Change Your Image
mickosaer
Reviews
Doubt (2008)
A rarity; excellent film totally reliant on story and character
It's such a refreshing experience to see a 21st Century film only 90mins long and shot on a moderate budget, but that has all the complexity and character intrigue of a Dostoyevskian masterpiece.
The story is of a Priest (Phil Hoffman) suspected of 'improper behaviour' with a student at his Catholic school. Yet the real story is that his prosecutor (the always-outstanding Meryll Streep) is in no place to accuse, has no evidence - only here-say - to go on, and no real reason to stir up trouble. But stir she does.
The film starts with a pre-emptive sermon on the liberating nature of doubt - to be able to question what you've been told when it conflicts with your instincts, and to guiltlessly challenge your beliefs. But this is at odds with the old-school style of obedience and fear that's instilled in the students, and is the underlying conflict between Hoffman and Streep's characters throughout the film. I won't go into the plot in too much detail, but the way the audience is forced to doubt every accusation and twist is a masterful compliment to the film's overriding theme, and a rare instance of an 'open' ending that doesn't frustrate. The film has made it's point.
It is, if nothing else, brilliantly written. It's hard to tell if the film is critical of Catholicism's straight-line believers or sympathetic to it's well-meaning principles - but the grey area in between is delved into with gusto and asks questions of the characters that they are unable to answer. The film also touches upon themes of male-dominated hierarchy within the church (adding another layer to Streep and Hoffman's battle), racism in the classroom and domestic violence in the home with the lightest of touches, and never gives an easy answer.
Besides the two lead performances, the acting across the board is outstanding (Amy Adams' patient and understated character is the only source of relief in a forceful script). Adapted from the stage, this film is primed for the powerhouse performances Streep and Hoffman are famed for, and they don't disappoint. Well worth watching for their exchanges alone.
A certainty for consideration in the run-up to the Oscars, and a timely reminder that small films with big ideas are far more interesting and provocative than their blockbuster counterparts.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
The work of a real director
I watched this film yesterday and still have a little trouble putting the experience as a whole into words - but this is the gist of what i've managed to relay to everyone so far...
This is quite literally an amazing piece of work, i thought it would require a huge leap of faith to follow a so called 'fantasy for grown-ups', but i barely recall ever feeling so enchanted. I went into the cinema with the preconceptions of a fantasy-epic appealing to a child-like imagination, with some mature themes justifying it's 15 certificate.
Although that's not an entirely defunct analysis, the film has a depth that simply can't be expressed. It's seems such a personal film in terms of it's content, but too stylistically rich and impeccably structured to be considered 'art-house'. It just works perfectly. I'm not sure if this is because of the realism it's Spanish Civil War setting allows, or whether the special effects are so understated that you barely recognise them, but the film's authenticity is never a cause of concern for the viewer. For a high-concept fantasy celebrating the power of fairy-tales, that's no mean feat.
This review will become ridiculously long if i start praising the film's cinematography, sound, production design and general look (CGI+costume; George Lucas take note) in any real depth. It all seems so unified in the vision of the film as a whole that it basically blends into the same thing. That the film achieves such consistency throughout is the highest possible praise for each individual department.
I do, however, think specific mention has got to go to del Toro for the beauty of the film's writing and ultimate realisation. I've never understood complimenting 'good direction' in a film because i don't think it really means anything. But the pace, detail and relevance of each shot is so precise and complimentary that i'll afford del Toro that very accolade, if nothing else because he seems so completely in control of his vision. It is breathtaking cinema.
The performances he gets out of Baquero (Orfelia) and Lopez (the Captain) are astonishing. If you believe the actors, you believe the film. As mentioned before, i believed everything. As something of an aside, i recently posted a comment about the 'Casino Royale' Bond film and tried to put into words how devastatingly it managed to fail on every level. 'Pan's Labyrinth' reminded me why cinema really can succeed, and (if what i've heard is to be believed) all for around a tenth of of the former's budget. It's embarrassing. I can't request strongly enough that you really should see for yourself.
Casino Royale (2006)
Could not believe it... (Updated)
OK, I'm going to start this review again by apologising to those who are looking forward to an honest and well-made prequel to the James Bond franchise, and also to those people who were offended by my previous comments which led to an abuse report being filed. I've marked the changes to my previous post with a (*) sign. Again, this is simply a personal opinion...
I dislike this film (*). I've grown up with Bond films (favorites? 'Thunderball', 'From Russia, With Love', 'Goldeneye', 'Live and Let Die') and was amazed with how angry i was after seeing this.
To start - given the budget, they should have done a lot better. The action scenes (save possibly the opening flashbacks and admittedly-quite-awesome parkour sequence) are long and boring - and done for all the wrong reasons. They seem too caught-up with trying to make this the 'biggest, baddest, most explosive, etc' Bond film, and have paid little regard to the actual storyline.
Speaking of which, for the first 40-minutes of non-stop explosions i had literally no idea of what was going on. This probably makes me sound like a bit of a retard, but honestly, all this action happens on screen with very little to motivate it. The screenplay is incredibly bad, and it's probably because of this that the film disappoints so much.
A bit now on the new Bond; i like Daniel Craig, and i don't know how much you can judge from this film. He seems to appear topless a lot (*). More-so, in fact, than any Bond-Girl has in any of the Bond-films thus far (*). He also says some awkward and very un-Bond-like lines, and looks menacing from time to time. Once again, the script really is awful. And he isn't helped with the fact that the Sony laptops and mobile-phones are given more close-ups than he is.
The plot, to be fair, is quite complicated, and a lot to fit into one film. Bond has recently been promoted to a double-agent, and his (as we are constantly (*) reminded) arrogance and ego make him a risk. However, after needlessly killing a UK informant, he is allowed to pursue 'Le Chiffre' - a compromised terrorist-banker (?!) who weeps blood and plays high-stakes poker to raise cash.
I wont spoil the rest - if such a thing is possible - but after many twists and double-crosses, the film ends with the whole experience forcing Bond into his hedonistic and shallow future-image. A little more on this - i know the filmmakers wanted Bond to be more 'gritty' and 'dark' than before (providing a back-drop to the other Bond films), but all they've done is make him less confident, less funny, and considerably uncooler than they can get away with.
I wanted to like this film. In short, i could not wait - after a long 2 1/2 hours - for it's surprisingly unclimactic end (*), and I never once felt like being Bond would be one of the best jobs a man could have - the one thing that the entire franchise depends on. Good points? A couple of good lines during the torture sequence, Eva Green looks hot, and Sebastien Foucan does his own stunts. Other bad points - general plot incoherence, (unforgivably) no Q, and the film manages to go to some of the most exotic locations thinkable, and then makes them look completely ordinary. Again, my apologies...
Mystery Train (1989)
Elvis Lives!
'Mystery Train' is probably the most entertaining, interesting and understated of indie-fave Jim Jarmusch's early work (i haven't seen 'Coffee and Cigarettes' yet). The films portrayal of Elvis' birthplace of Memphis, possibly one of the most featureless, gritty and desolate representations of urban America ever committed to film, is a deceptively clever and substantial take on American subcultures.
Without doubt, it is the first of the films three vignettes that makes the film stand out a little more than Jarmusch's other quirky offerings. Two Japanese tourists besotted with the King's legacy and 1950's American retro-culture in general, decide to visit Memphis, where they experience the superficiality his iconic status has been reduced to. The over-excitable and optimistic teenage girl, along with her more austere, cooler-than-cool boyfriend, are equally unimpressed with what the town has to offer. It's quite impressive that 15 years after its release, Jarmusch's depiction of alternative culture manages to capture the pretentious but proudly on-the-edges attitudes probably more apparent in today's retro-obsessed climate than ever before.
Jarmusch's signature eclectic cast is another reason for repeated viewing, the subtleties of, in particular, Steve Buscemi's stuttering and nervous performance, are worth looking out for. As is the linking theme of Elvis' ghost in all three vignettes, a brilliant example of how to take a simple theme, and continually parodize its implications until its every mention leads to some sort of in-joke. The cool, laid-back pace of the film allows the humour to hit you unexpectedly, and the timing is often genius. Very, very, very watchable.
Criminal (2004)
Not as bad as i thought...
Before giving any kind of review, it might help to point out a few things about the film:
1) This is the only lead role i've ever seen John C. Reilly in
2) It was produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney - the 'Oceans Eleven' comparisons are endless
3) This is a directorial debut by Gregory Jacobs, who's previously worked with the above and others such as the Coen Brothers
4) The film is a remake of a 2000 Argentinian film called 'Nueve Reinas' (Nine Queens)
There are some things about this film that were guaranteed before hand; a razor-sharp script, cool soundtrack and stylish look. However, before attending an advanced showing of the film last night, i checked out the IMDb comments and was not expecting too much. I was, however, pleasantly surprised.
The thing to remember is that the film is not only a remake, but YET ANOTHER addition to an already exhausted Hollywood genre ('The Sting', 'Oceans Eleven' and recently 'Matchstick Men'), and so any originality was going to be hard-earned. But the script is excellent. In the early stages of the film, you feel like Reilly is being a bit heavy-handed with the mannerisms of his intentionally caricatured conman (especially for those familiar with his awesome and similarly heavy-handed and clumsy cop in 'Magnolia', it takes a bit of time to adjust!), but the character definitely grows on him. It is, if nothing else, refreshing to see an actor of his ability given the chance to dominate every scene, and on the whole he takes his chance well.
The real star though, as mentioned elsewhere, is Diego Luna. He plays a fresh-faced and naive rookie-crook who's taken on by Reilly, and throughout the film the interplay between them is a highlight. No questions asked, he steals the show. This was a surprise to me, as i haven't seen him on screen before, but a bit of research shows he was in 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights', so this could be some breakthrough! Maggie Gylenhaal was slightly disappointing, as she's been particularly memorable in everything else i've seen from her, but in general the supporting cast is solid.
Where the film really succeeds though, is how it knows and appreciates its audience. From the outset, 'Criminal' appears as a clichéd gag-fest revolving around the two con-men, and you are continually guessing who's going to be screwing who, and the characters often refer to just this. But the plot is complicated (or maybe uncomplicated) enough to maintain the audiences attention, and you'd be kidding yourself if you said you saw the final twist coming.
Very watchable, very cool, very funny, but perhaps in the end a little unsatisfying. Well worth checking out though.