On another day I might have really enjoyed the French film Mademoiselle Chambon. Everything unwinds very slowly. There isn't a lot of dialogue. The subtlety of the acting by leads Sandrine Kiberlain and Vincent Lindon is excellent: a look here, a glance there, a brief touch.
But as it happened I wasn't in the right mood. So I felt this was far too slow and laboured for a small return. At one point we cut to a scene where Jean is sitting in a bar... thinking... then we cut away again. Yawn.
I think the lack of drama, in the wider sense, doesn't help. It's just two people who form an attachment and then aren't sure if they want to take it any further. There will be consequences, of course, if they do; but we aren't really exposed to those. We are left to imagine their inner turmoil based on a few looks and the odd line of dialogue.
At the end it is almost as if Mademoiselle Chambon isn't actually a real person. But rather is simply a metaphor for the restlessness of middle-aged men.
Thursday 25 September 2014
Sunday 21 September 2014
Dragon
Unlike some Chinese martial arts films, Dragon has a compelling and interesting story which also contains some fighting. Rather than being a collection of fight scenes sown together by a weak plot.
In fact there aren't that many fight scenes, so if all you want is action then this isn't the film for you. If you like Sherlock then this definitely is worth a look, as it reminded me a lot of the BBC's latest take on Holmes... with Takeshi Kaneshiro as Holmes and star Donnie Yen as a cross between Dr Watson and a bad guy... since for most of the film we don't know who, or what kind of man, Lui Jinxi really is.
I wish I could do the film more justice by writing more, but I'm very tired, so I can't... if I leave the review too long then I'll forget what it was like. So just take it from me, this is a pretty good film.
In fact there aren't that many fight scenes, so if all you want is action then this isn't the film for you. If you like Sherlock then this definitely is worth a look, as it reminded me a lot of the BBC's latest take on Holmes... with Takeshi Kaneshiro as Holmes and star Donnie Yen as a cross between Dr Watson and a bad guy... since for most of the film we don't know who, or what kind of man, Lui Jinxi really is.
I wish I could do the film more justice by writing more, but I'm very tired, so I can't... if I leave the review too long then I'll forget what it was like. So just take it from me, this is a pretty good film.
Sunday 14 September 2014
The Expendables
By the time a film series gets up to part 4 (or is it 5?) you have to start wondering if there maybe isn't something worth looking at. And so it is with The Expendables. Finally I decided to take a look... despite the mixed reviews.
What you get isn't so much an action film as a trip down memory lane. If you never saw the Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis films of the 1980's then you will probably just wonder why there are some old guys running round with Jason Statham and Jet Li.
As you might expect, there's plenty of fighting and not a lot of acting here. Although I think I'd have to single out Mickey Rourke as the opposite: he doesn't do any fighting but puts in a good performance as Sly's brother (is that brother, or bro? ... it doesn't really matter, I guess).
The action scenes are fun but nothing special, in the present day. So for me it is the nostalgia that saves the day. The cheesy one-liners. The hulking bad guys who kick the crap out of the heroes until the last minute. The improbable escapes. Bad guys who can fire 1000 rounds without hitting anyone. Good guys who can drop a dozen baddies stone dead with 3 bullets and a medium sized pocket knife.
There actually is the thin thread of a story to hang the action onto. And I assume that the obvious hooks will be used to pull in the other old-time hero guys as the series goes along.
Will I be checking out part 2, at least? Hell yeah!
What you get isn't so much an action film as a trip down memory lane. If you never saw the Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis films of the 1980's then you will probably just wonder why there are some old guys running round with Jason Statham and Jet Li.
As you might expect, there's plenty of fighting and not a lot of acting here. Although I think I'd have to single out Mickey Rourke as the opposite: he doesn't do any fighting but puts in a good performance as Sly's brother (is that brother, or bro? ... it doesn't really matter, I guess).
The action scenes are fun but nothing special, in the present day. So for me it is the nostalgia that saves the day. The cheesy one-liners. The hulking bad guys who kick the crap out of the heroes until the last minute. The improbable escapes. Bad guys who can fire 1000 rounds without hitting anyone. Good guys who can drop a dozen baddies stone dead with 3 bullets and a medium sized pocket knife.
There actually is the thin thread of a story to hang the action onto. And I assume that the obvious hooks will be used to pull in the other old-time hero guys as the series goes along.
Will I be checking out part 2, at least? Hell yeah!
Upstream Colour
Usually the hardest part of writing a film review is not giving away the plot. In the case of Upstream Colour that is no problem at all. Because, after watching it, I still have no idea what it is about.
When you fail to understand something as totally as I did this film, you are left with two possibilities:
1) The work is of such staggering complexity that it is beyond my comprehension level. It is the cinematic equivalent of a small-print unillustrated book on Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't matter how hard I look, or how much I think about it, I'm just never going to get it.
2) There is no meaning. The film was made by a bunch of art students dicking around. They thought that if they made something abstract then lots of people would assume that it must be case (1) above and everyone would think they were geniuses. The cinematic equivalent of The Emperors New Clothes.
I've seen plenty of profound films that have affected me deeply. This film just baffled me and after an hour I just wanted it to end.
Initially I thought it was telling a story about mind-control and was to be taken literally. Then it seemed that it was in fact about mental illness and the early scenes were supposed to be some sort of post-rationalisation of Kris's state. By the end everything was looking literal again... bizarre as it was.
I really liked Shane Caruth's film Primer. That was confusing in a delightful way because the complexity came from the fact that time travel is complicated. You didn't know what was going on, but you understood why you didn't understand. My problem with Upstream Colour is that you have nothing to hang on to. And for that reason it didn't connect with me and I didn't enjoy it.
When you fail to understand something as totally as I did this film, you are left with two possibilities:
1) The work is of such staggering complexity that it is beyond my comprehension level. It is the cinematic equivalent of a small-print unillustrated book on Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't matter how hard I look, or how much I think about it, I'm just never going to get it.
2) There is no meaning. The film was made by a bunch of art students dicking around. They thought that if they made something abstract then lots of people would assume that it must be case (1) above and everyone would think they were geniuses. The cinematic equivalent of The Emperors New Clothes.
I've seen plenty of profound films that have affected me deeply. This film just baffled me and after an hour I just wanted it to end.
Initially I thought it was telling a story about mind-control and was to be taken literally. Then it seemed that it was in fact about mental illness and the early scenes were supposed to be some sort of post-rationalisation of Kris's state. By the end everything was looking literal again... bizarre as it was.
I really liked Shane Caruth's film Primer. That was confusing in a delightful way because the complexity came from the fact that time travel is complicated. You didn't know what was going on, but you understood why you didn't understand. My problem with Upstream Colour is that you have nothing to hang on to. And for that reason it didn't connect with me and I didn't enjoy it.
Wednesday 10 September 2014
Captain America : The Winter Soldier
Firstly, I hope it isn't a spoiler to clear up my misunderstanding of the title Captain America: The Winter Soldier. If, like me, your first thought was "Why is Captain America called The Winter Soldier?" then fear not: he isn't. The Winter Soldier is another character in this film.
Secondly, I've never been a fan of Captain America, apart from as a member of the Avengers. He just never seemed very interesting... Maybe it is the whole stars-and-stripes thing, or just that his powers were a bit, well, dull.
This is a good film though. The story is fast-paced but not shallow. There are some new characters to enjoy and some old ones which get further development. Captain America himself is much more dynamic than in the first film: he runs, jumps, fights and throws his shield ... a lot. He's also got some good dialogue and plenty of decent support from The Black Widow.
I don't know a great deal about the Cap comic books. But the major players seem to be lining up in this film for a showdown in Captain America 3. I hope that film meets the high standard set by this one.
Plus there is a mid-credits teaser for Avengers: Age of Ultron where we see...
Secondly, I've never been a fan of Captain America, apart from as a member of the Avengers. He just never seemed very interesting... Maybe it is the whole stars-and-stripes thing, or just that his powers were a bit, well, dull.
This is a good film though. The story is fast-paced but not shallow. There are some new characters to enjoy and some old ones which get further development. Captain America himself is much more dynamic than in the first film: he runs, jumps, fights and throws his shield ... a lot. He's also got some good dialogue and plenty of decent support from The Black Widow.
I don't know a great deal about the Cap comic books. But the major players seem to be lining up in this film for a showdown in Captain America 3. I hope that film meets the high standard set by this one.
Plus there is a mid-credits teaser for Avengers: Age of Ultron where we see...
Saturday 6 September 2014
Wild Target
It is always a shame when films you really like do badly at the box office. I suppose it is more likely with comedies than other genres; because different people find different things funny.
The problem with Wild Target is that its humour is very British. I think it's funny that Victor Maynard can't stand up to his mother and that Rose can't help helping herself to whatever she likes the look of. The bad guys are so comic-book that you almost feel sorry for them.
There is plenty of complexity and subtlety in all of the characters. Bill Nighy does his thing with panache and Emily Blunt is somehow strong and weak at the same time. My only criticism is that Rupert Grint has a character who is too much like Ron Weasley: that's a criticism of the writers not Grint, who does a fine job.
Somehow, amongst these great performances, Martin Freeman and Geoff Bell almost steal the show with their weirdly hilarious double-act of Dixon and Fabian ("What flavour are these?") ... who are just right as flunkies for an almost camp Rupert Everett.
So, I can't really explain why I thought this was funny, when clearly many other people didn't. Give it a try if you like anything else Bill Nighy has done... you might just laugh a lot too.
The problem with Wild Target is that its humour is very British. I think it's funny that Victor Maynard can't stand up to his mother and that Rose can't help helping herself to whatever she likes the look of. The bad guys are so comic-book that you almost feel sorry for them.
There is plenty of complexity and subtlety in all of the characters. Bill Nighy does his thing with panache and Emily Blunt is somehow strong and weak at the same time. My only criticism is that Rupert Grint has a character who is too much like Ron Weasley: that's a criticism of the writers not Grint, who does a fine job.
Somehow, amongst these great performances, Martin Freeman and Geoff Bell almost steal the show with their weirdly hilarious double-act of Dixon and Fabian ("What flavour are these?") ... who are just right as flunkies for an almost camp Rupert Everett.
So, I can't really explain why I thought this was funny, when clearly many other people didn't. Give it a try if you like anything else Bill Nighy has done... you might just laugh a lot too.
Tuesday 2 September 2014
Magpies
Jo and I used to both be quite superstitious about magpies. There are lots of magpies near where we live; and we both knew the rhyme One for Sorrow, Two for Joy from our childhood.
I'd say pretty much every day, one or both of us would see some magpies and think they were an omen for the happenings of that day. The interesting thing though, is that we both saw what we wanted to see.
Jo had a habit of often being quite pessimistic: if she saw a magpie and then spotted another at a distance, then that would count as two separate magpies... so it would be one for sorrow twice; and she would expect to have a really bad day.
I, on the other hand, always allowed quite a large separation between individual magpies to count as a group. So any two magpies in the rough vicinity of one another were two for joy and a good day ahead. If I later saw a further lone magpie then that would add to the first couple and become three for a girl. Whereas Jo would see the loner as cancelling out the first pair and flipping her back to one for sorrow again.
Also, for me, anything more than one was considered good luck. So given the large number of magpies near us, I was almost always OK. Jo, sadly, favoured some of the more downbeat variations of the rhyme in which various higher numbers were also unlucky (for example nine for hell).
I remembered all this today when I saw a lone bird with its back to me this morning. I couldn't tell if it was a magpie or not. It was black from behind, and I couldn't see any coloured feathers. So I decided it probably wasn't a magpie... and I had a good day.
I'd say pretty much every day, one or both of us would see some magpies and think they were an omen for the happenings of that day. The interesting thing though, is that we both saw what we wanted to see.
Jo had a habit of often being quite pessimistic: if she saw a magpie and then spotted another at a distance, then that would count as two separate magpies... so it would be one for sorrow twice; and she would expect to have a really bad day.
I, on the other hand, always allowed quite a large separation between individual magpies to count as a group. So any two magpies in the rough vicinity of one another were two for joy and a good day ahead. If I later saw a further lone magpie then that would add to the first couple and become three for a girl. Whereas Jo would see the loner as cancelling out the first pair and flipping her back to one for sorrow again.
Also, for me, anything more than one was considered good luck. So given the large number of magpies near us, I was almost always OK. Jo, sadly, favoured some of the more downbeat variations of the rhyme in which various higher numbers were also unlucky (for example nine for hell).
I remembered all this today when I saw a lone bird with its back to me this morning. I couldn't tell if it was a magpie or not. It was black from behind, and I couldn't see any coloured feathers. So I decided it probably wasn't a magpie... and I had a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)