The nice thing about the Summer season of cinema is that every so often it throws up a little gem that no one is expecting. Looking For Eric has to be this year's gem, and what is more surprising is that it comes from one of this countries bleakest directors, Ken Loach.
The plot follows a depressed postman who lives with his step sons from his second marriage, in a house full of stolen goods, and who pines for his first love. After a bizarre self help session with his friends, and a joint or two, he starts getting advice from his idol, former Manchester United football star Eric Cantona, on the ways to get his life back on track, and to rekindle his love with the woman he let slip away.
Not the most original of plot lines, but that doesn't matter, when the film is so life-affirming and uplifting as this. Steve Evets, as the down-trodden Eric, is magnificent. You feel his every pain, his every emotion. I don't think you will find such an impressive performance from anyone this year. You are with him every step of the way, and that is all due to his incredible acting abilities. Eric Cantona is terrific too. Even if the accent is so heavy you miss the occasional word, he is both funny and likeable in equal measures, and is totally self-mocking.
The film, however, belongs to its director, Ken Loach, who manages to take you on the biggest roller coaster ride around. One moment, you are laughing (out loud), then you are biting your nails, then you are close to tears, then you are cheering and clapping. He manages to keep the bleak side of life that he is most famous for portraying in his films, and giving it the feeling of sunshine and joy. Even the tacked on sub-plot involving Eric's step-son and a local gangster doesn't feel tacked on, but enhances the rest of the movie.
Like Slumdog Millionaire, this is a feel-good film that does have a dark side, but behind the foul language (and there is a lot of it) and the doom and glum, is a film full of hope and wonderment, and a more delightful experience you will not have in the cinema this year. I am sure that when the year ends, this will definitely be in my top ten of the best films this years. I absolutely loved it.
(Oh, and don't worry...it's got very little to do with football).
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Terminator Salvation: Review
The war between humans and machine have been raging now since 1984, when the first Terminator film, a low budget sci-fi from unknown James Cameron became a cult classic. Nearly 25 years later the fourth installment of the series has arrived and while it has plenty of great special effects, it lacks something. In fact a lot of things.
The date 2018, and the resistance is fighting against SkyNet and their almost unstoppable machines. John Connor is predicting what is happening and he has one sole mission: to save his father, Kyle Reece. Meanwhile, ex-con Marcus has found Reece and is out to protect him, but he has a secret even he doesn't know about.
Let's get the positives out of the way. This is a surprisingly assured piece from the pretentiously named director McG. More famous for giving us the truly awful Charlie's Angels movies, the visuals are stunning and the texture of the film works, a grainy look to the sun-drenched, sandy, post Nuclear backdrop. The effects are very competent too, especially the introduction of the new Terminators, a giant man-munching one that spawns motorbike miniatures. The action sequences are also well executed and well handled, but a movie cannot live on action scenes alone.
The film lacks heart, humour and above all, characters that you care for. Christian Bale, who famously lost his rag during the making of the movie, does nothing more than snarl and shout, but we never see anything else. Even the scenes with his pregnant girlfriend, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, lacks any real emotion. You don't feel anything is actually between them. Sam Worthington as Marcus, at least seems to have some form of soul, but only in one or two scenes. The rest of the time he wanders around looking mean and moody. You genuinely feel nothing for the characters and so when bad things happen to them, you shrug your shoulders, thinking 'So What?'.
The one thing that The Terminator and Terminator 2 had was its tongue slightly in its cheek. This, however, has the tongue ripped out of the mouth and left lying on the floor, being trampled on by vast robotic creatures. I am sure that fan boys of the series, sci-fi geeks and teenage boys will love the loud explosions or working out the exact timeline in comparison to the previous films, but unfortunately, I was left slightly cold, and a little bored.
The date 2018, and the resistance is fighting against SkyNet and their almost unstoppable machines. John Connor is predicting what is happening and he has one sole mission: to save his father, Kyle Reece. Meanwhile, ex-con Marcus has found Reece and is out to protect him, but he has a secret even he doesn't know about.
Let's get the positives out of the way. This is a surprisingly assured piece from the pretentiously named director McG. More famous for giving us the truly awful Charlie's Angels movies, the visuals are stunning and the texture of the film works, a grainy look to the sun-drenched, sandy, post Nuclear backdrop. The effects are very competent too, especially the introduction of the new Terminators, a giant man-munching one that spawns motorbike miniatures. The action sequences are also well executed and well handled, but a movie cannot live on action scenes alone.
The film lacks heart, humour and above all, characters that you care for. Christian Bale, who famously lost his rag during the making of the movie, does nothing more than snarl and shout, but we never see anything else. Even the scenes with his pregnant girlfriend, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, lacks any real emotion. You don't feel anything is actually between them. Sam Worthington as Marcus, at least seems to have some form of soul, but only in one or two scenes. The rest of the time he wanders around looking mean and moody. You genuinely feel nothing for the characters and so when bad things happen to them, you shrug your shoulders, thinking 'So What?'.
The one thing that The Terminator and Terminator 2 had was its tongue slightly in its cheek. This, however, has the tongue ripped out of the mouth and left lying on the floor, being trampled on by vast robotic creatures. I am sure that fan boys of the series, sci-fi geeks and teenage boys will love the loud explosions or working out the exact timeline in comparison to the previous films, but unfortunately, I was left slightly cold, and a little bored.
Drag Me To Hell: Review
I am not a great lover of modern horror films. Lacking in imagination, using tired old formulas, and trying to out-gross the previous film. I like more campy, tongue-in-cheek fare. Thank goodness, then for Sam Raimi. After years of toying with the Spider-Man franchise, Raimi returns to the genre that made him famous, and has come up with a real treat.
Mild-mannered banker Alison Lohman desperately wants a promotion to assistant manager, but just isn't tough enough. So to prove herself, she turns down an extension to the mortgage of a house belonging to an old gypsy woman. Big mistake. The woman puts a curse on Ms Lohman and she has three days to get rid of it, otherwise she will be dragged down to hell.
Cue loads of loud noises, mysterious shadows and Ms Lohman screaming to things that others cannot see. Raimi has gone back to basics, and has delivered a jump-fest that doesn't rely on limbs being lobbed off (in fact only one scene of blood, coming from an out-of-control nose bleed). What he has done is given us an old-fashioned, sometimes funny piece of entertainment that never takes itself seriously. There are even elements of Raimi's Evil Dead, and it includes the best fight between a pretty blonde and a pensioner ever put to screen.
Alison Lohman is perfectly cast as the girl next door having a very bad day...or three days, while Justin Long, as the boyfriend, has some good lines. The star of this piece is the film itself. If you go expecting the kind of nonsense you would get from, say, Saw or Hostel, then go elsewhere. If you want a film that you just sit back and let it ride over you, then rush to this delicious piece.
And if this is the return to form for Raimi, Spider-Man 4 should be great, and Evil Dead 4 should be fantastic.
Mild-mannered banker Alison Lohman desperately wants a promotion to assistant manager, but just isn't tough enough. So to prove herself, she turns down an extension to the mortgage of a house belonging to an old gypsy woman. Big mistake. The woman puts a curse on Ms Lohman and she has three days to get rid of it, otherwise she will be dragged down to hell.
Cue loads of loud noises, mysterious shadows and Ms Lohman screaming to things that others cannot see. Raimi has gone back to basics, and has delivered a jump-fest that doesn't rely on limbs being lobbed off (in fact only one scene of blood, coming from an out-of-control nose bleed). What he has done is given us an old-fashioned, sometimes funny piece of entertainment that never takes itself seriously. There are even elements of Raimi's Evil Dead, and it includes the best fight between a pretty blonde and a pensioner ever put to screen.
Alison Lohman is perfectly cast as the girl next door having a very bad day...or three days, while Justin Long, as the boyfriend, has some good lines. The star of this piece is the film itself. If you go expecting the kind of nonsense you would get from, say, Saw or Hostel, then go elsewhere. If you want a film that you just sit back and let it ride over you, then rush to this delicious piece.
And if this is the return to form for Raimi, Spider-Man 4 should be great, and Evil Dead 4 should be fantastic.
Night At The Museum 2: Review
Sequels are very difficult things to handle. You are either grossly disappointed by them, never actually living up to the originals, or you enter them with trepidations and with expectations already at hand, so you think you know what you are going to get. The latter was how I was feeling as I sat down to watch the return of night security guard Ben Stiller and his historical friends. I have to say, that I left a happier man, as this is a far better affair than I even thought it would be.
The basic plot has Larry (Stiller) now a top businessman, going to the aid of the exhibits after they are moved to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, where an evil Egyptian king wants the tablet that brings everyone to life for his own means of returning his own army and ruling the world. Que lots of running around, meeting up with new characters while trying to save his old friends.
One of the big improvements is that this one actually has a plot, and not a series of events. The budget is bigger and so the effects are, with some quite breath-taking scenes. The gags are also improved, with plenty of knock-about humour for the younger members, and some truly surreal mature humour for the adults (Rodin's The Thinker not exactly living up to his name, for example).
The cast are fine, with Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steven Coogan, Robin Williams and Ricky Gervais all returning, but this is where the film really kicks into gear...the new arrivals. Bill Heder as General Custer is a hoot, although Christopher Guest is badly underused as Ivan The Terrible. The two aces in the pack are Hank Azaria and Amy Adams. Azaria is hilarious as the baddie, and is given the best lines, delivering them with great aplomb and expert comic timing. The scene in which he and Stiller are arguing about crossing a line is one of the many highlights, and had me laughing like a loon. The real star, however, is Ms Adams, who is slowly proving to be a master of screwball, and you can't help but compare her to the stars of yester-year. As Amelia Earhart, she exudes class, energy and an amazing sense of comic timing. You tend to forget that Stiller is on screen with her, she is that good. You thought you saw the best of her as the Princess in Enchanted? Think again. This should put her right up there with the big players, and deservedly so.
So it may not be high art. It may not be that intelligent. It is, however, loads of fun and sometimes that's all you can really ask for in a movie.
The basic plot has Larry (Stiller) now a top businessman, going to the aid of the exhibits after they are moved to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, where an evil Egyptian king wants the tablet that brings everyone to life for his own means of returning his own army and ruling the world. Que lots of running around, meeting up with new characters while trying to save his old friends.
One of the big improvements is that this one actually has a plot, and not a series of events. The budget is bigger and so the effects are, with some quite breath-taking scenes. The gags are also improved, with plenty of knock-about humour for the younger members, and some truly surreal mature humour for the adults (Rodin's The Thinker not exactly living up to his name, for example).
The cast are fine, with Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steven Coogan, Robin Williams and Ricky Gervais all returning, but this is where the film really kicks into gear...the new arrivals. Bill Heder as General Custer is a hoot, although Christopher Guest is badly underused as Ivan The Terrible. The two aces in the pack are Hank Azaria and Amy Adams. Azaria is hilarious as the baddie, and is given the best lines, delivering them with great aplomb and expert comic timing. The scene in which he and Stiller are arguing about crossing a line is one of the many highlights, and had me laughing like a loon. The real star, however, is Ms Adams, who is slowly proving to be a master of screwball, and you can't help but compare her to the stars of yester-year. As Amelia Earhart, she exudes class, energy and an amazing sense of comic timing. You tend to forget that Stiller is on screen with her, she is that good. You thought you saw the best of her as the Princess in Enchanted? Think again. This should put her right up there with the big players, and deservedly so.
So it may not be high art. It may not be that intelligent. It is, however, loads of fun and sometimes that's all you can really ask for in a movie.
Coraline: Review
Coraline is another of director Henry Selick's nightmarish fairy tales that he enjoys producing (The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride also belonging to him), but this one has the added bonus of 3D. However, what this film lacks is pace.
Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is a young girl who moves into a strange old house with her parents, who don't give her the love and attention she craves for, and, after discovering a small doorway in one of the walls, she finds this leads to a parallel universe, where there is another mother willing to show her love and kindness, but who has eyes made from buttons. What Coraline doesn't realise, is that there is a much darker side to this near perfect world.
The animation is exactly up to Selick's standard. Brilliantly realised, and executed with care, you are transported to an imaginative world where anything is possible. Adding to the depth is the 3D, which does rely on you ducking and diving every five seconds, but is used to give the creation distance. The story itself comes across like a modern variation of Alice In Wonderland, but with a darker sting to its tail, and the finale is very impressive indeed.
The trouble is the film suffers from pacing problems. I felt it was far too long for a family film and could have done with twenty minutes being cut from it. It builds very slowly too before we get to the true point of the story, and in a time when youngsters suffer from concentration problems, this could push them to the limit. While the detail is extraordinary, it comes across as if the imagination has taken over far too much, and we are given lengthy scenes where it looks amazing but doesn't help with the plot (a trip around a colourful garden seem to go on forever).
It also could be regarded as far too dark and disturbing for younger viewers, especially the button eyes, which had me wondering how many kids would be suffering from nightmares after viewing this.
It is, by no means, a terrible movie, and has much more going for it than most children's films nowadays. It's good, just not great.
Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is a young girl who moves into a strange old house with her parents, who don't give her the love and attention she craves for, and, after discovering a small doorway in one of the walls, she finds this leads to a parallel universe, where there is another mother willing to show her love and kindness, but who has eyes made from buttons. What Coraline doesn't realise, is that there is a much darker side to this near perfect world.
The animation is exactly up to Selick's standard. Brilliantly realised, and executed with care, you are transported to an imaginative world where anything is possible. Adding to the depth is the 3D, which does rely on you ducking and diving every five seconds, but is used to give the creation distance. The story itself comes across like a modern variation of Alice In Wonderland, but with a darker sting to its tail, and the finale is very impressive indeed.
The trouble is the film suffers from pacing problems. I felt it was far too long for a family film and could have done with twenty minutes being cut from it. It builds very slowly too before we get to the true point of the story, and in a time when youngsters suffer from concentration problems, this could push them to the limit. While the detail is extraordinary, it comes across as if the imagination has taken over far too much, and we are given lengthy scenes where it looks amazing but doesn't help with the plot (a trip around a colourful garden seem to go on forever).
It also could be regarded as far too dark and disturbing for younger viewers, especially the button eyes, which had me wondering how many kids would be suffering from nightmares after viewing this.
It is, by no means, a terrible movie, and has much more going for it than most children's films nowadays. It's good, just not great.
Angels And Demons: Review
Robert Langdon is back! I thought you'd be all excited about that. Yes, Tom hanks returns as the Professor from The Da Vinci Code in another action-packed, thrill-a-minute roller coaster adventure (I am being sarcastic, of course). This time round, he is bought in by the Vatican to help stop the death of four cardinals and the destruction of the Papal city after a threat is made by an ancient religious sect. Sounds thrilling enough? Well it isn't.
Ron Howard's sequel(?) based on Dan Brown's first book is brimming with religious and artistic techno-babble, as clues are marked out in order for the Professor to find the cardinals before they are killed. the trouble is, everything is so conveniently laid out. For example, a scene in which Hanks and scientist Ayelet Zurer look for a statue about air, and they just so happen to be standing on something similar, so it must be on the floor.
There are so many pit-falls, it's hard to actually know where to start. The direction is workmanlike and moves along at a leisurely pace, with long scenes of explanatory dialogue thrown in for good measure, usually in a pretty setting. The thrills aren't there, where we should be on the edge of our seats, and as for the ending...well, after sitting through one of the stupidest sequences known to man, we are then given another 25 minutes where the true ending lies.
Hanks, looking intelligent but frowning a lot, is fine but the material he is working with is laughable. once again, like the previous movie, the dialogue left me sniggering, and you sometimes wondered how this ever got green lighted with lines like: It's an explosive device called...Antimatter!
Drab, dull, uninvolved and just plain silly, this must rank as one of the worse movies of the year, and even though it is better than The Da Vinci Code, (only just), it surely couldn't have got worse.
Ron Howard's sequel(?) based on Dan Brown's first book is brimming with religious and artistic techno-babble, as clues are marked out in order for the Professor to find the cardinals before they are killed. the trouble is, everything is so conveniently laid out. For example, a scene in which Hanks and scientist Ayelet Zurer look for a statue about air, and they just so happen to be standing on something similar, so it must be on the floor.
There are so many pit-falls, it's hard to actually know where to start. The direction is workmanlike and moves along at a leisurely pace, with long scenes of explanatory dialogue thrown in for good measure, usually in a pretty setting. The thrills aren't there, where we should be on the edge of our seats, and as for the ending...well, after sitting through one of the stupidest sequences known to man, we are then given another 25 minutes where the true ending lies.
Hanks, looking intelligent but frowning a lot, is fine but the material he is working with is laughable. once again, like the previous movie, the dialogue left me sniggering, and you sometimes wondered how this ever got green lighted with lines like: It's an explosive device called...Antimatter!
Drab, dull, uninvolved and just plain silly, this must rank as one of the worse movies of the year, and even though it is better than The Da Vinci Code, (only just), it surely couldn't have got worse.
Star Trek: Review
I am always slightly worried when a previous past success gets a 're-invention', as they like to call it in Hollywoodland. Some work, like Batman and others don't, like Wolverine (although that is more a prequel). So entering into a 'how it all began' with Star Trek was both exciting and yet nerve-wrecking. Years of watching the TV show as a child (although not obsessively) and having followed all the movies, could this possibly match the days of Shatner, Nimoy and co? A hefty chance for producer/director J.J. Abrams, especially with something that has the most loyal fans of all. Well I am happy to say that it works, and works very well indeed.
The film throws us into the action almost immediately and doesn't stop for the full 2 hours of its run. We find out about how James T. Kirk came into being, and how the rebel rose through the ranks at Starfleet command. We see the difficulties Spock had being part human, part Vulcan. We see the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise on their very first mission, and even though they are not the familiar faces that many were bought up with, these are the characters that we know and love.
Chris Pine makes for a decent Kirk, with his boyish good looks, while Zachary Quinto could have been Lenoard Nimoy's son, he looks and acts so much like him. The rest of the cast fit into the crew very nicely, and if there was a weak spot, then Simon Pegg would be it, even though he is fine, he is given the comic buffoon role as Scotty and it doesn't quite sit right. Having said that, there are elements of nicely placed comedy within a complex yet intriguing plot that is both exciting and suspense-filled, and you genuinely feel that Arbams has got it all right, even when the original films didn't. This is like watching an expended, more expensive episode of the show.
The special effects are incredible, the pace is unstoppable and it's all nicely coated with a huge dollop of fun, and if I may be so bold, this is the best Star Trek movie since The Wrath Of Khan. So grab yourself a huge bag of popcorn and a drink and spend two hours being taken on the best space adventure since Serenity. And I cannot wait for the next film.
Now this is what I call a summer blockbuster!
The film throws us into the action almost immediately and doesn't stop for the full 2 hours of its run. We find out about how James T. Kirk came into being, and how the rebel rose through the ranks at Starfleet command. We see the difficulties Spock had being part human, part Vulcan. We see the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise on their very first mission, and even though they are not the familiar faces that many were bought up with, these are the characters that we know and love.
Chris Pine makes for a decent Kirk, with his boyish good looks, while Zachary Quinto could have been Lenoard Nimoy's son, he looks and acts so much like him. The rest of the cast fit into the crew very nicely, and if there was a weak spot, then Simon Pegg would be it, even though he is fine, he is given the comic buffoon role as Scotty and it doesn't quite sit right. Having said that, there are elements of nicely placed comedy within a complex yet intriguing plot that is both exciting and suspense-filled, and you genuinely feel that Arbams has got it all right, even when the original films didn't. This is like watching an expended, more expensive episode of the show.
The special effects are incredible, the pace is unstoppable and it's all nicely coated with a huge dollop of fun, and if I may be so bold, this is the best Star Trek movie since The Wrath Of Khan. So grab yourself a huge bag of popcorn and a drink and spend two hours being taken on the best space adventure since Serenity. And I cannot wait for the next film.
Now this is what I call a summer blockbuster!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)