters thing
and going with it. If you accepted Big then you must accept the Lake House. Even though the set up is slightly bland, the
film becomes pretty enjoyable and its strengths really kick in during the second half. Some nifty moments include Alex planting
a tree outside Kate’s house which appears suddenly 2 years later or their sweet encounter at Kate’s birthday party.
I must warn you though, the story may sound like classic romantic comedy stuff but The Lake House couldn’t be called
a comedy. For one thing, the tone is more melancholy than cutesy and witty When-Harry-Met-Sally-esque. When the film tries
to add some comedy it hardly encourages a belly-laugh and its later Woody Allen-esque surreal moments are a bit of a misfire,
not a bothering one mind you. The cast is fair with Sandra Bullock giving a credible and fine performance as Kate and Christopher
Plummer unsurprisingly good value as Alex’s father. Keanu, as we know, is rarely comfortable with dramatic roles or
roles which require a display of various emotions besides bewilderment. Having said that, he does reasonably well here and
even though he seems occasionally lost in the whole thing, he has his redeeming moments and his relationship with Kate works.
Alejandro Agresti’s film, it must be said, looks great and would have been right at home with a fall or winter release
instead of a summer one. Why would people avoid the sun to go in a dark room and watch a slow-burning wintery romance? Overall,
The Lake House is a great-looking, original, clever and surprisingly dark little romance which doesn’t completely work
but makes for fine tear-jerking stuff. It’s a real shame the final twist is shamefully messed up due to a clumsy revealing
of the whole thing before the curtain is even drawn. The emotional pay off is therefore softened and when it’s over
you feel satisfied but slightly disappointed. Worth a look.
Overall: ***/5
Ju-On:
The Grudge 2 (2006)
With: Noriko Sakai, Chiharu Niyama, Kei Horie
When Ju-On: The Grudge came out there
was something deeply unexciting about it. There was yet another Japanese horror film involving weird bony girls with long,
face-hiding black hair, ghosts and curses. To make things even more attractive, the film boasted a non-chronological narrative
and a claustrophobic feel with most of the action taking place in one house. It was definitely no patch on Ringu, which had
an original concept, effective scares, a very involving story and a genuinely creepy atmosphere. The Grudge had a hardly original
concept (a cursed haunted house), mildly effective scares, a confusing story and an occasionally creepy atmosphere. The film
was saved by its utter unpredictablility, the director’s stylish handling of a familiar story and some genuinely spooky
scenes. The American remake was much better, with a more recognizable cast, an accessible narrative and surprisingly effective
scares. The involvement of Sam Raimi as producer might have had something to do with it because the result was a very decent
horror film which arguably outdid the Ring remakes. Now, Shimizu brings us his sequel to the Japanese original, which will be quickly followed by his own American remake. Hm,
do I smell greed? Yes, I think I do. Now, if you thought the first film was confusing, let me warn you, don’t even try
to think of the story with that one, just see it as a bunch of spooky-ish vignettes because otherwise you’ll literally
hurt yourself trying to figure out what the heck is going on. The first thing that surprises in this useless and poor sequel
is its style, it seems Shimizu was going for a more realistic feel as you’ll notice from the shaky camera work, the
obviously lower budget and the surprisingly crappy image quality. None of these techniques work. They only make the film look
uglier than it should be and it shaves off one of the few qualities which the original possessed: style. Sadly, this sequel
is also not scary at all, virtually scare-free. Shimizu’s intention to add a little more humour to the whole thing might have worked if only the film had been at
least a little creepy, or understandable. Nothing’s wrong with a fun horror film but there’s most definitely something
wrong with a dull, cringe-worthy and non-scary horror film. Some parts are, I must admit, hilarious, such as the camp evil
crawling wig scene, reminiscient of a Simpsons Halloween Special, or the laugh-out-loud, infamous birth scene. If this film
is supposed to be a parody of the first, then I would add a few stars, but sadly I doubt it is and its lack of any sense,
scares or remotely exciting scenes is deeply disappointing. You know what’s not scary? Wigs. Photocopiers. Weird burping
sounds on the phone. Handicapped Japanese guys making funny noises. The list goes on. Any potentially interesting idea which
Shimizu displays in this film (the hanging sequence for example) is bogged down by the boring tone, ridiculous-looking girls
splashed in fake blood and white make up, a tiring little boy in his underwear which pops up from time to time, confused and
nonsensical sequences and unintentionally funny moments. The dire cast looks unsure whether to act funny or scared, which
results in a lot of pointless, fake-sounding screams and bad acting. This film is the confirmation that the time of white
make up and crawling down the stairs has passed and that Japanese horror needs to find a new gimmick…fast. I wouldn’t
be surprised if the higher budget American remake outdoes this one in every way but I would be surprised if it surpasses its
predecessor. Overall, Ju-On: The Grudge 2 is a film that’s best avoided if you’re looking for something scary
or original...or any good. If, however, you are a sucker for bad Hammer-style, B-grade horror movies you can laugh at, then
this is for you. A deeply disappointing sequel.
Overall: 1 ½ /5
The Omen (200666)
With:
Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, Mia Farrow, Pete Postlethwaite
The original film of the same name has become a classic
much like The Exorcist has, it was inevitable that a remake would make its way to our big screens one day. Turns out that
day was none other than the 6th day of the 6th month of 2006. An Exorcist remake should happen soon
in my opinion. The publicity for this remake was certainly cleverly executed with a truly chilling teaser trailer, cool posters
and the creepy release date. It’s good news then that this film is most definitely not crap, not useful perhaps, but
not crap at all. In case you didn’t know the story, The Omen sees Robert Thorn, a father who, after his child dies
in childbirth, agrees to adopt another newborn under the advice of a Roman priest and raise him as his own, without telling
his wife the truth. Turns out the child in question is different in many ways: he’s never sick, he’s very quiet,
just plain creepy and, most importantly, people keep dying around him, and not in the nicest, most usual ways. It is soon
believed that he may be the son of the Devil: the anti-christ. When the nanny suddenly commits suicide, the couple start to
feel that something is not normal, that there is an unholy presence among them. The mother Katherine becomes increasingly
distant from her child and her husband, a quiet man who becomes the US Ambassador after the mysterious death of his superior,
begins an investigation with the help of a nosy photographer in order to uncover the truth. But is it too late? What can they
do against the Devil? There’s a lot to like about this remake, not only does it manage to keep a doomed mood throughout,
much like the original film did, but the key scenes of the latter are kept intact, even in their efficiency. The hanging scene
is brilliantly executed and is perfectly chilling in particular, the other deaths are all disturbing as well and not just
the ones with flawless special effects (which are thankfully not overused), the hospital scene with Mia Farrow’s evil
nanny is disturbing on its own. There are also enough “boo!” moments to keep you satisfied, and those who snigger
dorkily at the occasionally wooden dialogs soon shut up when the spooky bits arise. Of course, this being a remake it’s
not perfect, the acting is not always 100% (Schreiber's ability to cry without having neck spasms is doubtful), the script
struggles to sustain its credibility consistently and some parts of the film drag on a little. Pretty much the flaws with
the original had, even though they’ve rarely been acknowledged. At least this version doesn’t have the laughable
70’s hairstyles and fashion to distract us from the ghastly events on display. The Omen falls under the “good
remake” category and even though it may not be quite as good as the original (they rarely are) it’s still a very
effective experience and has enough scares and style to keep you nailed to your seat.
Overall: ***
/5
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006)
With: Hugh
Jackman, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, Famke Jansen, Patrick Stewart, Kelsey Grammer, Vinnie Jones
And so comes the last chapter of the X-Men trilogy. As
with every sequel these days, this one promises to be bigger and better than its predecessors. Which is a tough thing to achieve
since X-Men 1 and 2 were both excellent action-packed, confident sci-fi thrillers. This installment sees Jean Grey, whom everyone
believed was dead, return as her alter-ego Phoenix, the evil part of her who is driven insane by an unlimited power. Not only
that but a “cure” has been found for mutancy and this prompts Magneto to form his army of “bad” mutants
in order to show the humans who’s boss. The film starts off promisingly with a subtly brilliant and dark introduction
of a young Jean Grey and a young Angel who discovers his wings for the first time. Then we have a fantastic scene set in the
near future in which the team fight Sentinels, we soon realise they’re in fact in the danger room. So far, so perfect:
a 5 stars film. But then, everything just seems to go wrong, little by little. The unforgivable death of Cyclops after 10
minutes of film is…unforgivable, not to mention, terribly executed. As if that wasn’t traumatic enough for a faithful
X-fan such as myself, the Phoenix meets with a particularly cranky Professor Xavier only to reduce him to DUST!!!! soon after!
I’m sorry to interrupt this review like that but: What-the-fuck-was-that??? My mouth, at this point, was literally touching
the floor, and I could feel the confusion spreading in the seats behind me. I don’t know what Brett Ratner read to come
up with this pile of stinky garbage but it sure wasn’t an X-Men comic-book. After that shameful, shameful scene, the
story just goes downhill as the spectacular moments increase and the credibility plummets. Which is why it’s so hard
to truly hate this film. On the one hand there are the many many flaws and on the other there are many impressive “wow”
moments and some very decent action sequences. However, I do feel that these do not outweigh the problems of X-3. The “mutancy
cure” story turns out to be a fatal mistake to the already messy plot. With the X-Men crying and whining and crying
and whining about their position in such a cruel society, the “almighty” Phoenix is sidelined and does literally
nothing except stand there and look crazy. Occasionally she would turn someone to dust, like, say, PROFESSOR X!!! She only
wakes up at the end, why? Dunno. She basically rises up for about 10 seconds, reduces quite a few people to ashes, only to
get killed quickly by Wolverine. How exciting…So much for the big “Last Stand” I was so excited about when
watching the trailers! Very soon the plot starts to look like a Swiss cheese: full of holes. What happened to Cyclops exactly?
Who was that kid who could cure mutants? Why the fuck does Rogue get a cure instead of fighting along with her team?! Why
didn’t that young walking-through-walls girl get a backstory of some sort? What was the point of making Mystique become
human? Why is Angel so pointless? Whatever happened to Nightcrawler? I guess we’ll never know. What we do know however
is that Iceman likes ice-skating with young girls at night, that Vinnie Jones was painfully miscast as a ridiculously sidelined
Juggernaunt, that Magneto can control The Phoenix by the power of…being nice and wimpy with her, that Cyclops, Angel
and Rogue are the most useless characters ever, and that Brett Ratner had no idea what he was doing when he directed this
film. Expect unintentionally funny moments agogo, such as the sight of Jean Grey and Cyclops tiny graves next to Professor
X’s big statue, or Iceman’s boring and inappropriate ice-skating lesson, or even the puke-worthy cheesy ending.
Still, Kelsey Grammer was good enough as Beast, I guess that was a good thing. Needless to say I am outraged and just plain
deeply disappointed that the final part of a potentially brilliant trilogy ended up so messily. I would like to thank Bryan
Singer for leaving the making of this film half-way through, James Marsden for not suing Brett Ratner for killing him off
and everyone involved in this film for ruining my dream of a 5 star X-Men film. Thanks a lot. Overall, X-Men 3 is entertaining,
impressive, spectacular, yadda-yadda ya, but what does it matter when so many unforgivable mistakes have been done? THE disappointment
of the year. I must now retire to my room and weep…This is a “Last Stand” X-Men fans will find hard to “stand”
if you can forgive the pun. I've put a picture of Cyclops purposely, because the poor guy deserves some screen time for God's
sake! Superman Returns better be good…
Overall: ***/5
Poseidon (2006)
With:
Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas, Richard Dreyfuss, Emmy Rossum
It’s a fact: good disaster movies are a rare thing.
When they work, they can be exciting experiences, when they don’t it’s usually a “disaster”. Airplane!
for example showed us how ridiculous they can be by spoofing the Airport films and putting their cheesy chilches on display.
These past few years saw some decent efforts in the shape of Armageddon-type B-movie The Core and Roland Emmerich’s
The Day After Tomorrow, even Twister was pretty good. Now it’s remake time and it’s the classic Poseidon Adventure
that’s getting the treatment. A strong-ish cast leads this Titanic-esque story of a huge ship tipped over by an enormous
rogue wave. A team of survivors is soon established and are on their way to finding an exit which will lead them to safety.
Of course, this is far from being as easy as it sounds and they’ll have to face burning elevator shafts, dizzying heights,
claustrophobic air vents and obviously lots and lots of water. The film starts off with a truly impressive continuous shot
showing us the whole Poseidon ship from the outside. Then it suddenly treads familiar ground and becomes instantly tedious
with characters lazily introduced and poor, cheesy dialogs. Thankfully, everyone shuts the hell up when the wave appears.
This is a stunning scene in which everything and almost everyone is destroyed as the boat tips over and we find ourselves
upside down for the remainder of the movie. The far-from-all-star cast is composed of good old Kurt Russell, as an ex-mayor
of New York and fireman (?!), the terribly bland Emmy Rossum as his engaged daughter, Josh Lucas as a brave gambler and the
underrated and underused Richard Dreyfuss as a suicidal gay man...of some sort. Sadly, none of the characters are developed
and even though Russell, Lucas and Dreyfuss do their best, it’s impossible to notice the paper-thin personalities which
they inhabit. The way the story unfolds brings no surprises, with the weak and annoying ones going first and the most heroic
one sacrificing himself at the end. Having said all that, there’s much to like in Poseidon, including the impressive
special effects, the various gruesome deaths and the genuinely exciting and suspenseful action. Poseidon is far from being
as involving or as good as The Poseidon Adventure but Wolfgang Petersen (The Perfect Strom) manages to keep you entertained
and biting your nails till the end. This can be seen as a B-movie version of the classic disaster movie and unfortunately,
after X-Men 3 and The Da Vinci Code, we do have another slightly disappointing blockbuster on our hands. The pressure is really
on now (you listening Superman?). Overall, Poseidon is fun and entertaining enough to keep you satisfied but it’s also
very predictable, clumsily written and far from original. A decent but damp remake.
Overall:
***/5
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
With: Tom
Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno
Why Dan Brown’s entertaining and thought-provoking
novel became such a humongous success will remain a bit of a mystery to me, after all, the ideas expressed in the book were
not exactly brand new (read Holy Blood Holy Grail) and his writing has often been criticised for numerous reasons. Still,
one can’t deny the cleverness of Brown’s story and the entertainment value of his now unavoidable novel. The ever
reliable Ron Howard directs the movie adaptation of this somewhat controversial tale and even though it’s been sold
to us as a big blockbuster, one should ignore all the hype and keep in mind that this is just a thriller, not a life-changing
experience. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a professor specializing in symbols who is called to help in the investigation
of a man’s mysterious death in the Louvres. Turns out the victim had just enough time to set up a series of clues and
codes for Langdon and his grand-daughter Sophie Neveu to find. Both soon find themselves pursued by the French police and
a mysterious fanatic of the Templars organization, the real murderer. As Langdon and Neveu escape they realise that beneath
the codes they are cracking lies a secret which might be devastating if revealed. The greatest cover up ever set up. With
all the publicity this film received before it was even released you’d be forgiven for expecting some kind of masterpiece.
But of course, a masterpiece, this is not. Most people have read the book, most people already know the story, and consequently
most people already know the big secret at the heart of the story. So whn everything is revealed little by little in the film
it’s hard not to feel a little short-changed and to utter the words “so what?” under your breath. If, however,
like me, you were saying “so what?” long before seeing the film and never read the book, you’ll probably
find lots to enjoy here. For those unfamiliar with the story and its twists, this is gripping stuff, for all the others, this
is quite the opposite. The film manages to keep a good rhythm throughout and even the underwhelming ending is made bearable.
Tom Hanks is always a good bet and he does well as Langdon, Paul Bettany is a little silly but gets away with it as the odd
monk Silas, but it’s good old Ian McKellen as the eccentric historian who steals the show. He brings more energy and
decent jokes than the rest of the cast combined. However, Audrey Tautou, of Amelie fame, is sadly terrible as Neveu. Not only
does she seem completely lost during the whole thing but she struggles with the often silly lines she’s been given which
makes her performance all the more cringe-worthy. Apart from her, the uneven script and the weak ending, The Da Vinci Code
is a decent thriller: stylish and entertaining enough but far from perfect and mind-blowing. Overall, lovers of the book might
find the film a dull and disappointing experience, everyone else should just sit back and enjoy the ride. A flawed but fair
thriller.
Overall:
*** /5
Mission: Impossible: III (2006)
With: Tom
Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffmann, Laurence Fishburne, Jonathan Rhys Meyers
And so comes the third and final part of the Mission Impossible
trilogy. After Brian DePalma’s sophisticated and complex attempt and Jon Woo’s energetic and stylish sequel it’s
time for the director of hit TV series Lost to wow us with action, special effects and intricate plotting. Ethan Hunt is now
engaged to be married and off the agency. That is until he learns that a member of his old crew has been missing in action
for days and is probably held prisoner by an “invisible” and mysterious arms dealer no one’s ever managed
to catch. Hunt agrees to lead the rescue mission, it goes well at first but all ends in tears. After that, Hunt decides to
take the matter into his own hands and go look after Hoffmann’s nasty villain, with the help of his trusty crew. Revealing
more of the plot would be ruining it for you as this is a film with more than one twist and turn. The film starts off quite
slowly as we are introduced to Hunt’s more peaceful, and homely life, thankfully this almost corny start ends relatively
quickly and we are soon back in familiar whiz-bang territory. However, there is a difference, unlike Woo’s brainless
and ultra-cool M:I:2, this is clearly a darker entry. It’s less about super slo-mos of Hunt “cruising” on
his motorbike Days of Thunder style, and less about pointless (if entertaining) sports car races and Scooby Doo-style mask
removals. Of course, I’m not saying M:I:III is not fun, far from it, but it’s certainly smarter and more psychological
than its predecessor. It’s like a mixture of the first’s twists-filled story and the second’s big action
sequences. Tom Cruise doesn’t stretch his acting muscles too far but he gives a good performance nevertheless. Seymour
Hoffmann, always a delight, is perfectly cast as Hunt’s nemesis, even though we don’t see him that much. Laurence
Fishburne is surprisingly on top-form here and reminds us that there is much to him than good old Morpheus. The visual look
of this film is also completely different from its predecessors, DePalma had a kind of Hitchcock-like style, Woo was all about
slo-mos and explosions but this new entry has a more realistic and grittier feel to it which doesn’t always work (the
camera can be too shaky at times and the beginning feels a bit like a Budweiser advert). Having said that, when it works,
it works and the action sequences are genuinely compelling. As ego-trips go, the Mission Impossible trilogy is one of the
best, and even though The Cruiser’s loss of popularity in the last few years will probably make this film slightly less
successful than its predecessors, it’s well worth seeing. This is a strong, clever and gripping thriller that’s
entertaining from start to finish and which will leave you guessing long after the end. It’s not without its flaws but
it’s just as good as M:I:2, and much less silly. Overall, Mission Impossible III is a good ending to one of the strongest
trilogies of action thrillers, it certainly puts Ocean’s Twelve to shame. Enemies of Cruise might want to give this
a miss though.
Overall:
***1/5 /5
Silent Hill (2006)
With: Radha
Mitchell, Sean Bean
So far, the track-record for film adaptations of video-games
has been undeniably poor. We’ve had inept turkeys such as Street Fighter, dumb as bricks missteps like Resident Evil,
or brainless shoot-‘em-ups like Doom. The first Tomb Raider film was obviously disappointing but at least it was entertaining
and had some quality in it, and I’m not just talking about the dream casting of Jolie as Lara Croft. Now it’s
genuinely scary video-game Silent Hill’s turn to get the movie treatment. The story is incredibly silly, which isn’t
much of a surprise, a young girl whose odd sleepwalking habits are getting a little dangerous is taken by her mother to the
place which appears in her nightmares in the hope that it will help cure her: that place, you’ve guessed it, is Silent
Hill. The latter is a foggy ghost-town, closed off from the world, the perfect place to bring your kid to! There’s nothing
like a walk in the creepy roads of a haunted village bathed in an unsettling, constant snow of ashes to free your child of
her nightmares, it’s very well known in the medical profession. Anyway, when the mother arrives in Silent Hill after
her car crashes by the side of the road (she was speeding to avoid a cop, a good example for her child) she finds that her
daughter has mysteriously disappeared. It’s when the sky suddenly turns black that things get a little more, shall we
say, ghoulesque? Strange monsters start appearing and pursuing the poor mother in the dark, burnt corridors of the town. There
is much to like about this barmy film, I have to say: the set-up in Silent Hill is effective in creating a creepy atmosphere,
the monsters are completely insane and never fail to raise a smile of satisfaction, the visual style is often impressive as
it imitates the game’s camera angles etc. perfectly thus making you feel like you’re watching a video-game (which
is a good and a bad thing since playing a game is way more fun than watching another play). Also, it’s very imaginative
and great fun, the scene at the end with the big “boss” and the barbed wire effect is brilliant. Having said that,
there are so many flaws it’s hard not to feel ultimately very disappointed by it all. The acting is as wooden as a tree-trunk,
which is surprising since Radha Mitchell is usually good value, Sean Bean is painfully miscast and his subplot feels completely
pointless, and it’s hard not to laugh at the hard-as-nails girl cop who looks like she was plucked straight out of the
Police Academy movies. The script is also brainless and at times laughable, when the mother enters a room that has obviously
been burnt to a crisp and states blandly “I think there was a fire here…” you can only snigger. The story
gets increasingly complicated and at the end, in a big, overlong chunk, we are told everything, making all the clues spread
out before in the film a real waste of time. And why the hell does it turn into a silly Hammer-style story with religious
freaks and a theatrical villain straight out of a Mel Brooks spoof? A warning as well, Silent Hill is more gory than scary
so if you’re expecting genuine BOO moments, forget it. Overall, Silent Hill’s promising start, visual style and
imaginative ideas are drowned in a sea of stupid lines, bad acting, pointlessly
long subplots and the most underwhelming ending you could possibly imagine. Thing is, it’s exactly like a video-game,
which is at times admirable (especially if you’re a gamer) but at most times, unintentionally funny and just plain wooden.
It’s entertaining though but if you’re not familiar with the game I suggest you steer clear of this film.
Overall: **1/2 /5
The Big White (2006)
With: Robin
Williams, Holly Hunter, Giovanni Ribisi, Woody Harrelson, Tim Blake Nelson, Alison Lohman
Robin Williams is mild-mannered Paul Barnell, a travel
agent whose wife’s mental health is quickly fading and whose financial situation is rather poor. He stumbles on a dead
body and decides to pass it off as his long-lost brother’s in order to get the insurance money which would solve his
problems and perhaps even save his wife’s sanity. Everything goes fine until a skeptical insurance claims adjuster (Ribisi)
gets on the case and tries to find the cracks in the case. Not only that but Paul’s real brother Raymond (Harrelson)
shows up unexpectedly and the two wannabe hitmen who lost the body Paul found need to find it in order to prove to their boss
that they actually did the job. The whole thing takes place in a snow-white Alaskan setting reminiscient of the Coen Brothers’
masterpiece Fargo. Actually, The Big White is like a sub-Fargo, with a pitch black humour, quirky off-beat characters and
an insurance scam at its heart. But all it lacks in orginality, the film makes up for in energy, laughs and heart. Robin Williams
gives a restrained and convincing performance as Paul and Holly Hunter is great as his childish, insult-spouting wife. Fine
support is offered by the ever-reliable Harrelson, Ribisi and Blake-Nelson. Why this charming little film didn’t receive
warmer reviews from the critics is probably due to its similarities with Fargo but it’s a real shame because The Big
White has so much more to offer. Mark Mylod has created an underrated little gem filled with loveable, far-from-perfect characters.
Overall, The Big White is well worth seeing and the critics are well worth ignoring this time round. Destined for cult adoration.
Overall:
****/5
Romance & Cigarettes (2006)
With: James Gandolfini, Susan
Sarandon, Kate Winslet, Christopher Walken, Steve Buscemi
In the Coen Brothers’ Barton Fink, a certain John
Turturro started typing something, a screenplay. But not just any old screenplay: Romance & Cigarettes. Turturro directs
this indie musical/comedy/drama in what is only his third outing as a director and it’s obvious that Mr Jesus himself
(see The Big Lebowski) has a lot to offer us. This oddball tale starts with the wife of a construction worker, Nick (Gandolfini),
discovering that he has been seeing another woman behind her back. Kitty (Sarandon) is obviously fuming with rage and feels
betrayed, so with the help of her cool cousin Bo (Walken) she is going to track down her husband’s mistress and confront
her. The mistress in question happens to be a foul-mouthed, vulgar, sexy British bomb with a horrible Northern accent. This
is a film bursting with energy and originality. Its strong cast is brilliant and doesn’t put a foot wrong: the stand-out
performances are notably Winslet’s way against-type turn as Tula the mistress and Walken as cousin Bo, a hilarious scene-stealing
creation who unfortunately doesn’t stick around for long. There are quite a few musical numbers with the cast singing
along to karaoke-style tunes by Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck to name a few. They are all done with gusto and style,
and even though the songs are not exactly original or even remotely cool, the quirkiness of the whole thing manages to make
it work. Bravo for that. One thing you must understand about Romance & Cigarettes, however, is that it’s not about
the story, it’s not really about anything. It’s the kind of film that tries desperately to be about something,
to send a meaningful message but fails because it shouldn’t be about anything, because it shouldn’t bother to
try to lecture us. This is a promising film which could have been THE indie flick of 2006, a sort of Coen Brothers-style musical.
Sadly though, it is let down by an eyebrow-raisingly downbeat and frankly unforgivably boring ending. It’s like the
film suddenly runs out of steam when Gandolfini farts his ass out in one scene, after that, the music stops, the camera stops,
the fun stops, everything stops. And why? Because this is not just a goofy indie-musical you understand but a serious, deep
drama as well…yeah, right! I am purposely being harsh on this ending because Turturro had a real gem in his hands and
if only he’d managed to sustain the rhythm going till the end we would now have a cult indie flick on our hands. But
because of his clumsy storytelling we are left with a very entertaining and funny film which falls flat on its arse in the
third act and leaves you aching with disappointment. What happened for God’s sake? Did some of the cast members leave
half-way through the shoot? Did Turturro run out of ideas? I guess we’ll never know. Overall then, Romance & Cigarettes
is great fun, very original, quirky, off-beat and is worth seeing for the musical bits and the superb cast. However, as soon
as you see Mr Soprano fart, take out your pillow and get ready for 15 minutes of frown-inducing darkness. Entertaining but
uneven.
Overall: ***/5
The Pink Panther
(2006)
With: Steve
Martin, Kevin Kline, Jean Reno, Beyonce Knowles, Emily Mortimer
It’s a sad thing when a much loved
franchise dies. It’s a saddest thing when a dead franchise is buried even deeper. It is, however, a delight when a dead
franchise is brought back to life succesfully. Sadly this rarely happens. Blake Edwards’ inspired Pink Panther franchise
died long ago when he tried making sequels without Peter Sellers or even Clouseau for that matter. The result was a bunch
of cringe-worthy turkeys such as Trail of the Pink Panther and Son of the Pink Panther. Now, with a different cast and crew,
it’s back to the drawing board and what better way to restart a franchise than going back to the beginning? The Pink
Panther is loosely based on the first film of the same name, in which a precious diamond (the Pink Panther) is stolen and
the clumsy French Inspector Clouseau is put on the case. But he is only a decoy, a way for slimy Chief Inspector Dreyfus to
get his hands on a medal he so sorely desires by carrying out his own investigation whilst the bumbling “fuul”
does his thing. The ex-gendarme is obviously inept and couldn’t solve a case to save his life. He is given a faithful
partner, Ponton, and even though the prime suspect is the bootylicious Xania (wife of the victim) the inspector has other
ideas. This film could have so easily been a disaster. Thankfully, the casting of the great Steve Martin as Clouseau was not
a mistake and he finally manages to prove to all those cynical swines that he can still be truly hilarious. Only a genius
could have followed in Peter Sellers’ footsteps and they certainly picked one. He manages to add his own brand of absurd
humour to the film and his Clouseau, even though he is still arrogant, even though he still has that impossible (yet delightful)
accent, is definitely not but a copy of Sellers’ creation. Whereas the old films took their time and had a somewhat
subtle approach to comic set-pieces, this is fast-paced, the jokes come one after the other (some work, some don’t)
and there’s barely any time to breathe. This does make the film appear like just a bunch of ideas, a collection of jokes
put together randomly. Ok, it may just be a compilation of slapstick moments but when it’s funny, it’s very funny.
Some scenes are just plain hilarious, like when Clouseau and Ponton dance around in tight pink camouflage bodysuits or when
Clouseau struggles with the word “hamburger” more than once. It’s a good thing Steve Martin helped with
the script because it’s obvious that he came up with all the good gags but the story is sidelined and dealt with too
quickly. As for the rest of the cast, Kevin Kline has his moments as Dreyfus but sadly he isn’t given a chance to shine,
Jean Reno is not particularly exciting but he redeems himself in the dancing scene, as for Beyonce, well, she is miscast but
thankfully she isn’t given too much screen-time, pffew. The Pink Panther is by no means a masterpiece, but neither was
the first original film and it is certainly the best (and funniest) Pink Panther film in decades. Not only that but it is
also Steve Martin’s funniest vehicle in years. As a film, it’s flawed, as a comedy, it’s very funny, ultimately
it’s a good rebirth of the Pink Panther franchise and, fingers crossed, a good, calmer sequel should sort out some of
the messy bits. Tres amusant, Clouseau est enfin de retour.
Overall: ***
/5
Syriana (2006)
With: George
Clooney, Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright, Mazhar Munir, Alexander Siddig
George Clooney demonstrated with the 2
films he directed so far (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night, and Good Luck) that there was more to him than silly
Batman costumes with big rubber nipples and E.R. His partnership with director Steven Soderbergh helped him bring us some
clever and stylish films. Syriana is no exception. This is a film which tackles big issues of the moment such as the United State’s reliance of foreign oil and its consequences such as the creation of terrorism. The story is so complex
that you’ll just have to ask Stephen Gaghan for answers but I can say that it’s basically about how the US access to Middle
East oil ressources affects everyone from the CIA to lawyers, financial brokers and even
immigrants from Pakistan. In many ways, Syriana is an ensemble piece, following a handful of character through a web of corruption, greed
and violence. Needless to say they all come together in the final climax but in an unpredictable way. The film is very well
shot and confident in the way it tells its story, maybe too confident even. Thankfully the film manages not to be pompous
or too preachy (unlike, ahem, Crash for example) which is a plus. However, it is undeniably hard to follow and not completely
involving at times, it does get clearer towards the end but you still feel like you’ve missed a whole chunk of info.
As a thriller it’s also a bit uneven, the beginning is promising and the climax is certainly gripping but the middle
part moves at a snail’s pace and it all feels much too long and overloaded with information. Having said that, it can’t
hurt to get your brains working a little for once and if you concentrate you’ll find much to sink your teeth into, even
if you don’t entirely agree with the political views of this film you’ll still find yourself debating the main
themes in your head long after the credits have rolled. There are also great performances to witness, Clooney may not quite
have deserved his Oscar (anyone can grow a beard and a belly) but his brooding, understated performance is pretty good nevertheless.
Matt Damon does well too it must be said. Overall, Syriana is an interesting, thought-provoking film which is not afraid to
tackle big themes but as a thriller it just lacks punch and it ultimately feels a little flat. Worth seeing definitely but
if you want something a little more tense and nail-biting try Hidden. Actually, there is a deeply disturbing nail pulling
scene in Syriana if you’re interested *shudder*.
Overall: ***/5
Capote (2006)
With: Philip
Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr, Chris Cooper, Bruce Greenwood, Bob Balaban
Philip Seymour Hoffman recently won the
Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of author Truman Capote in this fascinating biopic. The film follows Capote from 1959,
when he was still celebrated for the likes of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, to about 7 years later when he finished writing
his masterpiece In Cold Blood. The film begins with the gruesome killings in Kansas which the writer reads about in the papers.
He is instantly intrigued by this whole story and quickly begins his research for a new project, a “factual novel”.
Capote travels to Kansas where he meets the killers and he develops a friendship with one of them, Perry Smith (Collins Jr),
but this novel proves much harder to write than he could have ever anticipated. In Cold Blood was the last novel Capote ever
finished and the film studies how the writing of this book affected the author in such a powerful way and led to his slow
slide into alcoholism. It seems that in recent years there’s been a small boom in the making of good biopics, a few
examples include Man on the Moon, Ray, American Splendor and Walk the Line. And Capote is certainly no exception. Bennett
Miller’s film doesn’t simply choose the easy route of following the subject’s life from birth till death
but instead it focuses on a relatively short period of time in his life, one which has provided him with the biggest challenge
of his life. Furthermore, the film is careful not to glorify its subject too much, sure we see Capote joking around but we
also see his selfishness and vanity blossom. This is a biopic that never feels like a biopic but rather like a detective story
or an emotional drama. Capote’s relationship with the killer Perry Smith is handled brilliantly and the whole thing
is stylish, intelligent and sophisticated: a breath of fresh air. It’s also a film which showcases some outstanding
performances from the likes of Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, Clifton Collins Jr and of course Philip Seymour Hoffman who
deserved his Oscar win. His portrayal of Mr Capote may seem like a caricature at first (even though Truman really had that
voice) but you quickly realise that it’s so much more than that, he makes us admire, respect, feel for and laugh with
Capote but also makes us judge him. It’s an impressive performance to say the least. As for the film itself, it’s
pretty much flawless: the directing, the acting as well as the screenplay are all superb, and the film looks and sounds great
too. Overall, Capote is a compelling and focused analysis of a writer’s emotional struggle and it’s worth seeing
if only for Hoffman’s excellent performance.
Overall: ****/5
Walk the Line
(2006)
With: Joaquin
Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Robert Patrick
The Oscars are approaching, which can
only mean one thing: it’s biopic time! Last year it was Ray who got all the applause and this year it looks like Capote
and Walk the Line will do very well indeed. Walk the Line is the story of the famous singer/musician Johnny Cash and we follow
his life from his young days when he lost his brother to the “will-you-marry-me” moment with his beloved co-singer
June Carter, played brilliantly by Reese Witherspoon. At first, Johnny’s life seems to be following a neat path: he
gets married, has a child etc…but then he decides to make a record with some friends. Turns out the record in question
(the superb Folsom Prison Blues) becomes a big hit and bombards Cash into stardom instantly. Very soon, we see him hanging
out with the likes of Elvis and Jerry-Lee Lewis. On the road, he falls in love with the fast-talking, singing June Carter
and also gets hooked by alcohol and drugs. As his love for her grows he neglects his life back home more and more and gets
increasingly hooked on speed pills. Joaquin Phoenix (The Village, Signs, U-Turn) is excellent as Cash and he even sings all
the songs himself…to perfection. It’s definitely an impressive performance and he does deserve his Oscar nomination.
Witherspoon (Freeway, Legally Blonde) is also wonderful as June and should win the statuette if there is any justice. Walk
the Line is certainly a very good film, no doubt about it. There a heck of a lot to admire: the acting, the music, the cinematography,
the inventive camera-work, the romance. All these are absolutely flawless. However, one can’t help but compare the story’s
development and the whole thing with last year’s Ray. Some similarities are flagrant: the traumatic death of the young
brother, the Southern setting, the general mood of the film, the character’s drug addiction. But even though there is
the nagging feeling of “seen it, done it” it would be unfair to write off Walk the Line as a mere imitation of
Ray. Sure the latter may be a better film in that it has more energy, originality and that it’s way more powerful but
even though Walk the Line feels lighter and less impressive than Ray it works fine the way it is and it manages to remain
compelling from start to finish. Plus it does manage to avoid the cheesy overdone conclusion which taints the last 5 minutes
of the otherwise perfect Ray. Some brilliant performances and a killer soundtrack make Walk the Line a way above average affair
that’s well worth sticking around for.
Overall: ****/5
Lady Vengeance
(2006)
With: Lee Yeong-ae,
Choi Min-sik, Kim Shi-hu, Go Su-hee
Directed by Chan-wook Park, the man behind the brilliantly disturbing Oldboy, Lady Vengeance is the third part of his “vengeance trilogy”.
The first one was of course Sympathy for Mr Vengeance and the second one Oldboy. Lady Vengeance is the story of Geum-ja, an
innocent-looking young woman who was sent to prison after being accused of killing a young child. During the 13 long years
she spent in jail, she helped many of her cellmates in different ways and acquired an almost angelic reputation. Needless
to say that an angel, she certainly is not. Her goal is to find the man who really should have been behind bars and who gave
her baby away for adoption. The film begins promisingly with an enchanting score and a slick American Psycho-style opening
sequence. Then, in a series of quick, montage-like scenes we are introduced to the character of Geum-ja. After that, we follow
her quest to find the real “bad guy” (Choi Min-sik in a cameo) whilst returning, thanks to flashbacks, to the
main events which took place during her time in prison, Hence, the more we progress through the story, the more we understand
about Geum-ja’s motivations. It all ends, as you’ve probably guessed, violently. Lady Vengeance is a great way
to end a trilogy. It may be the weakest of the 3 films but even so, it is a worthy achievement. It has the energy, style and
black humour of Oldboy as well as the raw violence and the storytelling techniques of Mr Vengeance. Park’s directing
is fast, slick and confident and the cast is perfect: this is a visually delicious film that’s always fascinating if
never quite striking. When the grisly yet darkly whimsical finale comes, it’s a delight, sadly though, it is slightly
tainted by the pointlessly melodramatic epilogue. Where’s the twist? Where’s the last ironic statement? Drowned
in tofu, like Geum-ja. Still, when a film looks and feels this good, it’s impossible to bring it down because of 5 measly
overdone minutes. Lady Vengeance is a dark, stylish, disturbing, compelling companion piece to Park’s previous 2 masterpieces
and missing it would be a crime.
Overall: ****/5
Fun With Dick and
Jane (2005)
With: Jim Carrey,
Tea Leoni, Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins, Michelle Arthur
Dick and Jane are the perfect American
couple, they have a perfect little suburban life in a perfect house with a perfect lawn, a (sort of) healthy child and a dog
named Spot. It appears life can only get better when Dick (Carrey) is sent to the top floor to see his boss in order to receive
a promotion. But when he is sent by his superiors on a live televised interview, unaware that the company he’s trying
desperately and embarassingly to defend is crashing rapidly, he loses everything. Every employee does. Pretty soon, the American
Dream life Dick and Jane (Leoni) have worked so hard to build is crumbling quickly around them. The electricity is cut off,
their stuff is sold, even the lawn is rolled away and packed up. With both of them unemployed and a kid to take care of, it
seems there’s no other way but to turn to crime. But Dick and Jane aren’t exactly professionals and their attempts
at robbing department stores and such are hilariously clumsy. After a while of living like bums, being physically deformed
and showering with sprinklers, they decide it’s time to change their technique. So they decide to get their own back
on the man responsible for their demise, Dick’s ex-boss, but will they succeed? Fun With Dick and Jane is a remake of
a 1977 comedy starring George Segal and Jane Fonda. It’s certainly an odd choice for Jim Carrey to pick (he also produced
it) as he’s cancelled many projects he had planned for 2006 onwards and one would have expected a “big”
Jim Carrey film in production. A big film this is not, a bad one this is not either. There’s a lot to like about this
entertaining comedy, although you might want to ignore the cheesy opening sequence which we could have done without. Jim Carrey
is on top form and hasn’t been this funny in years. Some classic moments include him singing I Believe I Can Fly in
an empty elevator, his barbaric fight to get to a highly competitive audition and his drunken ramblings about puppets. There
are some flashes of brilliance reminiscient of past successes like Liar Liar but they are only flashes and Jim cannot do everything,
sadly. Most of the jokes work but when they don’t, it makes the film a little uneven and you wish it could have been
more. Still, it’s all very enjoyable and funny throughout. Alec Baldwin makes a great appearance as Dick’s malicious
boss, a parody of George W. Bush, if you’ve seen Fahrenheit 9/11 you’ll recognize it very soon. It’s a comedy
which does have its dark side, it must be said, and it works pretty well as a satire of the yuppie American elite and the
cruel world of corporations. Dick and Jane’s struggle to survive is presented with great energy and endless gags but
it remains a struggle and you can’t help but feel great pity for these characters at times who try their hardest to
stay above water but can’t seem to catch a break. Fun With Dick and Jane is not Carrey’s best, so don’t
expect a new Ace Ventura or Liar Liar but it is his funniest in a while and beats Bruce Almighty in the laughs department
easily. It’s worth seeing if only to see the great Jim doing what he does best: going nuts and bolts. I must say it’s
a film which grows on you, I for one really enjoyed it and found it satisfying and entertaining if not exactly ground-breaking.
Overall, definitely worth a look, don’t expect too much though, just sit back and have fun with Dick and Jane, because
you will.
Overall: ***
/5
Hidden (2006)
With: Daniel
Auteuil, Juliette Binoche, Maurice Benichou
As Michael Haneke’s film opens on
a long static shot of a house across a little street, you’re thrown off guard and don’t know how to react. At
first you’re waiting for something to happen, then you start to notice every pointless detail of the street, then you
laugh because nothing’s happening and then you realise that what you are watching is in fact a tape. Someone has been
recording the front porch of a man’s house and sending the tapes to his home. Why? Who? Only 2 minutes into the film
and you’re already asking questions. Needless to say it doesn’t get much clearer. Daniel Auteuil is the man in
question, an arrogant TV book show host with a troubled past. His wife, played by Juliette Binoche, is instantly worried by
the tapes and gradually she becomes more and more alarmed, not only by the tapes themselves, but by her husband’s unwillingness
to tell her everything, to be honest with her from the offset. As the film progresses, everyone becomes a suspect, even their
young teen-ager son who mysteriously comes home late every night. Someone wants to hurt this family in some way but particularly
Auteuil’s character. His private “investigation”
brings him to the home of an older Algerian man whom he used to know and who was sent away to an orphanage as a child because
of him. But he claims to have nothing to do with the whole tape business. As you can see, it’s all starting to slide
into a complex thriller and revealing more of the story would be a crime. Hidden is probably one of the most manipulative
films you’re likely to see, not only do you try to figure out who did what to whom during the whole thing but you also
start to wonder if some scenes are not in fact part of the mysterious puppet master’s tapes. It’s a simple story
really: stalker makes tapes, freaks out couple. But it’s done in such a way that you’ll be thinking about Hidden
for weeks to come. Binoche is great as the increasingly troubled wife and Daniel Auteuil is excellent as the shady, easy-to-dislike
husband with a “hidden” past. Overall, Haneke has created an odd, fascinating, thought-provoking, original film
that can be read in different ways (as a political allegory, a domestic drama or just a Hitchcock-style thriller) and that
consequently stays with you long after the credits have rolled. A fine, clever, manipulative French film.
Overall: ****/5
Shopgirl (2005)
With: Claire
Danes, Steve Martin, Jason Schwartzman
Based on Steve Martin’s best selling
novella, Shopgirl is very likely to become the Lost in Translation of 2005. This modern melodrama tells the little story of
Mirabelle, a pretty, lonely glove saleswoman who gets involved with Ray Porter (Martin), a wealthy and charming older man.
Before meeting Ray though, she makes the acquaintance of an off-beat, rather odd guy called Jeremy (Schwartzman) whose clumsiness
in love is absolutely hilarious but quite off-putting for Mirabelle who, even though she notices the potential of Jeremy quite
quickly, is not really up to having a chaotic, meaningless relationship. So when Martin’s suave yet emotionally limited
Ray comes into her life and asks her out to dinner, she’s obviously interested. Ray tells Mirabelle early on that he
travels a lot and cannot have more than a physical relationship with her. He’s a character that’s very succesful
in his work but lacking maturity in the way he handles his relationships, he loves Mirabelle and yet keeps her at arms length.
Meanwhile, Jeremy is doing surprisingly well, one second he has a good idea for an effective way to sell more amplifiers and
the next he is on a tour bus with a band listenning to yoga tapes and tapes about bettering one’s life and “being
in the moment”. All 3 main characters are evolving during the movie, we see them all maturing in different ways. It’s
hard to imagine a better adaptation of Martin’s novella. Anand Tucker proves to be the perfect man for the job, his
directing is slick, inventive, arty, even Wong Kar Wai-esque, if you will. There are some truly magical and beautiful moments,
the opening scene for example is very impressive as we see the camera snaking its way through lipsticks, perfumes and the
crowds of the shop to finally find Mirabelle in the middle of all this brouhaha. As for the cast, Steve Martin is great in
a more serious, complex performance (expect the Novocaine Steve, not the Jerk). Claire Danes is excellent as Mirabelle, she
inhabits the character perfectly and is, it must be said, the cutest little thing I’ve seen since Scarlet Johansson
in Lost in Translation. But surprisingly it’s Jason Schwartzman who steals the show, his performance is simply hilarious
and every time he appears on screen it’s hard not to smile. The novella was so focused on the Mirabelle/Ray relationship
it didn’t really explore the Jeremy character so much but Schwartzman’s portrayal really does add a lot to his
character. If you’ve seen I Heart Huckabees then you know what to expect from him. Overall, Shopgirl is one of the best
films I’ve seen this year, it’s certainly the best romantic comedy of 2005 so far. I was not disappointed one
second and Shopgirl, like Lost in Translation, is a film that will stay with you long after you see it. A modern melodrama
told like a fairy tale that’s funny, clever, original and beautiful. Go see it!
Overall: *****/5
The Producers
(2005)
With: Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Will Ferrell, Uma Thurman
In 1968, Mel Brooks,
aka the King of Spoof, brought us a clever little comedy called The Producers. It starred the great Gene Wilder, who gave
an unforgettably impressive performance as the nervous, mousy accountant Leo Bloom and of course his partner in crime Zero
Mostel who was absolutely brilliant as the down-and-out Broadway producer Max Bialystock. It was a terrifically funny little
gem and it’s certainly Brooks’ more mature-ish film to date. Then, the film was turned into a hit musical and
now the story has been retransferred to the big screen…for some reason. Brooks’ career has been quiet as of late,
and the sadly unfunny mess that was Robin Hood: Men in Tights showed signs that the great man was losing his magic touch.
And even though the wrongly underrated Dracula: Dead and Loving It received godawful reviews, it was quite a promising effort
in my opinion, made me laugh anyway. This time, Brooks turns to the classic that made his name and even though the director
this time is Susan Stroman, not himself, this is very much his new baby. The ebullient Nathan Lane is Bialystock, a certified romancer of the elderly
who gets his funding for Broadway stinkers like his Hamlet musical “Funny Boy” from “chequies” he
receives from old ladies looking for a last thrill on their way to the cemetery. He receives a visit from the safety-blanket-stroking
accountant Leo Bloom (Broderick on top form) who has come to do his books. The rather fragile little man notices that under
the right circumstances a producer could make more money with a flop than with a hit. Hearing this, Bialystock goes nuts and
tries to convince Bloom to join him in the search for a sure fire flop that will bring them millions and send them off to
Rio, worry-free. From then on, the rhythm of the film is accelerated considerably and things get increasingly camp, loud and
toe-tappingly brilliant. They find the worst play ever: Springtime for Hitler, written by neo-Nazi pigeon-lover Frank Liebken
(Will Ferrell), a disaster certain to close on page 4. Then, they hire the worst director, an extremely camp, cross-dressing
queen who would make Ed Wood look like a genius. Enters Ula, a Swedish wannabe actress and dancer who helps the guys out as
a secretary/receptionist and gets a part in their stinker. Of course, they need the worst Hitler they can find, and who better
to play the man himself than his biggest fan Frank? However, things go pear-shaped, to say the least, when their musical is
a surprise hit and is even called a “satiric masterpiece” by a critic. The script, co-written by Brooks and Thomas
Meehan, is very close to the original film, dialogs-wise anyway, but it does include some interesting changes which bring
a certain freshness to a familiar, straight-forward story and some depth to previously unexplored characters (mainly Bloom
and Ula). This being an adaptation of a stage musical, there are songs agogo, the highlights being “I Wanna Be a Producer”
and “Springtime for Hitler”. The choreography of those musical numbers are brilliantly inventive and occasionally
even, dare I say it?: Pure genius. I must say I haven’t seen such a multi-talented and energetic cast in a very long
time: everyone knows exactly what they’re doing and they do it to perfection. Nathan Lane (The Birdcage) is absolutely superb as the slimy
Bialystock, he adds a campness and theatrical manner to Bialystock which is simply charming: someone give this man an Oscar.
As for the ever underrated Matthew Broderick (Cable Guy, Inspector Gadget), there’s no doubt he cannot equal Wilder’s
amazing work in the original and that he will be endlessly criticised for attempting to do that, but as far as I’m concerned
I think he gives an impressive performance and manages to use Wilder’s style whilst adding his own cartoony ways, which
is very admirable. Ferrell is obviously hilarious as Liebken and Uma Thurman is simply stunning as Ula. Actually, the whole
cast is Oscar-worthy to be honest and I dare you to find a bad performance in the film. Being a fan of Brooks ever since I
saw Young Frankenstein a long long time ago, I had high hopes for this “remake” of The Producers: needless to
say I wasn’t disappointed one bit. It was what I expected and much more. Not only is it extremely entertaining and gut-burstingly
hilarious but it still manages to be a bit shocking which just goes to show how the horrors of WWII are still engraved in
our minds. The Producers is not only hands-down the funniest film of 2005 but it’s also one of the best films of the
year and the best musical I’ve seen in a very long time. It certainly puts Moulin Rouge to shame that’s for sure.
Mel Brooks has returned with a Boom! and ends the cinematic year with a Bang! and a quiet yet still very much audible fart
noise. He’s turned a classic comedy into a classic musical. Be good to yourself, go see this masterful laugh-fest, if
you don’t, “ze penalty iz dess!” Which is just as unpleasant as death. Is The Producers any good? One word:
Yeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss...
Overall:
*****/5
King Kong (2005)
With: Naomi
Watts, Andy Serkis, Jack Black, Adrien Brody
Way back in 1933, the first King Kong
film was made and impressed audiences (to say the least) with its ground-breaking animation techniques and huge scale. Since
then it’s become a classic, something which I personally happen to find very odd indeed because I happen to think the
original is somewhat overrated and, more importantly, that its racist undertones are incredibly shameful. There have been
many Kong films after that, actually, the sequel Son of Kong came out the same year as the original King Kong. In 1976, King
Kong returned briefly but audiences were less than taken by the whole “guy-in-a-monkey-suit” fiasco. And now it’s
2005 and it’s Mr Peter “I-still-look-like-a-hobbit-even-though-I’m-sort-of-thin” Jackson’s turn to attempt the task of Kong’s return.
The man who introduced us to Middle Earth so brilliantly some Christmases ago has taken a humongous risk with King Kong. The
first half of the film basically introduces us to all the main characters and is pointlessly overlong. However I must say
that 1930’s New York looks
terrific, I suspect a Best Cinematography Oscar win. Jack Black gives what is surely one of his best performances as desperate
film director Carl Denham and Naomi Watts (who looks surprisingly a lot like Fay Wray) is sweet and generally likeable as
Ann Darrow, even though the odd overacted moment can be a bit annoying. After about an hour of unnecessarily long blah blah,
we arrive at Skull Island where the scary natives soon kidnap Darrow and the Big One arrives to find his blonde chew-toy waiting
for him (and obviously screaming her head off). Kong, in all his CGI glory, I’m happy to say, is not a disappointment,
even though he does look undeniably artificial (although not as much as the dinosaurs and other creatures on the island) and
Andy Serkis, mostly known as The Man Behind Gollum, does a superb job as the ape. It’s at that point that the real action
begins. As the rest of the crew including the tough-ish captain, Adrien Brody’s bland writer, Carl Denham and some other
one-dimensional characters, go on an expedition to try and recover Ann who’s somewhere in the jungle making friends
with the big monkey, as you do. Expect an eyebrow-raising dinosaur stampede from which all the main characters miraculously
survive as if they were protected by some kind of force field, also expect a frankly ridiculous fight between Kong and 3 (yes
3) T-Rexes through countless creepers, and a pointless (if oddly entertaining) scene where all the remaining useless characters
get killed off by giant creepy crawlies. Oh, and if that weren’t enough, there are a few plot-holes to seek your dinosaur
teeth into. I’d be interested to know how the hell they managed to carry the humongous ape to the tiny boat and all
the way back to New York. Oh
well, that’s nothing a “cut-to” couldn’t fix. And anyway, didn’t he wake up at one point? How
did they manage to keep him restrained and asleep for the whole trip? God knows. We’re back in Manhattan and Kong has become “The Eighth Wonder of the World”,
the centre of a big Broadway show. This unsurprisingly proves to be the worst idea ever and Kong escapes in a scene that’s
genuinely impressive and exciting. It is short-lived though and is tainted by a supremely cheesy scene where the Ape slides
happily on an icy lake (which doesn’t break!!) with his beloved blonde toothpick. You know what happens next, he climbs
the Empire State Building, where planes keep twirling, buzzing around him for what seems like an hour before they get the
job done and the King is destroyed. I found the lack of emotion in these last scenes very poor, even Might Joe Young had 10
times more heart. For me, Jackson
has failed to produce an exciting blockbuster and a genuinely moving “love” story. What he has done is spend shitloads
of money on a film which feels at times like another Jurassic Park with a big monkey
(minus Spielberg’s genius). King Kong is also pretty much a brainless, preposterous affair: I understand audiences by
1933 were “wowed” by this ridiculous and uninvolving story but this is 2005, things have changed: we’ve
seen aliens destroy the White House, a big Japanese lizard run amok in the city, a robot revolution. Are we really supposed
to be insanely impressed by a giant ape? I know I wasn’t. It’s not all bad of course, King Kong is superior to
Godzilla in every way, but this is a big disappointment nevertheless, a bit like the The Lost World remake. Sure it’s
reasonably fun and visually stunning but it’s also overlong and dumb as a doorknob, Kong is a flawed blockbuster and
I wish film critics would stop kissing Jackson’s now slimmer buttocks because of his past Middle Earth glories.
Overall: ***/5
The Chronicles of
Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
With: Georgie
Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy, Jim Broadbent
Based on C.S. Lewis’ classic children’s
novels, The Chronicles of Narnia had a promising trailer and gave us the hope of a new Lord of the Rings franchise which would
enchant us for Christmases to come. The story sees the Pevensie children, who, in order to escape the horrors of the Blitz,
are sent to live with a certain professor Kirke (Broadbent), who is never to be disturbed. It takes a bit of time for them
to get used to their new home and things get considerably surprising when the youngest of the bunch finds a portal (inside
a wardrobe, hence the odd title) to a snowbound world of magic called Narnia where an icy, evil White Witch reigns. There,
the little girl meets a fawn who later becomes a friend but only after a dark yet undeniably great scene where he puts her
to sleep by playing music. When she returns to the wardrobe and back to the house, of course, her brothers and sister don’t
believe her but pretty soon, the younger brother stumbles upon the hidden fairy-tale world himself. He encounters the White
Witch who offers him hot chocolate and Turkish Delight, what a nice woman…or so he thinks. It doesn’t take too
long for the rest of the children to enter Narnia where they meet strange beings such as cockney-talking badgers, centaurs
and trolls to name a few. The young boy goes to the Witch’s castle where he is quickly locked up in a cell. It’s
up to his brother and sisters to rescue him. The second half of the film is pretty different to the darker first half and
sees the children helping a noble lion (voiced by Liam Neeson) prepare a huge battle against the Witch’s armies that
will decide the fate of the whole kingdom. Not being familiar with the books I really didn’t know what to expect although
the trailer did promise something along the lines of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. I must say I really enjoyed the first
half of the film, it was magical, mysterious, dark and very entertaining. The child actors were not quite as annoying as I
was expecting and the introduction to the world of Narnia was reasonably well done. However, I can’t help but feel the
film lost its way in the last hour, which makes the whole thing fatally uneven. Plot-holes emerge unexpectedly, the epic battle
is over and done with relatively quickly and the ending is muddled and confused. Not only that but the special effects are
at times more Jumanji than LOTR: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is admittedly flawed and suffers from a messy third
act. Still, it is a fairly entertaining Christmas blockbuster and I personally found it a bit more enjoyable than the overrated
King Kong. It’s better than most of the Potter films (except the last one and perhaps The Philosopher’s Stone
) but incredibly inferior to Peter Jackson’s epic masterpieces. Overall, The Chronicles of Narnia is off to a interesting
start but it’s rather forgettable and slightly disappointing in many ways. Worth a look then but, to be honest, if you
miss it, don’t think you’ve missed too much.
Overall: ***1/2
/5
The Family Stone (2005)
With: Sarah Jessica Parker,
Diane Keaton, Dermot Mulroney, Craig T. Nelson, Luke Wilson
‘Tis the season to be jolly…well, it should
be anyway. When The Family Stone starts with its Christmassy opening titles you think you know exactly what kind of film to
expect and yet, you’ll soon find out it’s not quite what you had in mind. The fish-out-of-water set-up is very
familiar (Meet the Fockers, Guess Who?, Monster in Law), too familiar maybe. There is a difference though, the main character,
Meredith (Parker), is judged even before stepping through the door and even though she manages to rub everyone the wrong way
very soon, you can’t help but feel for her as the aptly named Stone family is one that’s very tightly knit together
and therefore doesn’t allow anyone new into the group easily, especially not her it seems. Everything she says proves
to be a mistake and the days leading up to Christmas are absolutely disastrous. At one point, it gets so stressful for Meredith
that she calls her sister Julie (Danes) and begs her to come, which she does pretty quickly but she doesn’t turn out
to be much help at all. Diane Keaton is the cocky mother Sybil, who has breast cancer and is completely 100% against her son
Everett (Mulroney) marrying Meredith. Luke Wilson is Everett’s stoner brother Ben who has a crush on Meredith. This
is a Christmas movie and so you expect a certain warmth and a fuzzy-chestnuts-resting-on-an-open-fire kind of feeling to emerge.
Well, there’s little of that here and I found The Family Stone was a surprisingly tense film, a very stressful experience. If this is intentional then it sure works but they should really warn you before
the film. God, it felt like being an extra guest at the Stone family table and it wasn’t enjoyable. The biggest problem
of this film is that it doesn’t know what it wants to be. At times it tries to tickle the funny bones and we find ourselves
in Monster in Law territory and at other times the drama is really heavy and even depressing which creates a constant unevenness
to the film. This was quite frustrating I must say. Another flaw is that when it tries to be funny, The Family Stone fails
miserably, and when it tries to be deeply sentimental it’s pretty hit and miss. I personally found the last 20 minutes
or so unbearably cheesy. The plot is not convincing for a second and it just keeps getting more and more eye-rollingly muddled
as the film goes on: a lot of the subplots feel utterly pointless. Also, I must mention Thomas Bezucha’s oddly mediocre
directing which just adds to the frustration (his script is fine but he should have let someone else handle the reindeers).
Having said all that, there are some very good performances notably from Diane Keaton and Jessica Parker who try their hardest
to keep the film above water. But even they can’t save this confused mess of emotions and intentions which starts off
badly, then gets slightly better only to plummet back to the ground in the third act. Needless to say I didn’t like
this film and was very disappointed by it, much like I was when I saw Something’s Gotta Give (which also starred Keaton
incidentally): another waste of great talents. Overall, The Family Stone is an uneven jumble which is far from being a pleasant
experience. There are a few minor chuckles and a couple of short powerful moments but is that really enough? No. Looks like
you’ll have to wait a bit longer for a decent family Christmas movie because that’s not it. My advice: avoid.
Overall: ** /5
Harry Potter and the
Goblet of Fire (2005)
With: Daniel
Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Brendan Gleeson, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, Frances de la Tour, Maggie
Smith
Not being a Harry Potter fan, or having
seen a Harry Potter film from start to finish or read a single Harry Potter book, I went to see The Goblet of Fire hoping
that I wouldn’t be too lost into the wizardly madness of it all. Fortunately I wasn’t. I thought I should see
at least one Harry Potter film at the cinema to see what all the fuss was about and I must say I’m glad I did. The film
starts off as if it were aware that I was in the screening room: with a Tim Burton-esque opening scene. If you’ve read
the book, which you probably have, since I don’t know many people who haven’t succumbed to the J.K. Rowling enchantment
yet, then you will know the story by heart. Harry is entered in the incredibly tough Triwizard Tournament, which could be
described as what the Olympic games would look like if they were held in Hell. He has to battle huge dragons, retrieve his
friends from deep underwater whilst kicking creepy mermaid ass, and finally he must go through the impressive foggy maze without
going completely mental. He’s the youngest competitor and wasn’t even supposed to be there in the first place,
but he proves himself a very worthy challenger indeed. Believe it or not, he handles the mermaids or the dragons easily compared
to the trouble he has asking a girl out to the Yule Ball, may I suggest getting contacts, dropping the glasses and getting
a haircut? Anyway, who am I to give such advice? Potter fans will be interested to know that this instalment is very dark.
I haven’t seen The Prisoner of Azkaban but it looked pretty dark already. I personally think that the 12A certificate
is a little contestable, 12 certificate maybe but I think under 12s will find some scenes very disturbing especially towards
the end as the film keeps getting darker and darker as it goes along. Going in to see the film I was expecting shaky special
effects and ghastly acting but it was actually not that bad. The effects are plentiful as usual and even though some of them
look slightly cartoony, most of them are very impressive, especially the underwater scenes, the flying and the few transformations
present. As for the acting, well, Daniel Radcliffe isn’t quite Marlon Brando just yet but, to be fair, he has improved
a heck of a lot and I wasn’t even bothered by the “weaker” moments. The rest of the cast is almost flawless:
Grint and Watson, as Ron and Hermione, are both terrific and do surprisingly well. As usual, they are supported by a very
strong British cast, Brendan Gleeson is particularly good as the barmy new teacher Mad-Eye Moody, Alan Rickman is in full
creepy mode and Ralph Fiennes looks like the English Patient…wait a minute…wasn’t he the English Patient?
Ironically, One thing I didn’t find too much of in the film was magic: there was certainly an emphasis on the action
sequences (which isn’t a bad thing) and the score was good but not quite as inspired as the one from the previous film.
Overall, Goblet of Fire is bigger, darker, scarier and more romantic. It’s a thoroughly entertaining, often impressive
film and I enjoyed every minute of it even though I wasn’t too familiar with the whole Hogwarts “world”
before seeing it. The latest Harry Potter is not incredibly magical then but it’s so much fun and so visually brilliant
you’ll barely notice it. Mike Newell proves to be a great choice for the Harry Potter franchise and I suspect he will
be back for the…Order of the Phoenix I think, is that it?
Overall: ***1/2
/5
The Brothers Grimm
(2005)
With: Matt
Damon, Heath Ledger, Peter Stormare, Jonathan Pryce, Monica Belucci
Once upon
a time…
Believe it or not it’s been 7 years
Terry Gilliam (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Twelve Monkeys) hasn’t made a film. With the exception of his documentary
Lost in La Mancha in which he told us the tale of his doomed project The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which sadly never saw
the light of day. Now, movie wizard Gilliam returns with what promises to be his comeback. This time, he takes on the fairy-tales
of the Brothers Grimm and creates an original story in which the Brothers, who con poor villagers into believing they can
drive witches and demons away. Meanwhile, children are being mysteriously abducted in the nearby woods and the Brothers Grimm
are ordered by an evil French general (Pryce) to go and find the missing children. Turns out the forest is genuinely haunted
by a scary wolf, dangerous moving trees and a vain, decomposing witch who lives in a tall tower. So Will and Jacob Grimm find
themselves in a rather “grim” adventure which presents to them plenty of great ideas for fairy-tales. Actually,
the best thing about this film is seeing how Gilliam has managed to brilliantly include references to the famous Grimm tales
such as: Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel, Snow White and the Gingerbread Man. Much like Sleepy Hollow
was a pure Tim Burton project, this is a pure Terry Gilliam project. The film starts off promisingly with a great score and
a superb title sequence: from the offset, you know you’re going to have a good time and that you’re in safe hands.
Indeed, there’s much to admire in The Brothers Grimm. Heath Ledger and Matt Damon prove to be a surprisingly good double
act and their discussions and girly screams provide most of the laughs. Gilliam has clearly not lost his magic touch: his
admirable swooping camera and the spooky atmosphere he’s created are both delights. The best scenes include Little Red
Riding Hood’s creepy walk through the forest and the frankly disturbing horse-swallows-kid scene. Having said all that,
The Brothers Grimm is probably Gilliam’s worst effort. He is let down by many things. First, the CGI special effects
which, for some reason, are absolutely dire (the wolf and the Gingerbread Man are amongst the worst). Also, the panto-esque
performances of Stormare (as Cavaldi) and Pryce (as the general) are unconvincing and overdone (their Italian and French accents
are pitiful). And the whole thing is very messy and just gets more and more confused as we rock back and forth between the
woods and the village. As the film ends, you can’t help but feel short-changed by the usually inspired Gilliam. The
Brothers Grimm is not a bad film but coming from the man who had the balls to do the expensive masterpieces Baron Munchausen
and Brazil this is a bit of a disappointment. This is a film that’s overwhelming and underwhelming at the same time,
impressive yet unimpressive, enchanting yet frustrating: The Brothers Grimm is a big contradiction, it’s Gilliam at
his best and worst. Overall, I recommend this film but be warned, if you’re expecting the ex-Monty Python’s big
comeback, this is not it. The Brothers Grimm may be a flawed, slightly disappointing mess but admittedly it’s great
fun, very entertaining, stylish and has some enchanting and pretty scary moments.
Overall: ***/5
Broken Flowers
(2005)
With: Bill
Murray, Jeffrey Wright, Sharon Stone, Jessica Lange, Tilda Swinton, Frances
Conroy, Christopher McDonald
Directed by Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man), who
already worked with Bill Murray previously in the so-so Coffee and Cigarettes, Broken Flowers sees Murray continuing on his path of indie-films which will end, hopefully,
in him winning an Oscar. In this film, he is a bored, middle-aged former Don Juan called Don Johnston (geddit?). His life
is an empty, dull one which doesn’t seem to be going anywhere: he has money, a girlfriend (who leaves him 5 minutes
into the film) but he is very much alone, unlike his neighbour and friend Winston (Wright) who has a wife and about a zillion
kids. When Don receives an anonymous pink letter from an unknown old girlfriend telling him that he has a 19 year-old son,
Don doesn’t really know how to react. Winston, however, is really fascinated by the whole thing and he insists Don tries
to find out who the letter is from. A fan of mystery novels, Don prepares a plan for his friend to go and pay a visit to all
his ex-girlfriends. Don doesn’t seem very enthusiastic at the idea of randomly appearing on the doorstep of women he
hasn’t seen for years and who might or might not have sent him the letter. He is pretty much forced to go by Winston
who probably feels it would do Don some good to get out of his empty apartment. And so Mr Murray is on his way to meet the
exes, who are not exactly normal, no wonder he didn’t stay with them! The beautiful Laura (Stone) has a daughter, Lolita,
who truly lives up to her name. It’s an affectionate, if slightly weird, encounter. Then, he goes to see Dora (Frances
Conroy) whose house, like her is very square and tidy. This visit is an awkward one, especially since her smug estate agent
husband arrives and invites Don to stay for dinner. After that, it just keeps getting weirder, as his next ex Carmen (Lange)
is an animal communicator who, ahem, understand what animals are saying. The last one with Tilda Swinton doesn’t go
well at all. There’s much to like about Broken Flowers: it’s clever, funny and Murray is always a delight. However, I must say that the fact he
zombies his way through the movie made me want to shake him up and scream “it’s Groundhog Day!!” in his
ear. Having said that, it’s his character and he does very well as he’s naturally funny. Jeffrey Wright is very
good indeed and all the women in the film (except maybe Julie Delpy who makes an early appearance) give superb performances.
Broken Flowers does have some longueurs which seem a little unnecessary and can be irritating at times. Overall, it’s
worth seeing but it’s not what you’ll expect, trust me: Broken Flowers is a surprisingly bizarre little film with
a eyebrow-raisingly mysterious low-key ending that will leave you thinking: Mehey? A good film then, but nothing to go wild
about.
Overall: ***1/2
/5
Tim Burton’s
Corpse Bride (2005)
With: Johnny
Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson, Joanna Lumley, Danny Elfman, Richard E. Grant, Paul Whitehouse, Tracey Ullman, Albert
Finney, Michael Gough, Christopher Lee, Deep Roy
Earlier this year, movie wizard Tim Burton
brought us his scrumdiddlyumptious take on Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. And only a few month later,
he returns, much like the Bat-Man, with an animated Halloween treat just for us. Of course comparisons with his previous stop-motion
masterpiece The Nightmare Before Christmas are inevitable. But don’t jump to conclusions for even though there are similarities
between the 2 films they are very different indeed. Whereas Nightmare was a musical fairy tale fantasy, Corpse Bride is more
of a gothic melodrama. Johnny Depp voices the rather sensitive, hesitant and clumsy Victor Van Dort, whose rich parents have
decided to arrange his wedding with a certain Victoria Everglot (Watson) as her parents are poor and need this wedding to
take place if they don’t want to end up completely broke. But the wedding rehearsals are disastrous because of Victor’s
nervousness due to the fact he is unsure about the whole ‘getting married’ idea as he’s only met his bride-to-be
Victoria once, briefly. One night, a depressed Victor is walking in the woods and, during some joking around, puts the wedding
ring on what appears to be a branch. Turns out, the branch in question is in fact the finger of a woman’s corpse and
when the latter suddenly comes to life, poor Victor is terrified and runs away. Soon, the Corpse Bride (Bonham Carter) brings
her new husband home, to the after world where he meets some gruesome characters such as a singing skeleton (Elfman) and a
French waiter’s talking head carried by cockroaches. But what will Victor do? Will he go through with marrying the corpse?
Victor may be the main character but it must be said that it’s very much the Corpse Bride’s show. She may be slightly
scary, and ok she has a Beetlejuice-esque maggot in her skull and an eye that keeps popping out. But even so, she is a very
sweet (even cute) character. Can a heart still break when it stops beating? It appears so. The Corpse Bride is visually impressive,
the animation is slick and very imaginative. The voice cast is perfect and it’s actually very easy to forget who is
doing the voice of whom when watching the film because the characters are so original. The Corpse Bride, it must be said,
doesn’t have the energy and the masterful music of Nightmare Before Christmas: the score and the songs are truthfully
not very memorable but certainly great fun and at times truly beautiful (the Bride’s song and the piano duet scene are
both superb). The
irony of this film is that, for Burton, the real world is cold, dull and unpleasant whereas the world of the dead is warm,
entertaining and likeable in a gothic kind of way. Overall, The Corpse Bride is a real treat, granted
it’s not as brilliant as its older bigger brother but it’s very sweet, funny and done with a lot of heart. Expect
black humour, gothic romance, skeletons agogo and some Oscar worthy animation. Missing this film would be a murder most foul.
Overall: ****/5
Serenity (2005)
With: Nathan
Fillion, Gina Torres, Summer Glau, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Adam Baldwin, Sean Maher
Joss Whedon, mostly known as the creator
of hit TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer brings us this sci-fi spin-off from another series of his called Firefly. Unlike
Buffy though, Firefly was axed after only one season (14 episodes). Making a film based on a cult short-lived TV series is
certainly a risky project but Whedon has pulled it off. The whole cast of Firefly is here and everyone does their best to
adapt to the big-screen format. The film sees the crew of a space craft, Serenity, and its captain Mal Reynolds (Fillion)
take on board a young doctor (Maher) and his mysterious goth-ish sister River (Glau). The latter proves to be rather feisty
and full of surprises as she gets caught up in a conspiracy involving a galactic superpower which wants to get her back because
she managed to escape from them just when they were conducting experiments on her powerful mind. The story, as you can see,
is not really straight forward and it just gets more and more complex, probably because Whedon tried cramming ideas from his
14 episodes in a 119 minutes long feature film. Having said that, Serenity is never overwhelming, quite the contrary: it does
feel like you’re watching an extended episode of a TV series and this can be, at times, a little irritating. The action
scenes are impressive and genuinely great fun, unfortunately there aren’t that many and the film leaves you wanting
more. Maybe the story should have been simplified and some of the talking should have been cut because even though Serenity
is enjoyable enough, it all feels a little crammed: that’s what sequels are for, guys. The acting, writing and directing
are all satisfying but never awe inspiring. Serenity is an original-ish creation with bits and pieces reminiscent of Star
Wars, Ghosts of Mars and Japanese mangas to name a few. I must say I was surprised by the way it was received by critics:
they loved it and it got rave reviews. Serenity is by no means a bad film but it’s definitely not a masterpiece and
certainly not the best science fiction film of the year (which is probably Revenge of the Sith or War of the Worlds). For
me, Serenity came off as an enjoyable, if forgettable sci-fi B-movie, nothing more. Overall, it’s ok but just don’t
expect something incredible as it has been wrongly overrated. PS: Please make a Farscape feature film!
Overall: ***/5
Night Watch
(2005)
With: Konstantin
Khabensky, Vladimir Menshov, Valery Zolotukhin
A big hit in its home country Russia,
Night Watch is the first part of a film trilogy about a cold war between Good and Evil, the Night Watch and the Day Watch.
The film begins with a real war that ends in a truce between the good guys and the bad guys. Then, we find ourselves in the
present where a man, Anton, goes to see a witch and asks her to punish his girlfriend (who left him) by killing her unborn
child. He soon changes his mind and it soon becomes clear that he is an Other who will have to choose between the path of
good or the path of evil. He chooses good and later finds himself in the middle of the cold war. The story becomes surprisingly
complex when we learn there is a chosen one who will end the war by choosing one side that will triumph over the other. Anton
saves a possessed child (an Other) from the hands of some bloodthirsty vampire in a routine assignment but turns out things
aren’t quite what they seem and there’s much danger ahead. The look of Night Watch and it’s basic ideas
aren’t very original, I found myself expecting Keanu Reeves to pop up and take over the role of Anton before dodging
bullets and claiming the title of Chosen One. But even though it is comparable to films like Constantine or Matrix there is
a lot of originality present in Night Watch. The special effects are ambitious but work very well, which is admirable since
the film only cost 4 million pounds to make. There are some impressive moments and lots of good ideas. In an excellent scene,
a bolt comes off the wing of a plane and we follow it as it drops all the way down and into the apartment of Anton. Also,
if you’re worried that you won’t enjoy the film because it’s subtitled, don’t, as even the subtitles
are very cool. Overall, Night Watch is a stylish, impressive and very enjoyable fantasy/ horror that may not be ground breaking
but is certainly worth a look. Bring on Day Watch and Dusk Watch.
Overall: ****/5
Howl’s Moving Castle (2005)
With the voices of: Christian
Bale, Emily Mortimer, Billy Crystal, Lauren Bacall
Hayao Miyazaki, the Japanese anime genius, finally brings
us his follow up to his Oscar-winning masterpiece Spirited Away. Once again, we find ourselves in the strange, charming, surreal
world of Miyazaki, where the impossible makes itself at home and pops-up to say hello every few seconds. In a time where unimpressive,
repetitive CGI animated films fill our cinemas (Shark Tale, Robots, Madagascar) it is a real breath of fresh air to see a
little hand-drawn gem like Howl’s Moving Castle appear out of nowhere and claim the prize for best animated film of
the year so far (The Corpse Bride might dethrone it soon though). The story is not quite as simple as Spirited Away’s
but it’s not exactly Ghost in the Shell either. Sophie works in a hat shop, she seems quite bored in her life until
she meets a handsome, mysterious wizard called Howl. The jealous (and grossly obese) Witch of the Waste one evening turns
poor Sophie into an 80 year old woman. In the morning, she leaves her home and decides to try and find someone who could help
undo the spell. During her quest, she meets a smiling scarecrow who enjoys bouncing repeatedly on a wooden pogo stick. He
leads her to Howl’s enormous and impressive moving castle where she finds refuge. There she meets a talking fire demon
called Calcifer (voiced by the brilliant Billy Crystal), a young boy wizard and of course Howl (voiced by Christian “Batman”
Bale). Sophie becomes the cleaning woman of the messy castle and all is fine until Howl asks her to go to a meeting with the
king in his place as his mother: things get a lot more tricky after that. Howl’s Moving Castle is, first of all, a visual
treat: beautiful sunsets, flowery prairies, dark 3 dimensional clouds are just some of the things to admire here. The characters
are excellent as well, from the kind but literally heartless Howl who’s hair colour is sacred and who turns into a huge
bird-like creature when he goes to war, to the cute little wheezing dog and the bouncy scarecrow (reminiscent of No Face in
Spirited Away but less creepy). As for the story, well, it is occasionally enigmatic, the whole war mini-plot can be a bit
confusing and the ending is slightly predictable. But I’m being fussy because trust me, it won’t bother you one
bit. Overall, Howl’s Moving Castle is funny, enchanting and visually gorgeous: it’s unsurprisingly one of the
best animated films you’ll see all year, so don’t miss it.
Overall: ****/5
The Descent
(2005)
With: Shauna
McDonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, Nora-Jane Noone
2005 has been a very good year for cinema
so far, but on the “horror flick” side it’s been a little disappointing. The best efforts in the horror
department this year were the disturbing Wolf Creek, which was sadly not scary, the well-made remake Dark Water, also low
on scares, and The Ring Two, which was far from impressive but spooky nevertheless. And of course a whole string of pointless
other efforts (House of Wax, The Cave, Cursed). I was therefore quite sceptical when I went to see The Descent, especially
since the film’s British director Neil Marshall was the one who came up with the so-so Dog Soldiers some years ago.
The story is pretty basic really: six women who seek adventure and a change of ideas decide to explore the depths of an Appalachian
cave. Juno (Mendoza) assures her friends she knows the way and is very excited about the whole thing. Sarah (Macdonald), however,
has been very fragile since she lost her husband and young daughter in a terrible car accident a year before. As the girls
get deeper and deeper into the cave, everything just gets creepier and creepier. Sarah’s mental state also seems to
get more and more delicate and Juno’s confidence shrinks dramatically. So far it doesn’t sound too scary does
it? Well, trust me, before the girls even get into the cave you’ll have jumped off your seat quite a few times. Marshall’s
ability to frighten his audience so cleverly is impressive: the scares come in short, unexpected bursts and are very effective.
During the film, expect to become increasingly tense because of the cave’s claustrophobic atmosphere but also expect
to smile from time to time, not just because of the few winks to horror films (Carrie, Apocalypse Now, Aliens, Shining) but
also because of the gory, horrible (yet oddly enjoyable) events from inside the cave. I’ll let you find out for yourselves
what the girls find inside, hehehe. All I can say is: The Descent is an unpredictable, genuinely frightening, old-fashioned
horror with plenty of scares and brains (hidden behind the minimalist script). If you see one horror film this year, make
it The Descent.
Overall: ****1/2
/5
Wolf Creek (2005)
With: John
Jarrat, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips
This Australian horror thriller, which
tells us right from the start that it is “based on actual events”, tells the story of 3 young backpackers who
find themselves kidnapped by a psychotic Crocodile Dundee-ish character. The first half of the film, it must be said, is basically
the set up. Nothing particularly scary happens, we are simply introduced to the three main characters which we follow from
a night of partying to a road trip that gradually gets less and less enjoyable
for them and for us. First, they arrive at a gas station where some creepy guys start to cause trouble. Then, when they finally
arrive at the foggy and deserted Wolf
Creek, where a comet landed a long
time ago and left a giant crater, it starts to rain. Not only that but their car won’t start, which is particularly
frustrating since they are in the middle of nowhere and night is falling. During the night, a man called Mick Taylor in a
little truck appears and offers to tow them back to his place where he’ll help with their car. Not exactly showered
with choices, they accept. At first, Taylor seems like a nice enough fellow but little by little he just gets creepier and creepier. And when one of the backpackers
(Phillips) compares him to Crocodile Dundee, we realise this Mick Taylor, who takes the remark rather badly, is not what he
seems. I’ll let you guess the rest. There’s much to like about this little Australian chiller. First, there’s
the fact that we are made to care about the characters and when they find themselves in trouble we are genuinely worried about
what might happen to them. Unlike in slasher films for example, where we are given a bunch of cocky, annoying teen-agers with
no personality who get killed off one by one because of their own stupidity. John Jarrat is absolutely brilliant as the unsettling
Mick Taylor, the best horror film “boogeyman” I’ve seen in a while. The rest of the cast is very good too
and everyone gives realistic performances. The film also looks terrific, shot on a high definition digital camera, there are
some beautiful postcard settings and the hand-held technique makes the whole thing seem that little bit more real. The second
half of the film is quite disturbing with Mick Taylor showing the real him and terrorizing the innocent, likeable backpackers.
Sadly, the scares rate is pretty low but the film manages to be very compelling nonetheless. Overall, Wolf Creek in an entertaining, chilling and disturbing little thriller with an excellent bad guy, just don’t expect
to be too terrified.
Overall: ****/5
The 40 Year-Old Virgin
(2005)
With: Steve
Carell, Paul Rudd, Catherine Keener, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen
Yes, I know, it’s a silly title.
And yes, I know you’re probably not sure who any of the actors listed above are. Nevertheless, if you want to have some
laughs, give The 40 Year-Old Virgin a go. Steve Carell is Andy, a very nerdy electrical-store worker who, as the title of
the film explains, is a 40 year-old virgin. Andy collects action figures, he’s clumsy, he drives a bicycle to work and
seems perfectly fine with his little routine. Oh yes, and he doesn’t mind waking up every morning with a boner. When
his “friends” start to talk about past sexual experiences over a poker game, Andy inevitably starts to make up
an unconvincing experience of his own. They obviously don’t fall for it and realise he is in fact a virgin. This traumatises
them and their mission becomes to get Andy laid by any means necessary. But turns out, it’s not all that simple as Andy
encounters some strange ladies indeed, including an alcoholic, a transvestite, a sex freak, a girl whose boobs are planning
the great escape…And then he meets Trish, the beautiful owner of an E-bay store. Could she be the One who will put an
end to his virginity? Now, who is Steve Carell? Well, remember the pretentious rubber-faced anchorman in Bruce Almighty? That’s
him. And what about that hilarious brainless weatherman in Anchorman? Yep, him also. And you can spot him in Melinda and Melinda
and Bewitched as well. Not to mention that he plays the main role in the succesful American version of The Office. Carell
could be set to become just as big as his pal Will Ferrell. In The 40 Year Old Virgin, Carell is excellent as Andy, the guy
has a gift for making even the most mundane things completely hilarious. He’s very good at slapstick, one-liners, deadpan,
making faces, everything really, a kind of weird Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller fusion if you will. Catherine Keener is as good
(and as hot) as ever as Trich, she was in Being John Malkovitch, SimOne and Death to Smoochy (3 cult films). As for the rest
of the cast, they’re all very good, completely unhinged to be precise. The film itself has hilarious moments, such as
the scene in the bookshop and the 2 bike crashes. It’s all very loud, silly and extremely rude, the language is completely
drowned by the F word and numerous other crude words. It’s ultimately a gross-out comedy, think along the lines of Old
School or American Pie 3, clever yet childish. The film’s message and the surprisingly sweet romantic bits are sadly
lost between all the craziness and crudeness present in the film. Oh well, it’s still undeniably funny and very enjoyable.
It’s essentially a guy film but I’m sure girls will enjoy it too. Overall, The 40 Year-Old Virgin is great fun,
full of ideas but unfortunately flawed, maybe a shorter running time would have erased some of the heavier jokes. Messy and
overlong but very funny, Steve Carell rocks.
Overall: ***/5
|
