Michael Clayton

This hotly anticipated (at least by me) legal thriller from debutant Tony Gilory, the writer of the Bourne films, pitches 3 actors with 5 Movie Years nominations between them. 3 of those are for the brilliant Tom Wilkinson, who costars in this as the corporate lawyer who goes off his meds and starts having a nervous breakdown. This is not good news for the company that he's representing, UNorth, headed by Tilda Swinton, who are in the middle of a 6 year, 3 billion dollar lawsuit, and probably even worse news for the law firm Wilkinson works for, whose 9 million that UNorth owe is now in jeopardy, not to mention a possible merger with a London firm and all credibility in their own country.

The law firm needs someone to save the day and that someone is Michael Clayton, played by George Clooney, the business's "fixer". Clooney's Clayton is a very interesting character, someone entrusted with fixing very delicate, often high profile situations, but a guy who's own life seems to be in need of fixing itself. He owes 80,000 to people he can't pay after a failed restaurant venture, he's separated from his wife and has a gambling problem that at least partly explains his cashflow troubles. It's refreshing to see a 'hero' as troubled, although this wont be the first time in a review this year that I have praised the efforts of the writers of The Good Shepherd, Zodiac and Breach, who have also brought us screen characters that are layered and interesting. It's been a great year for intelligent thrillers and this continues that pleasing trend.

Clooney is wonderful and totally convincing as Clayton. He enjoys several great scenes throughout the film, 2 notable ones with Wilkinson, and 1 with Swinton that is as satisfying a scene as you'll see all year. The credits roll over a fixed shot of Clooney in a cab and holds on Clooney for a good 3 or 4 minutes. Even here, doing so little, Clooney is totally magnetic as a screen presence that despite the credits rolling on a packed Saturday night, not one person left the theatre until we faded to black.

Wilkinson and Swinton provide more than able support. If I did have a criticism, I'd say it was perhaps too short. At a fraction under 2 hours, I think we could have spent another 20 minutes with these characters, particularly the two Brits who don't get as much screen time as I'd have liked. But it is hard to argue with Gilroy's decision to spend nearly every second with Clooney. It's an intelligent script and wonderfully directed debut effort, which is certainly worth your time and money.

A-

The Sunday Morning Political Slot : )

One major issue on my mind this week:

Remakes

The recent appearance of Rob Zombie's Halloween has prompted a load of thoughts in my mind. Not least, why remake a film? So I thought I'd share some thoughts and see if I could drum up a bit of debate.
I think it could be safely agreed that remaking a bad film which no one likes is one, very obvious, reason. Of course, the problem with this is that there are probably no films that no one likes at all and, therefore, someone will always object to the remake. And they are perfectly within their rights to thunder back "well, what difference does it make if it's popular? Why remake the film anyway?". This is absolutely true. Our feelings towards films are fundamentally subjective and no one can tell us we're 'right' or 'wrong' (though, of course, people frequently do - see the last outing of this slot a couple of weeks back for an example, the imdb message boards). So, really, is there much of a point to this post?
Well, I think there is because I'm afraid, like the last one, it's going to end with a healthy dose of cynicism. I just don't see the point of remaking certain films unless you do it for money. Directors talk of "new interpretations" and "new imaginings", but, really, is this true? I can honestly say I've seen very few remakes which offer a re-imagining of the original premise, but I'm sure I will be corrected there. I've heard this about The Thin Red Line, for example, which I love, but I've never seen the original so can't honestly comment. Okay, I have Halloween largely in mind here. Just what is the point? It's about as perfect a horror film as can be and was hugely innovative and influential in its time, particularly in relation to John Carpenter's use of camerawork and the way Michael Myers lurks in the shadows throughout.

I really and truly don't see what could possibly be added to it by remaking it! Possibly a bit more could be added on Michael as a very young boy, but it would be very difficult to do without being utterly crass and possibly more could be added on the supernatural side but the same issue as before would inevitably arise. I don't think the 'greatest' directors on planet earth could possibly add anything to a film like Halloween. But maybe people who don't like the film could see things that could be bettered or done very differently? I would be very interested to hear, which is my I'm writing this post in the first place. Similarly, rumours persist of a Jaws remake. Why, why, why? What is the point except to make money? Okay, someone might respond, but the money these remakes make will help to make new films that you will like, so why are you getting so het up about it? That, I think, is a fair point, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that a lot of people feel very upset about their favorite films, which they often believe to be, or be near to be, perfect, being remade. Ikiru is also being remade into a Hollywood movie and, okay, this adds another level of complexity to the issue because of the intended audience (not the case with Halloween) but I still fail to see the point of that too, except, it could be argued, to reach out to a new audience with a very emotional and beautiful story. Re-imaginings in the way that The Magnificent Seven borrowed heavily from the Seven Samurai bring yet another level to the discussion and we're getting into very complex territory indeed. What is okay, what has a purpose, and what is not okay and does not have a purpose? Difficult, and I'm sure every movie-going person will feel very differently on the issue. And, further, is it not okay to 'update' a film?

In short, I think this is a hot issue it will be very difficult to find common ground over. I'm not totally averse to my favorite movies being remade (I'd give Halloween an A+, firmly believe it can't be bettered, but I'll still go and see the remake), I'm just not sure of the point of it as there are very few movies I can honestly say there would be a great point in remaking, even if they are not perfect. The story has already been told and you're making quite an arrogant claim to suggest you could do it better, especially where a genius is involved. Who would dare to remake Citizen Kane? Somebody is probably now going to tell me that this has already happened!

One final point. This is, fundamentally, about creativity. I like new ideas, I like new stories and new characters and remakes do take room away from new material. This, I think, is incontrovertible. Take Jaws. Clearly there is a market for films abut sharks, but I can see nothing in Jaws that can be improved as Jaws. It's pretty much perfect. The characters are great, the shark-in-the-shadows is great, the story is great and it has some of the most brilliant scenes in movie history. Leave it alone and tell a new story with a different twist. One such story would be 12 Days of Terror, which has been made into a straight to T.V. movie. Now, this suggests that the film could be bettered (that said, I've seen it and it's not at all bad, a lot better in fact than much pap which makes it to the big screen) and, indeed, it could but it contains a very interesting story which could be developed in a number of ways (which I won't spoil) Jaws simply doesn't allow for. Here's a link to the book.

There is room for remakes, they just have to be well chosen. 12 Days of Terror is, I would argue, a perfect candidate. It is a true story, the events of which, indeed, inspired Peter Benchley to write Jaws, and a great deal could be done with the attacks and the story and the characters around them. And it would be sure to make money if it was well handled.
I think other people's criteria of why to remake films would be very different, so let me have it, am fascinated to hear other views on this difficult subject.

And, my apologies if I bored you. Here's the trailer for Halloween in compensation. Or, should that read "punishment" : )

Thanks for reading!

Matt

This Might Make a Great Film...

The 'this would be a difficult film to adapt' thread got me thinking about my favorite book of all time, William Faulkner's The Sound And The Fury. Most of the impact of the book comes about through the way it is written, i.e. the way it focalises the narrative through the thought processes and streams of consciousness of the different characters. And it begins with a segment from Benjamin, a mentally handicapped man, now in his thirties (or thereabouts, if I remember right). It is blindingly original and, like with all of Faulkner's novels, written in staggeringly beautiful prose. I think only someone of the calibre and attention to detail of Terrence Malick could possibly make a success of it. It also jumps around chronologically and two characters have the same name, which is very confusing the first time you read it but would be less so on film. It is also full of comment and thought about the nature and stupidity of prejudice and ignorance (again, very Faulknerian themes) and equally full of beautiful ideas. For instance, it starts with Benjamin walking next to a golf course just to hear the golfers call out "Caddy", the name of his beloved, missing, sister and the emotional impact hits from the word go. The first part of The Sound And The Fury is, quite simply, perfect and I can't ever imagine ever reading anything so brilliantly and originally done. It would take a true master to make it into a great film, which it certainly could be in the right hands.
I've also just learnt that a film was made under the title in 1959 ("loosely" based on the book) and staring, oh dear, Yul Brynner. And, apparently, another version is planned for 2008, but I know no more than that. I wait with bated breath. It would be difficult, if not quite impossible, to pull off, so I wait anxiously. If someone tells me Malick is making it, I'll go and buy my ticket now! And if someone has a spare copy of the 1959 version lying around, I'll brave the insipid Brynner out of curiosity and pure adoration of the book so, please, send it my way...

George Clooney

In honour of the wonder that is George Clooney, whose new film, Michael Clayton, opens this Friday, I present to you a look at his career to date. Now everyone knows Clooney is impossibly handsome, and as Tilda Swinton, his Michael Clayton co-star put it at last night's premiere of the film in New York, "his very existence is a joke on humanity." But Clooney can act God damn it and I've been a fan since the early days of Return of the Killer Tomatoes. Well maybe not quite that early, but then who was? I have however been a fan since 1994, when a great new medical drama debuted on our screens and Dr Doug Ross was born. Here's a career retrospective:

ER: Dr Doug Ross, 1994-2000. Ross was the smooth talking, charming, ladies man who broke up marriages and bedded a whole string of women in his 4 seasons on the show. If he'd been a woman he'd of course been a slut, but he got away with it and everyone loved him. ER was brilliant back then of course, and not unwatchable as it is now. Clooney's finest hour came in the 2 part episode "The Storm", where he was just about the only character on screen for the duration. This episode proved his big break, as he (dressed in a tuxedo no less) single handedly saved a boy caught in a storm drain from drowning whilst showing off his ability to dominate the screen for 90 minutes . Gripping stuff.

From Dusk Til Dawn: Seth Gecko, 1996. Clooney smartly ditched his ER persona and took on the role of a badass in the Tarantino penned comedy horror for his first post ER role. Clooney showed a little range playing a bank robbing, hostage taking murderer, albeit one with a little more charm than your average bank robbing, hostage taking murderer. The film doesn't quite succeed despite some clever moments and an unbelievably hot dance from Selma Hayek, but Clooney convinces as the bad guy.

One Fine Day: Jack Taylor, 1996 Back on more familiar territory Clooney stars in his first romantic comedy opposite Michelle Pfeiffer. The two were perfectly cast in this underrated film. Okay it's a bit syrupy - the tag line, "She was having a perfectly bad day... Then he came along and spoiled it," probably makes you want to throw up, but there's plenty of chemistry between the two leads and the film definitely has charm.

Batman and Robin: Batman/Bruce Wayne, 1997. Uh-oh. Just when things were going so well. Clooney tried to kill his career in this ill-advised 4th installment of the Batman franchise (and last, until a complete recent overhaul by Christopher Nolan). I've not seen it. I don't want to. I can't imagine that Clooney pulls it off very well. Totally miscast methinks. Thank goodness the public forgave him.

The Peacemaker: Lt Colonel Thomas Dove, 1997. Clooney reteams with Mimi Leader, who directed him in ER, for this action thriller that was short on action and lacking thrills. Chemistry trouble with his costar Nicole Kidman didn't help. It didn't make its money back at the US box Office, taking in just $40 million, although by the time overseas receipts and DVD profits were totalled up it probably didn't lose much. Not what he needed after Batman though.

Out of Sight: Jack Foley, 1998. No we're talking. Steven Soderbergh's classy crime/romance drama found Clooney back in more familiar territory as a guy who robbed banks armed only with an abundance of charm and devastating good looks. Jennifer Lopez played the US Marshall out to capture him and of course they fall in love and she can't quite bring herself to bring him in. Clooney found himself a great director this time around and the casting was spot on: you can't imagine anyone pulling off this particular role as well as Clooney. Batman and Robin was now forgotten.

Three Kings: Maj. Archie Gates, 1999. Small roles in South Park Bigger, Longer Uncut, and The Thin Red Line notwithstanding, Clooney followed Out of Sight with another major critical success. Alleged clashes on set with the director signalled trouble but it wasn't to be as this is a great film, that is well worth watching. Clooney plays one of 4 soldiers set out to steal gold that was stolen from Kuwait, but they discover a group of Iraqi civilians who desperately need their help and must choose between the gold and their plight. Certainly a film I'd like to revisit again, I very much enjoyed it upon release.

O Brother Where Art Thou: Everett, 2000. This Coen brothers comedy wont be to everyone's taste, and to be perfectly honest it wasn't exactly to mine, but it again ensured Clooney was registering with critics for his delightfully madcap (but restrained) performance as Everett. Everett and two friends break free from a chain gang and are pursued by the law as they make their way home to recover some buried loot. There's a great soundtrack, and the film looks great, but I never fully became engaged with it. No discredit to Clooney though who took home a deserved Golden Globe for best actor in a comedy or musical.

The Perfect Storm: Capt Billy Tyne, 2000. This Wolfgang Pietersen helmed movie saw Clooney break into the big leagues for the first time. Even his critically successful films had returned modest sums at the box office, with Three Kings' 60 million return the best to date (Batman took 107 million, but has to be classed as a complete failure). However, The Perfect Storm took an impressive 40 million in its opening weekend and went on to gross 180 million at the US box office alone. The audiences weren't turning up for Mark Wahlberg or John C Reilly (as good as they were) so it signalled that Clooney was A-list for the first time in his career. The film itself is most enjoyable.

Oceans 11: Danny Ocean, 2001. Soderbergh and Clooney back together again, this time with his rival for most beautiful person on the planet, according to women's glossy magazines: aka Brad Pitt. That alone was bound to have audiences breaking down the doors of theatres the world over. Clooney took on the Frank Sinatra role in this remake of the rat pack heist movie and of course it was ludicrously successful. Shame that it actually wasn't very good. Clooney of course was perfectly cast and by now has this sort of role down to a tee. But it was a little too glossy with all style no substance and featured both a fairly stupid plot and the worst accent in the history of cinema (I'm looking at you Don Cheadle).

Welcome to Collinwood (Jerzy) and Solaris (Chris Klein): both 2002. I've not seen either of and have heard mixed things. Neither was a great success with either critics or the box office.

Intolerable Cruelty: Miles, 2003. Some might say this is lesser Coen brothers. Some might say this is lesser Clooney. I say that this is terrific Coens and the best performance of Clooney's career, for which I gave him a well-deserved Movie Years nomination to boot. A brilliant comic turn in what is a sharply written and engaging comedy, Clooney teams up with Catherine Zeta Jones, who plays the revenge seeking gold-digger to Clooney's smooth, rich, womanizing lawyer. Again the casting is perfect, Clooney not only playing the suave role that he's made his own, but this time it's laced with sharp, often black, comedy. I honestly think this is one of the Coens' better films and Clooney's perfect in it.

Oceans 12: Danny Ocean, 2004. Well based on the law of diminishing returns I thought it best I skip this outing. Same goes for Ocean's 13 in 2007.

Good Night, and Good Luck: Fred Friendly, 2005. A breakthrough year with the critics once again (despite that Golden Globe nom, he'd not been nominated for anything of note in 5 years) Clooney amassed 3 Oscar nominations and 5 BAFTA nominations in the same year. In GNAGL, Clooney wrote an intelligent and gripping historical drama that showcased the considerable talents of David Strathairn as Edward R Murrow, the journalist who took it upon himself to bring down Senator McCarthy, who was leading a witch hunt against Communism. Clooney also starred as Murrow's producer but it is his screenplay and direction that are the real standouts. It's a real treat to be so convincingly transported back to 1930s America. The screenplay really is excellent.

Syriana: Bob Barnes, 2005. Clooney went 0 for 5 at that year's BAFTAs but didn't come away empty handed at the Oscars. As he collected his Best Supporting Actor award for Syriana Clooney's first exclamation on stage was "...so I guess I didn't win Best Director". Indeed he didn't, but the supporting actor award is hopefully one he treasures as it was just reward for a unbelievable year in film. Bob Barnes is a CIA agent who becomes a fall guy for an embarrassing episode in the middle east, in Stephen Ganghan's dense and engrossing thriller. It's been called Traffic but about oil (Gaghan wrote the screenplay for Traffic as well as writing and directing Syriana) but sadly the film doesn't quite live up to that promise. It's a little too dense at times and things are not particularly well connected, which I often have a problem with. If there's no connection between threads then you're basically watching 2 films concurrently, and ultimately one will be more interesting than the other. Since one story line has no bearing on the other, you just wish you could spend more time with the most interesting one. And arguably in this film it's Clooney's thread that's most engaging. It's not quite as unconnected as I make it sound, things actually do tie up reasonably satisfactorily towards the end, but once again it's Clooney that stands out in a fine cast. My colleague cites Jeffrey Wright, who is indeed great, but Oscar fell in love with Clooney at last and rewarded him with a statuette that was by now overdue.

The Good German: Jacob Geismer, 2006. One I'm yet to see. Mixed reaction again, for this 5th (of 6) films with Stephen Soderbergh. I'll get round to it soon enough.

Michael Clayton: Michael Clayton, 2007. Baz Bambigoye calls it the 'best performance of Clooney's career'. If he's even half right then we're in for a treat. It opens Friday and I'm looking forward to it already.

I Can't Wait to See...

My Blueberry Nights

Or can I..? First murmurings regarding this, Wong Kar Wai's first full-length English feature, have not been favourable and it includes two of my least favorite acting performers, Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. And the trailer looks more than decidedly dodgy (see below and judge for yourselves). That said... My opinion of Law is improving, if gradually, after a solid performance in The Talented Mr Ripley, AI and a recent second viewing of Road To Perdition (though I still don't share my colleague's high opinion of Law in that film). And, after all, this is Wong, my favorite director working today. It will surely have all the trademarks of dazzling cinematography, brilliant, snappy editing, and stunning performances. However, losing Tony Leung for Jude Law is not a way to win me over!


On the flip side, casting the impossibly beautiful Norah Jones (cast your glance right) does go someway to offsetting my Leung withdrawal syndrome (and apparently he's stunning in Ang Lee's latest, to be previewed soon). Jones looks like a film star and, as with Faye Wong in Chungking Express (and, later, 2046) this could be an inspired piece of casting. It might also stink, badly, but time will tell. Expect languid, dreamy, romance under neon lights and multi-dimensional characters. Let's just hope the actors are up to it.
Despite all that I've written, this is Wong and I'll be salivating right up to the moment I walk into the screen. He's given me too much joy and pleasure for me to become cynical just because he's decided to make a film in America and for me not to be excited about it. I am. Very.

See what I mean about the trailer? Or not?



Oh, and where, oh where, has (cinematographer and Wong stalwart) Christopher Doyle gone!!!!

Blood Diamond

Rented this on Saturday night with not very high hopes, especially following a disappointing viewing of (the director) Edward Zwick's Glory and having witnessed Leonardo Di Caprio's dodgy Zimbabwean accent in the trailer. And I ended up being pleasantly surprised.
Don't get me wrong, this film has it's flaws. Events just seem to happen to advance the plot along without paying great attention to the film's frame of reference and (similarly) characters crop up in handy situations without proper explanation and without following the narrative thread. And, at times, the use of action (particularly gunfights) detracts from the tension rather than adding to it.
That said, there is much to recommend it to. I'm not a huge Di Caprio fan by any means, but he grew into this role and became more and more convincing as the film went on, to the extent that a what-should-have-been-pretty-damn-ropey final scene involving a satellite phone is very effective and hits the right emotional level. That, despite a very shaky start. Jennifer Connelly is also effective as a crusading journalist. The real star of the show, however, is the excellent Djimon Hounsou, who pulls off a number of difficult scenes excellently and provides the emotional depth to keep you engaged throughout. It's his story and it's in his struggle (coupled with that of his son, played with real verve for such a young actor, by Kagiso Kuypers) that you invest your emotional involvement.
5 Oscar nominations is a little generous, but Oscar likes these 'issue films' and this confronts two (the shockingly amoral diamond trade and the even more shocking exploitation of child-soldiers) with both relish and effectiveness, even if the later issue deserves (and, for that matter, needs) a film of its own. Whether Hollywood is best equipped to make it is another issue.
Flawed, but certainly not irredeemably so.

B


Djimon Hounsou, the true star of Blood Diamond

Requiem for a Dream

Just a quickie rather than a full review. Caught this for the first time tonight, and it's one of those that I'd had no reason to avoid all these years, just never got around to it. I think Aranofsky's very talented and this is an improvement on Pi, which was a fine debut effort. I wouldn't say I was gripped by this though. I do however admire Aranofsky's visual style, the editing and score were both great but the highlight was undoubtedly Burstyn, who was terrific as you'd expect from Matt's number 2 all time female performance.

B+

Updates on the Site

Have redesigned the reviews, which looked a bit crap but now should be more aesthetically pleasing. All are linked to the right now on the blog as well as you should see if you divert your gaze 3 inches right. Will get around to posting regularly now that I've finished all that, although I've actually managed to go an entire week without seeing a single film. 'What discipline' I hear some of you cry. 'So what, that's normal' I hear most of you cry.

The Defiant Ones

The magnetic duo: Poitier and Curtis in The Defiant Ones

I actually saw this a long time ago, but I've been saving the review for when I had no more left to write and because the film gave me so much pleasure.

And there are primarily two main reasons why The Defiant Ones is such a good film. Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. The electricity, sparkle, dynamism and chemistry these two fantastic actors provide is second to none. And, like with Poitier and Rod Steiger in In The Heat of The Night (A+), they are very difficult to separate. But, like in ITHOTN, Poitier just edges it. Poitier is a very easy actor to like, and a very easy actor to say you like (David Brent's haplessness in The Office on this matter certainly mirrors reality) but few people, I genuinely believe, honestly recognise just how damn good the guy is. I'm putting my 'best ever actors' (and actresses) list together (it's tough work) as I write and Poitier has edged into number one spot just ahead of another favorite of mine, Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, and he now has three 10/10 A+ performances (in my book). He's not quite as good as he is in ITHOTN (hardly a criticism) and the role is less challenging than Homer Smith in Lilies of the Field (for which he won an Oscar) but Poitier purrs along in harmony with Curtis and the result is a stunning whole and you find yourself completely gripped to the plight of the two (they play convicts on the run). And this really is their film and they make it everything it is. Believe me. The supporting cast is among the worst I've ever seen on film. But, somehow, you don't care, so good and compelling are the leads.

In essence it's a very simple, narrative, film about the struggle of two men on the run with an obvious political statement, which, while perhaps not as obvious as ITHOTN, is no less powerful for it. And it carried an important message which hits home. This, remember, was made a full 9 years before ITHOTN, which is more often picked out as carrying a forceful, anti-racism, message. That said, judging this solely as a movie, it is fantastic stuff and great cinema and you can't say more than that. And the cinematography is among the best I've ever seen for a black and white movie.

Excellent, compelling and exciting stuff. I'm already looking forward to my second viewing. Highly recommended.

A

Superbad

Jonah Hill and Michael Cera in Superbad

The best comedy of the year in a year that's had more than it's fair share of better than fair comedy fare. Hot Fuzz was great as was Knocked Up but this wins hands down. Not perfect - a little too much downtime here and there - trim 10 minutes and I believe it would have been stronger. That said I enjoyed it immensely and I'm really seriously considering the possibility of Christopher Mintz-Plasse finding a spot on my top 5 actors comes year end for his terrific creation of McLovin'. An absolutely terrific debut performance.

Superbad is a high school teen movie, but one with brains and wit and a heart. Michael Cera pretty much reprises his Arrested Development persona but does so very well - he does the awkward teenager as well as anyone. Jonah Hill, who also appeared in Knocked Up, plays his best friend, and the film explores their last hurrah as high school seniors. It's one day in the life of two high school guys trying to get laid but if that doesn't sound particularly original then I'm doing it a disservice because you don't need originality if you do it this well.

Highly recommended. Go see it. Can't imagine anyone not enjoying it.

A-

Apologies

Sorry, I promised Adam this would appear on the site last night and thanks to our stupid computer crashing (again), it didn't.

Y Tu Mama Tambien

An odd one this. Whilst some aspects of it I loved, others I found less appealing. As a case in point, the two main characters (played, admittedly, very well by the ludicrously handsome Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna) are hilarious in parts and, yet, in others begin to grate considerably. Although this detracts a little from the overall effect, this is still highly watchable and entertaining stuff.

And that, in no small measure, is down to the excellent (and stunning Maribel Verdu). Brilliant in Pan's Labyrinth, where she shines through despite not taking top billing, Verdu exudes grace and emotion and this is very much her film and her story (confirmed by the ending). It's only when the final curtain falls that you truly realise that and come to understand how much you've invested in her story. And kudos to Alfonso Cuaron, who, I'm beginning to realise, is immensely talented, for that too. On final word on Cuaron. The direction here is excellent, with innovative and stylish use of camerawork and it is well edited. The sumptuous cinematography (by Emmanuel Lubezki) is also stunning throughout and works perfectly alongside the sultry ethos of the film. Mexico is now high on my growing list of countries I want to visit.

I can't but recommended as an invigorating, sexualised, road movie although, it must be said, it could have been a great film, rather than just a very good one, if a few flaws had been addressed. Well worth a watch.

B+

New Facebook Group:

We Love MyFilmVault.com

Join!

This Would Make A Great Film...

In response to a thread by a commenter over the weekend on 'Difficult Books To Adapt', I thought I might as well start with this. Why difficult, I hear you all cry? Well, for two reasons in particular. One, because the film would be focused solely on one character, Pi Patel, who is shipwrecked in a lifeboat for a large part of the narrative. And, two, his only companion in the boat is a Bengal tiger. It's a fantastic premise, but it would be very difficult to do and still look realistic if they used CGI. And I'm not sure I'd want to be one of the "stuntmen" if they didn't use CGI. The first problem is, perhaps, less of one as anyone who has seen the excellent Cast Away (A-) will testify.

Also, there are attempts afoot to adapt this into a film but they, too, seem to have been beset by difficulties. Two directors (M. Night Shyamalan and Alfonso Cuaron) have bailed, leaving Jean Pierre Jeunet (Amelie, A Very Long Engagement, Alien Resurrection) at the helm. This is a shame. As readers of this site will know, I'm a huge Shyamalan fan and I think this is just his kind of material. He's also from Pondicherry, India, where Pi Patel hails from as well, though that's a little by the by. I was fortunate to attend a director screening of the Village where Shyamalan talked with passion about making this, and I think he would have done a great job.I like Jeunet, though I disliked what he did with Alien Resurrection quite a bit, and I'd be worried about how he'd handle the ending and the cinematographic feel of the book. We'll just have to wait and see. If it ever gets made.

The ending is another thing (I won't spoil it). It was a huge disappointment to me (and, I know, to others as well) but I think more interesting things could be done with it on screen to make it more effective.

"Difficult" is certainly the word!

Shaun Of The Dead

This is one of those films (we all have them, don't we) that I've been meaning to see for ages after loads of my friends have told me that it's great and that I'm bound to love it. I had the same (ironically) with 28 Days Later. And, just like 28 Days Later, I ended up being disappointed, although with Shaun, much less so than 28 Days Later, which I thought was pretty damn ropey.

Unlike Spaced (with which Shaun naturally has quite a bit in common, though it never touches Spaced's level), which has suffered from being far too under-hyped, I think this suffers from being a little too over-hyped. The characters are nice enough, and you certainly root for them, with the (deliberate) exception of Declan Moran's David, and the performances, if unspectacular, are dependable. Nick Frost is certainly the pick of the bunch and his character Ed provides the bulk of the laugh out loud moments. And therein lies the problem. There just aren't enough of them. Much of Shaun, just like Spaced, is brilliantly clever, full of in-jokes, asides and homages to films (including a nice little piss take of 28 Days... which echoes throughout) but it is light on truly hilarious moments and it just doesn't sustain a full 90 minute feature film. I still haven't grown up enough not to think that machine gun laugh aloud films like Caddyshack, Airplane, The Naked Gun, Dumb And Dumber and (in a sense) American Pie still rule the comedy film roost. The characters in Shaun just don't have that well-defined character that make the likes of Frank Drebbin and Bill Murray's beleaguered groundsman so effective over a sustained period. That said, I still think this is a British film to be proud of and huge kudos must go to Pegg, Frost and Edgar Wright (the director) for such a brave attempt, and, more importantly, making a film that's been so fucking popular and done so well. And even if you yourself might not always agree with the reason's behind a film's popularity, you can't say that it's not deserved.

B-

Superbad

Very highly recommended. Will post a review soon but I just wanted to say that Matt's 'characters he'd want to be friends with' list will almost certainly need shaking up. I give you McLovin'...

Sunday Morning Political Slot : )

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Morning Political Slot : )

Two issues on my mind today for the debut of this slot.

1. Hollywood Sexism?

One thing has really struck me since I started putting my lists together. The difficulty of remembering great female performances and the absences of some in some years. It really troubled me. Am I a sexist pig unable to recognise great female roles and the kind of person who (subconsciously) believes that making movies is a fundamentally "masculine" act. As a (very) committed egalitarian, this has troubled me quite a bit and it made me think very seriously about how I viewed films (making lists is very therapeutic, trust me!). I don't believe I'm sexist, seriously hope that I'm not, and would welcome any challenges on this level to help me out. So I thought I'd put some of my thoughts down. And blame Hollywood.
Is that an easy answer and a massive piece of hyperbole? Quite probably both, but I think there is more than a grain of truth to it. I'm not talking about the movie-making culture as such (casting, movie execs, the industry as a whole), I HEAR that a latent culture of overt sexism pervades, but I have absolutely no experience of the industry myself so I cannot possibly comment. I'm sure some academics and some film-industry researchers will have done some research on this and I'd be very interested to read it. I'm rather talking about the structure of film-making itself, about whether most of the best roles go to men and whether box-office, therefore, is geared around male performances.
I have serious reasons for thinking that the answer to this question is yes. It's a very male-dominated perspective. Two genres, in particular, that have defined (and, in a large way, continue to define, American move-making), the western and the action-film, are fundamentally male-dominated. Of course, there are exceptions but think of female action heroes compared to male ones (and, for that matter, how successful they have been at box-office). Horror films are interesting because they have tended (as Scream so delighted in emphasising) to be female-focused, though, within that, it's probably a 50-50 call as to whether the female characters (including the leads) are viewed as strong, powerful and independent (even Jamie Lee Curtis' Lawrie Strode needs Dr Loomis to finish off (or not) Michael Myers) or as pathetic, reasonless, idiots running around screaming. I, personally, tend to see it as the latter though more recent horror movies have tended to redress the balance slightly. Romantic comedies, on the other hand, are what I would refer to as 'Egalitarian', in other words, they can be told from the female (My Best Friend's Wedding etc.) or the male (Notting Hill etc.) perspective and offer similar roles equally to men and women. That said, I'd be interested to see whether people feel that the best roles within the genre have gone to men or women? I'm not sure I have a view on that, it not being my favorite genre of movie, but the one role that does jump out at me is Hugh Grant's Will Thacker in Notting Hill.
What I'm trying to get at (and I won't go on too much longer, promise) is that true, 'egalitarian', movies which offer great roles to men and women alike and have a shared, equal, perspective, are few and far between. The one stunning exception, is, of course, Jonathan Demme's The Silence of The Lambs and, naturally, there will be others (Traffic, Crash). Some, too, it must be said, offer the great roles solely to females (Notes on A Scandal from Adam's 2006 list, for example).
And, equally, it's far too easy to say that it's just Hollywood! Are Samurai movies, for example, any less male-dominated than Hollywood westerns? Although, I suspect the brilliant Yoji Yamada might have something to say about that... Having said that, European Cinema is better at offering a stronger female perspective (and stronger female roles) to women, the champion, of course, being Pedro Almodovar. And I think my lists reflect that point, though I regret that that makes it a subjective one. I'm very interested to see what people think about this.
I could go on, but I think I've gone on long enough for a post and so I leave it open to the floor. One final point and a bit of a quiz to finish off with. How many best-picture Oscar winning films have been directed by women since 1980? Answer? None. How many women have won the best director Oscar since 1980? Answer? None. Okay, how many women have ever won the best director Oscar? Answer? None. How many have been nominated during the whole 79 annual awards since its inception? Three. Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola and Lina Wurtmuller. Shocking.

2. IMDB Message Boards

I promise to keep this one short! Just been perusing IMDB for some thoughts and research and made the mistake of foraying into the message boards. Never have I experienced such anger and frustration at the denigration of people's tastes and opinions. It actually disgusts me. As much as I hope that people will eventually come and comment and debate on this site, I pray and pray that nothing like this ever occurs, especially as these people don't know each other. Everyone has the right to be heard openly and, for fuck's sake, this is how your opinions and knowledge (not just of films, but anything really) changes and grows and how new avenues open up to you. It really annoyed me to see film-lovers speaking to each other like that. To be avoided. I'm never going to post on there, that's for sure.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed this and I eagerly await the coming flood of comments. I would have liked to have written more about the sexism issue but it was a long post as it was and (I HOPE!) more can come out and be discussed in comment!

That's all folks!

Hmmm

Am just posting from an internet cafe and there's a deaf guy next to me using web cam and is having a conversation and he's deaf so he's not saying anything but I kid you not when I say he's going berserk. He's waving so much I'm fairly sure he's arm will fall off at any minute. Is this not poor etiquette? If he were speaking he'd be shouting, which is bad manners but surely there is some etiquette for sign language as well? It's really annoying. I haven't said anything but I'm tempted and I'm pretty sure this would make a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm as Larry would say something. If only I could be more like Larry.

Away From Her

Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent in Away From Her

This arrived on DVD last week after a very limited theatrical run earlier in the year. It received good notices from those that saw it and Julie Christie has been touted as a possible Best Actress nominee come year end so I thought I'd check it out.

Sarah Polley takes the reigns behind the camera for the first time. Probably best known for her starring role in the excellent Go in 1999, she takes on Alice Munro's short story that looks at the effect of Alzheimer's on a couple who have enjoyed 44 years of marriage. Christie plays Fiona: mentally acute as the film begins, but someone who recognises that her lapses in memory are a sign of something more serious, namely Alzheimer's. There's a particularly good scene where she reads to her husband Grant, Gordon Pinsent, the sort of symptoms he can expect to deal with if he takes on her care. It's actually her decision to become institutionalised as she doesn't want to put him through the sorts of things she's read about.

Polley's film intelligently shifts its focus onto Grant very quickly. This is his story. It's about the suffering he is going through both with the initial decision to put her in the are home, the 30 days that he's not allowed to visit whilst she settles in and then the inevitable decline in her mental state as the film progresses. Fiona becomes a secondary character and it's Grant who's pain we share as he loses the connection he had with Fiona. It's very clear he's devoted to her - he becomes a daily visitor to the care home and will spend all day waiting patiently to spend time with his wife, although as she becomes more and more institutionalised that time becomes more and more scant. Yet Grant waits for hours, sitting, watching Fiona. It's a touching film and one that hangs on every underplayed, subtle nuance of Pinsent's wonderful performance. Christie too is perfectly good but I feel her reputation - the 3 Oscar noms including 1 win, is what's getting her the focus in a film where the real award-worthy performance comes from the 77 year old Pinsent. If he doesn't land in my top 5 come year end I'll have been treated to some breathtaking performances in the interim.

Polley's direction is solid, although there's a couple of missteps. A couple of times things are spelled out when they needn't although that's a minor quibble in a very fine debut effort.

B+

Would Have Been Terrific...

Loved the book. Really wished they'd make it into a film. They were all set to. Roman Polanski was set to direct. Scarlett Johansson was rumoured to be cast. All was well. Now this. The book is great fun, totally visual, exciting, unputdownable etc. Hope this doesn't mean it's dead in the water.

This would make a great film...

Okay, I admit this is something of a cop out for this new 'slot' but, hey, it's just to get the ball rolling as it's too early to do a proper preview or anything. Though, of course, they are definitely making this film although they haven't started filming it yet (actually, this is very timely, it starts shooting on the 17th I think).

The reason why this would make such a great film is that, simply put, it's an awesome awesome book and has so much potential it could wipe away the collective disappointments of the Harry Potter motion-picture series in one huge swoop. 'Dark' doesn't begin to do justice to the book, which twists and turns at a brilliant pace from page one and, unlike other books (/films) in the series, the plot is excellent and not as sieve-like as, say, The Goblet Of Fire. And, most importantly, the film-makers will not be able to get away with sidelining interesting adult characters and underusing great actors as they have been prone to do hitherto. The book itself contains a number of interesting ideas and threads and things develop along surprising and unexpected lines leading to a truly magnificent last 100 pages or so which keep you completely gripped. I have been fairly nonplussed about the arrival of all the previous Harry Potter films but I'm already gagging for this one, it has the potential for being, I'm deadly serious, a 10/10 a+ film, if it does the book justice. Pure literary genius and utterly compelling, it would, I'm sure, "make a great film".

Anyone else think of anything (novel, comic, play etc.) that would make a great film? The debate starts here...

The Bad Sleep Well (Warui Yatsu Hodo Yoku Nemuru)

The excellent Toshiro Mifune in The Bad Sleep Well

Francis Ford Coppola once said that the first half an hour of this Kurosawa gangster film was about as perfect as film-making gets. Was he right? And what about the rest?
In actual fact, I found the first half an hour a little hard to follow as the characters were established and the mystery set in motion. It is helped, however, by that typical Kurosawa trait (over which he has has such vast influence on Hollywood) narrative and focalisation. The use of the press pack as early narrators (they fill us in on a crooked company, which is celebrating the marriage of the boss's daughter) is very effective and falls by the wayside a little too abruptly.
As I've said, this is classic noir territory, the tale of a crooked company responsible for a number of sinister cover-ups stalked from the inside by the mysterious, avenging (?)angel(?) Nishi (Toshiro Mifune), who rises through the ranks by virtue of his marriage to Keiko, the boss's daughter.


As I'm sure you're sick of me repeating, great film-making means the film stays with you long after the credits role and the film demands questions of you. Kurosawa, in my view, consistently does this on a level few other film-makers can manage (Terrence Malick is one who can) - witness the celebrated final scene of The Seven Samurai and the entire of Ikiru and Drunken Angel - and the trait is in evidence here. Who's "bad" and why? Kurosawa demands us to make up our own minds as to what we make of Nishi and his motives. He's helped by Tosiro Mifune, who delivers a "list-busting" (patent pending) performance and by the excellent but underused Kyoko Kagawa. Takashi Shimura is also very effective in a surprising role as a villain and Kamatari Fujiwara does a decent impression of Shimura's Watanabe (in Ikiru) as assistant Wada who helps Nishi on his quest. In short, good performances all round.

Whilst I don't feel this is Kurosawa at his very best (parts do drag and, perhaps, the love story - one of the film's vital components - is not effective as it might be, though that's purely down to screen time), it is still a very good film and comes recommended. It's quite long though, so prepare yourself for a bit of a sit. I doubt non-Kurosawa fans (Adam) will find much to change their minds here, although it should also appeal to straight fans of noir, as this is effective, suspenseful, film-making even if it doesn't hit the heights of other films of the genre, and, indeed, of other films of the director.

B+

Disturbia

Shia Lebeouf in Disturbia

If there's one criticism of the brilliant Rear Window, and it's not really a criticism at all since that was an 11/10, A++, perfect film, it's that it has spawned some pretty ropey copycat efforts. Such wondrous attempts at recreating the brilliance of Hitchcock's classic have included Sliver, Red Road (a favourite of Matt's) and probably many others that I'm forgetting. The latest is DJ Caruso's Disturbia, starring the next big thing (or so it seems if you check out is CV) aka Shia Lebeouf.

Lebeouf's been acting since before he was born according to IMDb although I suspect that might be a typo. That said, he has been in films since he was a baby so he's well accustomed to being in front of a camera, however Disturbia represents the fist time he's been given a lead in a pretty big picture. He followed this with a large part in Transformers, which sadly I've not seen and have no intention of seeing and, perhaps most impressively, gets to play Harrison Ford's son in what's currently called "Fourth Installment of the Indiana Jones Adventures". So is Lebeouf worth the hype, and is Disturbia just another copy-cat effort or is it worth you time and hard earned cash? Read on intrepid reader.

Lebeouf plays Kale, who after a particularly awful (but nicely filmed) experience goes off the rails and ends up under house arrest for 3 months. Obviously having no constructive way to pass the day, he does what every sensible teen would do and starts spying on the neighbours. Now part of this is understandable as a very hot new girl moves in next door, and if spying on the neighbours was good enough for James Stewart then it's certainly good enough for Lebeouf, so Kale gets into it big time. Anyway you can guess most of the plot from there. Lebeouf thinks that the old guy, David Morse, who cuts his lawn twice a day could be a serial killer and one thing leads to another and Lebeouf, his entertaining friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo) and the hot girl (Sarah Roemer) start staking out his apartment and, well I don't think I'm spoiling anything when I tell you that it would have made a pretty lousy thriller if there isn't a tense, good guy, bad guy baseball bat, garden shears style finale, and that wasn't ever on the cards if it was all a big mistake.

This has all the hallmarks of your run of the mill teen thriller, but it's definitely a very good example of that genre. The characters are more entertaining that annoying, the acting is decent and the plot, whilst wholly unoriginal, has enough to it to keep you entertained. Plus points also for a great score and soundtrack, which I'll be purchasing.

B-

Atonement

James McAVoy and Keira Knightley excel in Joe Wright's Atonement.

Based on the best selling book by Ian McEwan, which I confess I’ve not read, this ambitious adaptation arrived yesterday in theatres after a fanfare of glowing reviews when it debuted at the Venice Film Festival last week. Headline grabbing reviews that proclaimed this as an instant classic and pondered whether Joe Wright is Britain’s best director must have been music to the producers ears, and to Working Title, the British film production company who have practically single-handedly kept the British film industry afloat over the last 15 years. So is this just another example of flag waving from the British critics or is the hype justified?

Well the short answer is yes and no. The long answer is that Atonement begins by introducing us to the budding playwright Briony, just 13 years of but charmingly enthusiastic about the completion of her first effort on one particularly hot summer’s day. In the midst of trying to get various members of her family to audition, she spies an odd scene from her bedroom window between her sister Cecily and the family’s gardener, Robbie, in which Cecily strips down to her underwear and then jumps into a fountain. A display of such indecency (this was the 1930s) troubles Briony greatly and the only explanation from her child-like point of view is that it must be Robbie’s fault.

We’ve only seen this unfold from Briony’s point of view as well, however Wright immediately jumps back a few moments in time to play out the scene for us again, this time from Cecily’s perspective. What seemed to be an odd encounter is revealed to be quite innocent, however we the viewer already know that there’s a significance to that first perspective that will ultimately shape the direction of the story.

For Cecily, played by Keira Knightley, who Wright directed to an Oscar nomination in Pride and Prejudice, and Robbie (James McAvoy) that encounter proves to be the catalyst that leads to them realising their mutual feelings for each other. Knightley and McAvoy totally convince as lovers and are both excellent in this opening act of the film; at first unable to express themselves around one another and then, embracing passionately within the space of a few minutes on film. Yet this lightening fast progression feels natural thanks to the note perfect performances of the two leads. The opening act, all of which takes place on that same day, is wonderfully engaging, at times very humorous in the way it is written and directed. You want to spend more time with these characters, and the palpable chemistry they share on screen. It’s nearly as good as cinema gets. However, and you knew this was coming, things start to go downhill as soon as that day ends and the story moves forward 4 years.

Briony accuses Robbie of a crime he did not commit and it results in him being whisked off to jail, and then Northern France to fight in WWII leaving Knightley in England on her lonesome. Now their chemistry was good, but I’m not sure even they are good enough to pull off a screen chemistry with the English Channel separating them.

Clearly since this is an adaptation of a successful novel, Christopher Hampton was not at liberty to deviate so dramatically from the source, however I felt it a huge mistake to separate Knightley and McAvoy. The middle act holds a fraction of the interest generated by the first and it’s a different film altogether without the two leads in the same country. Heck, I’m not suggesting for a moment that McEwan got it wrong and that his novel would be a lot better if only he would take my suggestions on board. However I do know that it’s often hard to come by such great chemistry between two leads and when you do you have to milk than cash cow for all it’s worth. It’s generally not a good idea to put 600 miles between them, and, worse than that, include what seemed an interminably long stretch without either of them on the screen.

The film recovers somewhat in the third act – there’s a nice appearance by Vanessa Redgrave as the elder Briony, and McAvoy delivers a knock-out scene towards the end. However I came out of this disappointed that a film with an A+ first act couldn’t sustain it for the whole 2 hours. Minus marks too for a score that’s run of the mill and often too much, and for an ending that is all too predictable.

It’s definitely worth seeing and I’m sure many people will have a completely different take on the last 2 thirds, but I wanted to see a film that I was promised in the first half hour. I know you should judge a film on what it was a out, and not on what you wanted it to be about, however on this occasion I’m going to break that little golden rule and judge it on what I felt it should have been. And by that criterion it’s a slightly disappointing B

Zelig #2

Oh and completely forgot to add a couple of great lines in my review but it may even be better to post them separately. Allen manages to drop in these amazing one liners in many of his films and I guess sometimes they stick out a bit, but they're always hilarious. Enjoy:

"I have to get to town. I teach an advanced masturbation class at the University, and if I'm late they start without me."

"I worked with Freud in Vienna. We broke over the concept of penis envy. He thought it should be limited to women."

Zelig

Woody Allen in one of his many incarnations in Zelig

My Woody Allen catch up continues and if it weren't for the fact that his films are generally excellent, it would be a daunting prospect trying to delve through his filmography. Allen churns out a film nearly every year and the upcoming Casandra's Dream will be his 37th theatrical release. I'm still only scratching the surface.

In Zelig, Allen delves into the realm of faux documentary. This 1983 release was not the first time a director had wandered into that territory - it started in the 50s on TV and moved into film in the 70s, but I'm not sure I'll find a better or funnier example of what is now known as the 'mockumentary' (and yes I have seen Spinal Tap.)

The documentary tells us about the life of a great American hero known as Zelig. Zelig, played by Allen, defied medical science with his unique ability to fit in with whomever was surrounding him. Not only could Zelig act like his peers, he started to look like them as well. So when surrounded by some overweight gentleman, Zelig gained 80 pounds, when surrounded by Greeks, he grew a hairy moustache and when surrounded by Indians he... well this was the result:

Allen really has gone to town on the documentary feel of the picture. There's actually surprisingly little footage involved here. A lot of the film is told through newspaper headlines and photographs. To this end the editing is brilliant and manages to keep you glued to the screen despite long stretches without moving film. Of course that's only possible due to the wonderful narration written by Allen. This is a screenplay that makes you feel totally inadequate about anything you've ever attempted to write. It's blisteringly funny, wonderfully inventive and very very clever. This look at the life of Zelig only takes 70 odd minutes but every one of them is delightful. A word too about the cinematography which is first rate. Gordon Willis totally captures the documentary feel. The "archive footage" is exactly how genuine archive footage appears and is brilliantly contrast with the modern day interviews. Next up is Broadway Danny Rose. Looking forward to it already.

Thoroughly recommended.

A-

I Can't Wait To See...

I Am Legend

And, sadly, I'm going to be waiting quite a while as this Will Smith fronted number doesn't appear until the new year. Still it sounds very interesting indeed.
Smith plays the last man alive on earth after he has created a virus that has wiped out humanity. The story, by Richard Matheson, has been made into a film twice before - The Last Man on Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971)- but this promises much. Smith himself has hinted that this is more arthouse than Hollywood blockbuster which suggests character above action, though Smith might, of course, be exaggerating. However, there is certainly room and potential here for an interesting character story about isolation and its effects (set against a fascinating backdrop) as Smith's character struggles to find an antidote whilst fighting off the effects of the virus. In the form of killer vampires. Oh dear, I hear you collectively scream (unless you like vampire movies, which I kind of do). But apparently the director says they're not vampires. Or zombies. So we'll have to wait and see on that one but it is a worry as poor creature effects can ruin a movie and a good premise (cf. The Descent; Alien Resurrection). However, I certainly like the idea of the last human left alive on earth being claustrophobically locked away in his room/house and fighting the effects of both loneliness and guilt.
One final worry. Smith's character is a scientist looking to discover and cure for the disease he's helped to create and there is definitely potential here for ropey endings, but hopefully they'll pull the whole thing off well. It certainly promises much, I just hope it delivers and, if it does, it could be a classic. Oh, and it has an actor called Paradox Pollack so it can't be bad.

Hope you enjoy the trailer...

A Bout De Souffle

I'm running low on reviews and don't want to post too many "I'm dying to see" in a week, so thought I'd scrawl a quick reply to this.

Was genuinely shocked my esteemed colleague didn't like this. Along with Truffaut's Tirez sur le Pianist (Shoot the Pianist), this transformed film watching for me forever. These were - at the time - the first films I saw that made me realise films didn't have to involve guns, chases, dinosaurs, Chewbacca, or Jim Carrey for me to like them (I still do like most, if not quite all, of these things by the way, when done well, of course!). I was incredibly moved by Belmondo's performance as Michel /Laszlo and his betrayal at the hands of Patricia (memorably portrayed by Jean Seberg) had a lasting effect on me. To this day, Belmondo remains one of my favorite actors of all time, I think I have him 4th or 5th in the all-time list I'm putting together. He's just so watchable and nowhere more so than here, the epitome of magnetic, cool, handsomeness as he struts his way through the movie. The man was a genius and he makes the film all that it is.


And that's some statement because it has a lot else going for it. Seberg and Godard not least amongst them. The film's shoot (which included the use of hand-held cameras and shooting out of the back of a post office van, if I remember rightly) is legendary and it usually ranks in critics' lists as Godard's best. I don't think it is actually, that honour should, in my view, go to the near-perfect Bande a Part, which drifts along with a beautiful narrative (cf. the brilliant Pierrot Le Fou) and the even more beautiful Anna Karina. I would honestly recommend A Bout De Souffle to anyone, I find it just so watchable, with intriguing characters, 10/10 performances (at least from the leads) and legendary, "revolutionary", direction. A masterclass in how to make an enjoyable film.

I've seen it three times since I first saw it as a 17 year old and I think the time is now upon me for another watching. It's funny, I think my esteemed colleague's review had the same effect on my as mine of The Talented Mr Ripley had on him. That's the great thing about this site, and about debating films, you might not always agree but it sure does make you think.