You Can Count On Me (2000)

This was recommended to me eons ago by my colleague but it has only just arrived via my LoveFilm account. So, was my colleague right to endorse this understated Americana drama?

In short, definitely. This is a brilliant film, which I enjoyed from start to finish. Even Matthew Broderick didn't manage to ruin it for me and was actually quite good. He even made me laugh out loud through his delivery of a line. Wow. This augers well for a good year in film in 2009.

You Can Count on Me focuses on the life of Sammy Prescott (the once again stunning Laura Linney), who raises young son Rudy (Rory Culkin) on her own. Following the death of Sammy's parents in a car accident when they were very young, the family has disintegrated. But an opportunity for redemption arrives when down-on-his-luck younger brother, the dreamy and disaffected Terry, comes to visit.

Films like this live and die on the quality of their performances, being insular, quiet, understated and totally focused on story and relationships. The leads do not let director Kenneth Lonnergan down one bit.

Is Linney the greatest actress performing in Hollywood today? This website would seem to suggest yes, as she is one of the few performers who seems to elicit the same response of adoration from us both, yet she is still relatively unknown. Linney has generally chosen indie flicks to showcase her vast talents and she still perhaps awaits that genuine breakout movie, which it seemed for a while the Truman Show would be. Perhaps it is a good thing that she hasn't 'broken out' and continues to make stunning films like this and 2007's Jindabyne (although my colleague was not as blown away by her performance there as I was). Linney is, again, the best thing in this and that is no mean feat, given the other performances, especially Ruffalo's. Her range and emotional depth is perfectly showcased in the love Sammy clearly has for her troubled younger brother and Linney invests the character with multiple dimensions of being, thought, emotion and behaviour. The character lives and this means the film gasps and breathes deeply the emotional wilds and vistas it inhabits. Linney is, like a true virtuoso, note and tone perfect throughout.

Ruffalo is great as well, brilliantly awkward, funny and distant as a character who clearly carries a lot more with him than he is ever willing to let on. He does some stupid things, but they always feel human and very real and the audience is sympathetically tied to his fate. Rory Culkin, too, clearly got all the acting talents in his family and he is now beginning to break out into the mainstream after measured performances in this and Signs. And as I say, even Matthew Broderick, who I dislike immensely as an actor and consistently fail to understand how he still gets acting jobs, is decent in this, only on occasion lapsing into his normal inconsistency and poor delivery.

This is well worth an hour and a half of anyone's time, imbued in the life and struggle of an interesting, mostly charming and engaging family. The characters are neatly drawn, lively and, crucially, human and the performers have the requisite talents to live up to them. Add this to your LoveFilm wishlist or seek it out at your local video store. Lovely.

A-

Quick Notes

Two feel good films that are getting some attention as the critics start handing out their end of year prizes. Having much in common, both are independent films, one US the other UK, featuring strong lead performances and both are easily worth your time and money.

The Visitor

Thomas McCarthy's The Visitor stars Richard Jenkins in a rare leading role and after this one can only hope that more follow for he is wonderful. The title might very well refer to Richard Jenkins' character Walter - a stranger to his own NY home - he spends all his time in Connecticut trying to appear as busy as possible when in fact he does very little. It might be Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), the illegal immigrant he discovers living in his apartment when he makes a rare return to New York for a conference. It may also be Tarek's mother Mouna (Hiam Abbass), who arrives in New York when she does not hear from her son for a few of days. All 3 touch each other's lives significantly and unexpectedly.

Impeccably acted by all, but especially Jenkins and Sleiman, the former deserves all the awards notice he is getting. I had a smile on my face for large chunks of the running time and, whilst the film certainly ha a point to make about the American immigration system, it by no means batters you over the head with it. It is a warm, funny, even touching film that invites you to spend 90-odd minutes with some wonderful characters, and that can never be a bad thing.

A-

Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky is Mike Leigh's latest, and whilst it doesn't veer away from his usual low budget take on the working class trappings, it does present a far happier portrayal of British life than much of his work. I've enjoyed Leigh most when he has explored subject matters outside his comfort zone - Topsy-Turvy being, in my eyes, easily his best work. Well Happy-Go-Lucky is also a little outside his comfort zone and features a wonderful Sally Hawkins as Poppy, who's character biography can be accurately synopsised by reading the title of the film. Quite unlike any character Leigh has written before, indeed quite unlike any character I have ever seen on screen before, Poppy is an infectious, inexorably delighted 30 year old who can laugh at anything, including severe back pain, make jokes out of the smallest of situations and who has a unwaveringly sunny outlook on life.

Some have found her carefree character irritating and I confess 5 minutes in I was itching for the off button, but that was more to do with there being five such individuals in the room together - an assault on anyone's senses. Poppy on her own though is pretty great and is highly enjoyable to watch especially when playing opposite her perfect counterfoil Scott, who is the antithesis of Poppy. Uptight, highly-strung and angry, Scott has the unenviable task of teaching Poppy how to drive - his exasperation providing frequent comic highlights.

There's no plot to speak of, Leigh, like McCarthy, has invited you to spend some time with some wonderful characters - in this case Poppy and Scott. Played to perfection, Marsan has sadly been overlooked thus far in the end of year awards circuit but Hawkins is racking up wins and nominations like there's no tomorrow. An Oscar nod is likely, and would be well deserved.

Just one minus point - the score is woeful. Everything else is great though. I really would love to see Mike Leigh get $100 million to spend on a movie one of these days. Until then I'll continue to enjoy great work such as this.

B+

Your 2008 Oscar Host

Changeling

Apparently Hollywood's highest paid actress, Angelina Jolie certainly has a decent amount of range - at least in the genre of films she appears in. Happy to appeal to the young testosterone juiced males in ludicrous (although quite fun) action heavy films like Wanted, she also makes sure she appears in enough films with higher pretensions in order to be taken seriously as a - well - serious actress. Very few actors have such a successful dual career - a number jump from one camp to the other for the odd film, but generally appear happier in the dumb popcorn stuff or the not so dumb award bait stuff and rarely both.

To date her more serious roles have yielded just one Oscar nomination and that was back in 2000 for Girl Interrupted - a role she went on to win for. A Mighty Heart was supposed to change that last year but Oscar looked away when everyone else at least saw fit to nominate her. This year though a nomination looks even likelier than it did this time 12 months ago, for Jolie has landed a role apparently highly sought after; Christine Collins - a woman whose son disappears one day when she takes on an extra shift at work, triggering a 5 months man hunt for her lost child. After an exhaustive search the LAPD, desperate to receive some good press, announce that they have found her son when in actual fact the boy they found is someone she's never met in her life. Worse, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake once they "reunite" mother and son and forcefully suggest Collins should take the boy home to "try him out" for a few weeks.

This was a time when the police had an incredible amount of power but very rarely used it wisely. Corruption was rife and mistreatment commonplace. Incredibly the police department didn't even require a medical examination to have someone (almost exclusively a female) incarcerated for mental illness. This was the 20s and women were largely second class citizens. At work Collins is told her manager had to lay his job on the line to get her promoted to shift supervisor - his bosses telling him women couldn't do the job. But inequality in the workplace is one thing, the ability to lock someone up without cause is quite another. Embarrassed by her protests that the boy is not her own, the department start actively campaigning against Collins, indicating that she is an unfit mother and mentally unstable - getting her sectioned under a code 12 internment, code 12 being a term used to jail or commit someone who was deemed difficult or an inconvenience. Enraged by the injustice of this and other cases involving the LAPD, a preacher Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) complains daily of police mistreatment in his radio broadcasts and takes up the Christine Collins case as a personal mission to right the wrongs she has faced.

Clint Eastwood's first of two late 08 releases (the other being Gran Torino) is a typical Eastwood helmed picture. Sparse, understated, efficient. He has a confidence in the director's chair that comes with having directed films for nearly 40 years. Filming takes just a few weeks, he apparently rarely does multiple takes of a particular scene. If he likes the way his actors have done it first time round, he'll call cut and move on to the next scene. There's no irritating little tics like "clever" camera placements, edits or swooping pans. He is totally comfortable with placing the camera in the middle of the shot, letting his actors do their thing, then moving on. And where he excels, is getting excellent performances out of his cast. This is very much Angelina Jolie's picture and it is not hard to work out why both Hilary Swank and Reese Witherspoon lobbied for the role. This has serious awards potential - a heck of a lot of screen time, period piece, wronged woman etc. Whilst I wouldn't say she knocks it out of the park, she is certainly very good and has probably done enough to secure the second Oscar nomination of her career. This is not a performance on the same level as Kristen Scott Thomas' but then nothing else this year will be.

The other strong points in Eastwood's film largely revolve around his production crew, for Chageling is as handsome a film as I've seen for a while. It retains a 20s feel throughout - wonderful sets, impeccable costumes, hair and makeup. Its photographed wonderfully - retaining the 20s look through the lens. You feel a lot of time and effort went in to recreating the time period and the entire production team deserve an art direction nod for their efforts here.

Good support comes from Jeffrey Donovan who delivers one great line in particular - the one on the trailer: "why would we be looking for someone we have already found" - a wonderful mix of embarrassment, exasperation and desperation. If myfilmvault.com was sad enough to have an award for best single line reading I dare say this would be in my top 5 for the year. Changeling is an enjoyable film, one that never drags and a film that effortlessly changes gear and focus as the story unfolds. The story itself edges towards incredulity - indeed were it not a true story you might even suggest the screenwriters had pushed things a little too far. Normally I roll my eyes whenever I see those dreaded words "based on a true story" come up at the beginning of the film. On this occasion it is both necessary and actually enhances the film.

B

Miss Potter (2006)

My shameful lack of up to date reviews goes on. And I just can't muster up any enthusiasm to write a full review of this disappointing and ultimately dull film.

Is it fair to criticize a biopic for its poor characterization? Couldn't the director and stars simply reply 'well, why bother watching the film if the characters don't interest you?' Clearly, that will not do. Not only would a director with this attitude be very unlikely to sell tickets for her films, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuanced, sophisticated characterization from a biopic. For one, you might just not really know the characters - as was the case for me here. Indeed, a biopic will live and die on its characters and whilst this doesn't irredeemably guillotine its audience we are still subjected to a slow lingering cinematic demise equivalent to those unfortunate souls who fall into Saarlac's pit.

In short, this is a dull, uninteresting pastiche of cliches, contrivances and annoyances lumped into 90 poorly put together minutes. The end result is very unsatisfactory and it falls well below the emotional waterline which it is trying to tread. The film does eventually find it's feet in the last third, but it's too late to save it from mediocrity.

Very briefly, the film tells the story of Beatrix Potter's attempts to have her books published and the young editor Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor) who falls for them and her. Renee Zellweger, who I like, is disappointing as Beatrix and the character feels annoying and largely charmless, which I, like the film itself, am sure she wasn't. McGregor is given little to do and is even denied the one scene which might have added an extra layer of emotional meaning to the film. The best aspect of the characters is certainly Ruppert Potter's (Bill Paterson's) awesome sideburns.

Okay, I'm being unnecessarily mean, but some of the accolades showered on this are way wide of the mark, particularly that dreaded adjective "enchanting". Whilst Beatrix Potter clearly was an interesting character, she is anything but enchanting here and I just found the characterisation and development annoying and cliched. Emily Watson, as Millie Warne, Norman's sister, is probably the best thing in it (as she often is) but that is not saying much.

I just can't recommend this. It's not awful, and the last part of the film is far more satisfying that the clunky moments that lead up to it. Perhaps I just wasn't in the mood and this is better than I give it credit for but, regardless of whether I was in the mood or not, this is certainly not recommendation quality. I think a

C

is fair...

I await disagreement.

Cinematography of the Year 2003

Yet another very difficult call this year. You could potentially make a case for all of the five films in my top 5. Although, really, the cinematography in Return of the King, good though it is, is essentially just a follow on from the efforts of the previous two films, the visualisations of the City of the Dead (in particular) and also Minas Tirith (the City of the Kings) is especially stunning and the film is worthy of inclusion in any discussion on those two visual megaliths alone.

Another two films outside my top 5 also merit attention for visual thrills. The first is the spectacular bloodbath that is Zatoichi. Katsumi Yanagishima clearly has an eye for blood and the powerful effect copious amounts of it can have on an audience. When done well, that is, and not crudely, as in another 2003 film, Kill Bill: Volume 1. Tarantino could take a lesson here (which, or so I would argue, he did for volume 2).

Three of the films in my top 5 (The Station Agent, All the Real Girls and Mystic River) come from the same visual plateau (Americana) yet each, especially taken together, show just how light, atmosphere and backdrop can so heavily both influence, and reflect, mood. Mystic River feels dark and foreboding throughout, like the secrecy and undercurrents of discomfort that layer the town and its inhabitants. All the Real Girls is classic David Gordon Green (though it is Tim Orr and not Adam Stone - see my previous post - on photography duty here), dreamy, sleepy, soulful, romantic, all light perfectly reflecting and encompassing sound, like the quiet ping of a raindrop on a spring pond. Beautiful and sensuous. And the Station Agent - quiet, lazy, dreamy, backwater America washed with a cinematic landscape which makes you want to live it and, indeed, live in it. If I had to choose between them, All the Real Girls would win. I just love the look and feel of Green's films and can't wait to see his latest effort, Snow Angels.

Lost in Translation (cinematography by Lance Acord) is a different animal entirely, looking radiant and dazzling, bejewelled by the throbbing neon lights of a Hong Kong reminiscent (but no more than that) of Christopher Doyle's heartached Hong Kong landscapes in the films of Wong Kar Wai. Lost in Translation pushes the eventual winner close too.

However, the 2003 award goes to the second film not in my top 5, the Polish brothers' Northfork. I would watch this again purely for M. David Mullen's photography. The look is a perfect balance between dreamworld and reality, as though the stark, ethereal and dolorous bright light, inhabited by its strange, unearthly creatures, is itself the delicate and lonely bridge between this world and the next, into which the town of Northfork is shortly to disappear. Atavistic and brilliant, the light divides the two worlds, and moods, of the film perfectly. Northfork is a very good film, though one that disappeared too quickly, and its cinematography is well worthy of this award, which it steals ahead of more famous, and more heralded, company. Indeed, the company it finds itself in, and, ultimately ahead of (in this category) in 2003, is testimony to Mullen's strange and beautiful achievement.

Shotgun Stories (2007)

My colleague is going to despair. I finally get around to writing a review for (what I thought was) a 2008 film, then IMDB tells me it's 2007, even though it's only just come out on DVD. What to do? Well, I'll just have to go ahead and review the film anyway.

Shotgun Stories, a classic Matt-pleasing lyrical, pensive, beautifully shot, drama, set in the American south, focuses on three brothers, named Kid, Boy and Son who feud with four half-brothers following the death of their common father. Hated by Kid, Boy and Son, but beloved by the other brothers, Cleaman, Stephen, Mark and John, their father's legacy divides an already unstable family and shatters an uneasy peace, leading to inevitable tragedy, as plain and as sure as the sweet Arkansas sun laying in the rivets and shards of cotton in the fields which form the sumptuous and delicate backdrop to this unassuming, but engaging, human tragedy.

From the start, this is a powerful film. You begin by thinking that Film-maker Jeff Nichols has chosen very poor names for his lead characters but, following the powerful and foreboding funeral scene (eaten up on screen by Son, played by Michael Shannon, more on whom later), it soon dawns on the viewer that their names bear the indelible mark of a neglectful and abusive father who couldn't give so much of a damn as to give them a proper name. Notably unlike his other four sons, who proclaim, with all honesty and integrity, that their father was a changed man after he ran out on Kid, Boy and Son. It's a powerful message - a history, a legacy, is a hard thing to shake at the best of times, but harder still when your name, and how it contrast with that of more favoured and fortunate siblings, stands as a constant reminder to pain, loss, struggle and turmoil, never clearer than when Son, at his father's funeral, reflects that their father ran out on them "to be raised by a hateful woman" his voice bleeding with pregnant rage.

As required by character-lead dramas, the performances here are high end and the characters deep, fluid and interesting. Michael Shannon, as Son, steals the film. An incredible mixture of Joaquin Phoenix, Di Caprio and early Brando, Shannon gives a performance here that suggests he will go on to greater things. I hope he does, he deserves to. Son is one of those rare characters whose fate you just feel tide to and in whose world you have some strange urge to belong, despite its difficulty and struggle. A great performance. Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs, as Boy and Kid respectively, have more to do than the brothers from the other side of the family, and both ably support Shannon and all three brothers are deep, interesting, characters that stand well above the level of caricature, not always easy with a film such as this. The other four brothers are less developed, with the exception of the interesting and pained Cleaman (Michael Abbot Jr.), and this is a flaw, but one that will have to be excused, given the film's running time. It doesn't, I think, have designs on being 'epic' and that will be reflected in the final grade.

Shot by David Gordon Green (on producer duty here)'s favorite cinematographer Adam Stone (who photographed Green's George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow), this looks accomplished, lyrical and stunning, the images deliberately provoking contrasts with one another and the overall mood of the film (Green's influence on Nichols is palpable here). The score, by Lucero Pyramid, is suitably haunting and compelling as well.

I really liked this and will add it to my collection as soon as possible. It's very much my kind of film and that is reflected in my grade, so the recommendation comes with that warning that this is very me, but that is not to say it isn't very you either. Well, well, worth a go and well worth an

A-

Body of Lies

After a spate of spate of middle-east based failures released by Hollywood over the past 12 months, you have to approach yet another one with some trepidation, even if it comes from an acclaimed director and has the one-two punch of Crowe and Di Caprio above the title. It's been met with a muted response from critics - Body of Lies currently polls a mediocre 50% on rottentomatoes, which means half of those critics polled would class this as a failure, putting it behind the likes of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Quantum of Solace, and, incredibly, RocknRolla. Point me out the raving lunatic that thinks Guy Ritchie has done anything in the last 10 years that comes anywhere close to the quality of this film and I'll beat him to death with a big black rubber sex toy. To be fair, that memorable scene actually came from the one film that Guy Ritchie has ever done that was any good, but I digress.

Body of Lies opens with a skilfully directed action sequence set in Manchester and then another in the Middle East involving Roger Ferris (Di Caprio), a covert Arabic speaking CIA agent specialising in counter terrorist work. After almost single-handedly dispatching a terrorist cell he is given a promotion of sorts to work out of the US embassy in Jordan. After quickly putting his predecessor in his place over the half arsed job he and his team have been doing, Di Caprio approaches the Jordanian head of security (Mark Strong) with whom he sets up an uneasy alliance - one where they clearly prefer the tag of friendship than enmity but where neither has the confidence to share classified information with each other. The film explores Ferris' attempts to root out terror in Jordan with the ultimate goal of capturing Al-Saleem, the man responsible for the Manchester bombing as well as others throughout Europe.

Critics have said this is a very Tony Scott film, and it is true that this is the most technologically up to date film of the Ridley's career, and the most action heavy piece since Black Hawk Down. Ridley's younger brother hasn't really done anything of note since Enemy of the State, but that particular film is genuinely great in my opinion and, like this, was technologically savvy and covered much ground quickly.

Body of Lies though is a completely different beast. It has a smart script penned from the David Ignatius novel and adapted by Oscar winner William Monahan, with whom Scott work on Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps a perceived lack of focus hurt the film in terms of critical reception, and it is true that there is a lot going on here. We only settle into the meat of the plot half way into the second act, but the build up to that point has been so satisfying that you almost didn't need a clearly defined goal, although when it comes it is a strength of the film. Ferris hatches a clever plan to entrap Al-Saleem by setting up a rival terrorist cell and getting Saleem curious enough to initiate contact. The way Ferrris goes about setting it up is smart and brilliantly executed and could easily have merited its own 2 hour picture.

However I wouldn't fault the structure of this film at all and it was extremely entertaining to be plunged into the hi-tech world of counter-terrorism. Di Caprio is once again on top form in a film in which he probably should have got sole billing. That honour was shared by Russell Crowe who, despite being one of the finest actors working today, I have yet to mention. That's because he really is a secondary player to Di Caprio and has very little to do other than speak on the phone to his man in the field. If Di Caprio is a bit like Jack Bauer, Crowe is a bit like a one man CTU - someone who phones in advice and instruction from Washington and a man capable of making extremely tough calls instantly, and without giving them a second though. Crowe carrying an extra few pounds and in the Jeffrey Wigand build from The Insider, plays his small role perfectly and is possibly the star of the show, although it's a close run thing between him and relative newcomer Mark Strong. Strong plays the Jordanian minister with a quiet gravitas that has you completely convinced that the guy is extremely powerful. Oozing charisma and authority in his role, Strong really should get a significant career boost from his impressive performance here.

Body of Lies is far far better than critics will tell you. Whilst it wont go down as a home run in the Ridley Scott canon, it a film I would unhesitatingly recommend. The strong performances and the wonderful visual flair that you a guaranteed with Ridley, make it worth the price of admission alone.

B+

Quarantine

Well it just couldn't be as good as myfilmvault's virtual lock for film of the year could it. Could it? [Rec] is the only film in both mine and Matt's top 3 - it got an A+ from him, an A from me. The last time we agreed on a film, Scorsese was just an Oscarless journeyman director and Arnold Schwarzenegger had as much political clout as Jean Claude Van Damme. We nevr agree on films - yet on [Rec] we agree; it is essential viewing.

Watching an original film and virtual shot for shot remake in the space of 6 months feels a little more like homework than going to the cinema should. I couldn't help myself making frequent comparisons to the original: comparing characters, comparing actors that played those characters, spotting deviations in plot or structure, comparing dialogue. Certain things were done better, some felt pointless, many changes however simply made the film weaker, and a couple made you scratch your head and wonder what the director was thinking.

The main points for comparison are the quality of acting and screenplay. Jennifer Carpenter is surprisingly accomplished for a relative newcomer in her first starring role. She convinces throughout and deals with some difficult scenes very well. However, she is simply not as good as Manuela Valesco who was near faultless in the [Rec]. Supporting characters are a mixed bunch in the remake, whilst I don't remember any weak links at all in the original. Unless you are really anti subtitles, there is little doubt that the Spanish film has the finest script. A couple of crass jokes in Quarantine take you out of the picture and characters behave a little more stupidly in this than they do in [Rec]. It is a typical horror film complaint of mine for inexplicable behaviour, but that was a complete rarity in the original. Not so here, although it is nowhere near as bad as many contemporary US horrors.

Plot variations are admittedly slight, although those minor changes do feel completely unnecessary. Why focus at length on a open fracture for instance - horror films are surely at their best when eliciting a sense of dread, fear or, well, horror. A rather gross looking wound elicits none of those emotions and for me it's a disappointing nod (albeit a slight one) to the appalling likes of Hostel where the torture porn aspect seems infinitely more important than actual plot, structure or intelligence.

Ultimately of course, if I'd seen Quarantine first these quibbles would disappear and I'd be on hear telling you to go and see this wonderful film. After all they've done very little to it and based it on an excellent film. How could it possibly fail? Answer: it couldn't, and it hasn't. However since it is the lesser of the two trapped-in-an-apartment-block first person video camera filmed horror films released in 2008, you really should check out the better one.

B-

The Baader-Meinhof Complex

Germany's entry to this years foreign film Oscar race is the ambitious retelling of the early years of the West German terrorist group the Red Army Faction. The RAF were responsible for at least 34 deaths and many more injuries during its existence, many of those coming in the group's early years as depicted in Uli Edel's film.

Screenwriting 101 will tell you to define your main character and to define his or her need - the desire of the character will drive the story forward. Think of the classic screenplays and you'll be able to work out quite easily who the protagonist is and what they want. Clarice Starling needs to find the senator's daughter, TE Lawrence wants to help the Arabs lead a revolt against the Ottoman empire, Rocky wants to be a heavyweight champion, LB Jeffries wants to discover whether a murder has been committed across the courtyard. Well for the life of me I couldn't work out either either who the main character in this was in the Baader-Meinhof Complex, nor what he, she or anyone in the film wanted.

Ostensibly the RAF want to establish themselves amongst the plethora of revolutionary and radical groups. They want themselves to be heard, for people to take notice, for American to pull out of Vietnam. The pledge to prevent what they see as the rise of fascism once again, to fight West Germany's capitalist establishment and to "annihilate, to destroy, to smash the system of imperialist domination, on the political, economic, and military planes." But what on earth motivates such a group to commit heinous acts? Vandalism, theft and murder are all within what the groups sees as acceptable acts, but the viewer never gets a sense of how they came to this conclusion. Perhaps there isn't an easy answer to this question, and perhaps it is not in the remit of a screenplay to explore such motivations, but after 2 hours 45 minutes you do feel shortchanged when such an unfocused, overloaded film leaves you knowing nothing more about the RAF than you did when you went in.

There are saving graces. The Baader-Meinhof gang, as they were known initially, come across as a rather morally bankrupt bunch of hypocritical, senseless extremists and not the courageous, activists that I feared they would. This is after all a gang of indiscriminate murdering, vandalising thugs, and not some misunderstood intelligent politically savvy left wing crowd. Hard to believe reports that a high percentage of Germany's youth sympathised with the gang, but apparently it is so. Fortunately Edel resists any temptation to glamorise the gang but despite this, there is still some concern that any film focusing on the now disbanded organisation would give them some unnecessary coverage and only serve to upset the many victims of the RAFs attacks. This controversy upon its release in its homeland did little to help ignite it at the box office, as might have been expected and in fact it flopped quite badly - a severe blow to Uli Edel and his team who reputedly made the most expensive German film in history. It seems likely then that it may also be the German film industry's most expensive bomb.

Why then has it been entered in the Oscar race by a country who must surely have had others films to choose from? Perhaps this may play better overseas where the controversy very clearly doesn't exist. Few people will be at all familiar with the RAF and fewer still with the key individuals within the organisation that are portrayed here. The film has technical merit, screenplay aside. Edel is more than competent with his direction, the acting is impressive and the production values are strong.

Yet if you, like me, find you learn nothing from a film that has sacrificed plot and narrative for character study you have to chalk this one up as a pretty sizable failure since those characters reveal very little about themselves in the entire duration. A very noble failure no doubt, and one that has some very large plus points, but a failure nonetheless.

C

OSS 117: Cairo - Nest of Spies

James Bond spoofs have a history of failing to be as funny as they think they are. This is just another example and the second Bond parody to fail this year alone. This is certainly a notch up on Get Smart, but the latter set the bar so low that it was barely off the ground. This French farce has probably raised it a couple of millimetres - or, as the French like to say - millimètres .

This went down well in its homeland, earning several Cesar nominations, including a Best Actor nomination for its star. Jean Dujardin is certainly well cast and performs his role with gusto, however he just can't shake the limp, uninspired script that weighs the whole film down. 95% of the jokes just don't work and that simply doesn't make for a very good comedy. I did love the stylish opening credits however.

D+

Pride and Glory

Colin Farrell is one of those actors that inexplicably has a career in which he continues to get starring roles despite none of his films doing particularly well at the box office, nor indeed garnering much praise from critics either. I certainly remember some good notices for his supporting turn in Minority Report - a breakthrough performance that pushed him into the big time, however you have to wonder what he has done in the last few years to deserve getting his name on the marquee. Flop after flop has been released - all films taking well under their productions budgets at the US box office. Neither Intermission or A Home at the End of the World could even cover a quarter of their very modest budgets. Alexander was a spectacular bomb in his biggest budgeted film to date - a film in which undoubtedly people would either come to see it if the Colin Farrell name carried some sort of cache. They didn't.

Since then we have been treated to The New World (Terence Mallick flop), Miami Vice (Michael Mann flop) and Casandra's Dream (Woody Allen flop and his 2nd worst box office return in his 37 film history). 3 great directors all clamouring for Farrell's services but look where it got them. Farrell is box office poison and you have to wonder what he has to do to get himself relegated to supporting roles again - something I suspect he'd fare better in.

So we come to his latest box office crashing disappointment: Pride and Glory - a film that currently hasn't even taken two thirds of its production budget at the worldwide box office. To be fair Farrell probably is more of a supporting character in this, although still shares top billing with Edward Norton for reasons that remain elusive. Norton plays a cop assigned to investigate a multiple police homicide that seems to be more complex than some want to believe. Farrell plays his brother-in-law and fellow cop. One's corrupt, one's not. You can work out for yourself which is which. Except you wont, since you almost certainly wont watch this film, because it isn't very good.

Any good will built up by moderate first act success - a decently staged opening American Football match, some good scenes with the underrated Noah Emmerich - quickly evaporates as things descend into absolute farce. It's as if the screenwriter got half way and thought "fuck, I've got absolutely no idea how to end this things. Let's have the two main characters fight." It is completely laughably, embarrassingly stupid. It makes no sense. It makes less than no sense. And that's only one of several ridiculous contrivances that drive the story to its inept coda. Think of the worst ending you've ever seen in a film. Double it, and you've got the ending to Pride and Glory.

D

Easy Virtue

This thoroughly appalling British film marks the 6th occasion this year that I have bailed on a film before the credits rolled. One leading American critic got into trouble a few weeks ago after it emerged he reviewed a film he'd only seen the first 8 minutes of. I stayed for significantly more than that, although I don't think I quite made it to the hour mark. Perhaps one shouldn't review a film unless they've seen all of it, or perhaps if you do you should be upfront about it. Well here's me being upfront: if you don't think I should review a movie I didn't see to its conclusion, treat this as a review of the first 45 minutes.

It is very possible that Easy Virtue defied all expectation and suddenly found some shred of competence in a screenplay that had thus far adapted a Noel Coward play so badly that it made the playwright seem positively humourless.

It is possible that every single attempt at humour suddenly hit the mark where they had hitherto missed so badly that is was excruciating to watch.

It is also possible that the makers of this thing realised that watching interiors shot as though they have been illuminated by candle-light was unacceptable and that they drafted in a proper cinematographer for the second half.

It is quite possible that the powers that be realised that a period film with a jazzed up soundtrack featuring covers of songs written decades after the film was set, Rose Royce's Car Wash being one example, was completely inappropriate and did nothing more than convey a hopelessly desperate attempt to appear whimsical, funky and cool.

It is certainly possible that Kristen Scott Thomas was given a character of substance in the second half rather than a two-dimensional pale imitation of her Gosford Park character.

It is possible that Biel and Barnes discovered some sort of screen chemistry that had eluded them.

It is possible that the actresses playing the two sisters were recast with actors with more charisma.

It is definitely possible that the director (Stephan Elliot) realised that you don't have to invent new camera angles or movements to make your mark on the industry. Turning the camera 90 degrees to shoot a car sideways on is not clever. It's just irritating.

Yes, all this is possible.

Is it likely? No.

D

Catch Up With The Classics? Part Two - Killer of Sheep

Taking over from where my previous post left off, why have we had to wait until 2007 for this film, an undoubted classic, to appear on the big screen and receive a full distribution? The answer appears to be that the music rights were too expensive, because the soundtrack features famous American artists like Paul Robeson, Dinah Washington and Elmore James. What? How much were the rights eventually bought for in the end (thanks, in part, to a donation by Steven Soderbergh)? $150,000. What? Are you seriously telling me that no Hollywood studio could afford to spend $150,000 dollars on some music rights when - to pick a few random examples - Saw 4 had a budget of $10 Million, Cradle 2 the Grave had a budget of $25 Million and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 had a budget of $25 Million. Not buying that one at all. Here we have the selective tradition at work again, the process by which great works, Whitman grass-level cultural artifacts, become lost in the cultural ether because of the strange choices and decisions of certain powers that be. At least Killer of Sheep has now been saved and is available to buy on DVD. It is a shame that it only saw a limited cinematic release in 2007, 30 years after it was first made, it deserves a much wider audience.

This is a film where nothing really happens but nothing happens brilliantly. The film is as invigorating as the first summer rains or the sight of a single star shining bright through a city's smog, dust and ether. The narrative loosely follows Stan (Henry Gayle Sanders) as, in what amounts to a series of vignettes, his life drifts aimlessly on through the Los Angeles ghetto of Watts, where he works in a slaughterhouse. Other characters drift in and out (it reminded me of the Thin Red Line, which is perhaps one reason I loved it so much) and Stan's relationship with his unnamed wife (Kaycee Moore) provides some of the most beautiful and perfect moments of simple, everyday, tenderness that have ever been seen of screen. One scene where the pair dance to Dinah Washington's 'This Bitter Earth' is a perfect symbiosis of musical and cinematic soul and might have made it into my top 25 scenes of all time, but I don't have the heart - yet - to start again. This moment of everyday beauty encapsulates both the film and human life at its most beautiful, its most tender and its most shy.

Burnett clearly has an eye for the brilliant and the beautiful. The cinematography - done by Burnett himself - here is stunning. Although notable for looking strikingly everyday, the film's images retain a power that transcends the everyday. One shot of the local kids playing and running across train lines (see above) more than resembles a war zone, surely no accident given the year (1977) this was filmed and, therefore, its global context. Striking image follows striking image and the black and white only adds to the depth, beauty and realism of the whole thing. Burnett also said that he wanted the film to stand as a testament to the history of African-American music. That's a grand claim and it clearly doesn't live up to it (the film is, after all, only 81 minutes long), however, this does not detract from the amazing symmetry between sight and sound, as though the music is plumbed deep into the veins and lifeblood of the film's rhythmic and soulful heartbeat.

Aside from Sanders and Moore and the children in the film (one of which was played by Burnett's daughter, Angela), the rest of the performances are pretty bad or simply appalling, though none are in the film long enough to tarnish it, nor are any as bad as Charlton Heston's 'effort' in A Touch Of Evil. Sanders invests Stan with a quiet, meandering, dignity and charm and every look and expression reflect the feel of a man whose life is a self-defined struggle and whose quest for purpose and meaning is lost in the depression- and-isolation-scarred landscapes and tenements and found only in life's tender little moments, like the pressing of a warm teacup against a cheek. You really feel for Stan and that is some achievement (to be shared by Gayle and Burnett), given the total lack of narrative or plot of the film. Killer of Sheep is just life.

This is a classic example of brilliantly drawn realism. Realist films don't tend to be considered 'high' culture, perhaps being, in their very essence, too gritty, pavement-centred and down-to-earth. What becomes 'high culture' and why? No one really understands this, especially, perhaps, with cinema, because the infinitesimally small-level, ants-eye, processes by which films get selected, made, produced, distributed, reviewed are totally beyond the sight of both films critics and those of us who form the general film-going population. The same is true of literature, theatre and art (among other things). We just will never know in the vast majority of cases primarily, of course, because the inner processes of selection and choice go on in the privacy of the mind, which can only be shared by communication and, in such cases, rarely is shared. If Killer of Sheep has remained hidden for thirty odd years, what other gems lie unearthed in film-school vaults and studio filing cabinets? Perhaps I can suggest that Indy 5 should be called 'Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Lost Reels', where Indy battles evil film executives, producers and critics to give the world a true view of global culture now lost and hidden.

In the meantime, I'll just have to enjoy Killer of Sheep. And enjoy it again I will. I'm sure this will make it into my top 25 of all time, I've already watched it twice and might watch it again this weekend. A stunning, unusual, imperfect, tender, beautiful film, unlike any other you have ever seen, even other classically 'realist' films. Killer of Sheep and Burnett as a film-maker stand on their own. Not least in the fact that the film is unique in - ultimately - surviving the dreaded clutches of the selective tradition.

Killer of Sheep: A+

Quantum of Solace

This review is brought to you by Sony Ericsson: Yours to Create; Virgin Atlantic: No Ordinary Airline; and Aston Martin: Power, Beauty and Soul.

Quantum of Solace bowed Friday in the UK, two weeks before its stateside debut, and promptly rewrote the record books for a Friday box office take. Quite obviously the producers and Daniel Craig have re-energised the franchise with Casino Royale and expectation is high for Bond films once again. Trouble is, this just isn't very good - but then again neither was Casino Royale.

If I wanted to watch a Bourne film I would go and watch a Bourne film. Why the Bond overlords decided audiences would prefer all the humour and fun stripped out of these things? Quantum of Solace is just a tiny bit depressing. Relentless action with barely time to cobble together a plot. Precisely 2 very mild quips from Bond - both of which Craig could have timed better - you almost long for Roger Moore.

Read the rest

"This is simply not a very good film"

Matt's asks why certain films are regarded as classics when better films are forgotten.

Here.

Ghost Town

Full disclosure: I love Ricky Gervais in anything he has ever done. I think The Office is one of the very best sitcoms every created. I loved Extras - and I love him in it. His stand up shows are fantastic - I paid to see his last one at the Royal Albert Hall and wasn't disappointed. I even watched his role in Stardust by skipping through the film until I hit his scenes, ignoring those that didn't feature him and - surprise - i thought he was great in it.

So it wont be a complete shock to learn that I very much enjoyed his first starring role in Ghost Town, a surprisingly sweet romantic comedy that features a typically Gervais lead character in Bertram Pincus.

Read the rest

Catch Up With The Classics

The Bicycle Thieves - Ladri Di Biciclette (1948)



I would recommend that anyone invest the brief 80 minutes of your life it will take to catch up with this 1948 classic, set in the dark and depressed streets of Post-War Rome. Directed by Vitorio De Sica, this stands as a landmark in realist film-making. De Sica cast non-professional actors in the lead roles here to invest this quiet, everyday, tragedy with that realistic, pavement-centred, quality so many films aim for, but so many fail to achieve.

Read the rest

Cinematography of the Year 2002

My slow meander through great cinematography efforts of the noughties continues. And it's not such a hard choice this year. 2002 was a great year for films, but not many stand out for their cinematography. I liked the photography in a good few films - Y Tu Mama Tambien; Mondays in the Sun; Punch Drunk Love, for example - but the award really comes down to a choice of three. Beautiful Bangladeshi Film, The Clay Bird (Matir Moina), my film of the year, Signs or my colleague's number one film of all time, Road to Perdition. All deserve commendation for excellent efforts in the cinematography department.

The Clay Bird is an exquisite film, carefully drawn and delicately photographed in romantic, shadowed and gentle filters and hues. Like with Road to Perdition, there seems to have been a conscious choice not to match the cinematography to the film's overall mood (controversial, I know, see below) and the end product is much more memorable and captivating as a result. Bangladesh looks stunning, sensuous and deep (much like it does in Brick Lane) and the film stands as a compelling reason to visit, as well as an interesting and fascinating historical account of Bangladesh's separation from West Pakistan (Bangladesh was formerly known as East Pakistan). This reminds me, I really must watch this again. This is a hugely underrated and memorable film, which looks beautiful. Cinematography by Sudhir Palsane.

Tak Fujimoto, who photographed Signs, is a well known cinematographer, whose most famous work is the bleak, haunting, foggy and dark landscape that encompasses The Silence of the Lambs. M Night Shyamalan said that he deliberately went for Fujimoto on Signs because of his insight into "Americana" (the pair had also worked together on The Sixth Sense) and it shows. Signs has that static, everyday, look, augmented, for sure, by the picturesque surroundings of endless fields and quiet, rural, beauty. In a way, being a 'blockbuster' (though not, or so I would argue, a typical or traditional one), Fujimoto had an easier job on Signs as people perhaps don't pay as much attention to this kind of thing as they might on other efforts (such as, indeed, The Clay Bird), but that only serves to make his achievement more interesting and commendable. Signs looks great, and there is, throughout, fantastic attention to the detail of how light and sound affect mood, tension and meaning.

However, the prize for 2002 goes to Conrad L. Hall, whose cinematography on Road to Peridition syncs perfectly with Thomas Newman's breathtaking and haunting score. Road to Perdition was originally a graphic novel and this shows throughout (though not in the in your face, overstyalised way, it did in Sin City), particularly in the film's most memorable scene, where Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) kills gangster John Rooney (Paul Newman) through lashing rain, darkness and streetlight shard, reminiscent of the finest French impressionist painting. I said earlier that the cinematography (generally dark, foreboding and claustrophobic) does not match the film's mood (which is - ultimately - uplifting). Some may disagree with this, but it is certainly how I felt and, as I say, I think this is a very difficult effect to achieve and Hall's work here is breathtaking. There are also some memorable contrasts - the wide vistas of the film's final moments by the living, breathing, wide ocean, stand out starkly against the scene I have just mentioned, for example. All in all, a dazzling result. Hall won the Oscar, and deservedly so. Unfortunately, he died before learning of the nomination but his fantastic achievement here stands as the best lasting testimony it is possible to imagine to a great talent.

Brick Lane (2007)

This 2007 adaption of Monica Ali's best selling novel tells the story of Nazneen, a 17 year old girl growing up gently amidst the beautiful paddy fields of Bangladesh who is violently wrenched from her idealistic,innocent, life to marry an overweight , middle aged man living in East London. As the film goes on, Nazneen's life becomes more and more complex as she battles with her own emotions, her culture, her husband and the conflict between her new life and her old.

This is, in sum, a totally watchable, enjoyable film. What immediately strikes you about it is the overarching sadness that is entwined from the first reel to the last. I love films which manage to maintain this dolorous, distant, tone throughout. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do and I can only think of a few other films that manage it.

Read the rest

Eagle Eye

Myfilmvault watches all the crap so you don't have to!

Eagle Eye isn't worth much discussion other than to point out that it's the new DJ Caruso/Shia Leboeuf effort. Caruso also directed Leboeuf in last year's far better Disturbia which, as reported here, was hit by a lawsuit from the rights holders to Rear Window for making what they claim was an unauthorised remake of Hitchcock's classic - which it unarguably was, even if it was quite enjoyable and a moderate success. Caruso and his screenwriting team have been a little more savvy this time, ripping off more than one Hitchcock film and coming up with their own plot - of sorts - to avoid any repeat litigation.

Eagle Eye bears more than a passing resemblance to North by Northwest, although this is a film very much with its own storyline (albeit an incredibly preposterous one.) Trouble is Leboeuf is no Cary Grant, Michelle Monaghan isn't Eva Marie Saint, Caruso isn't Hitchcock and Eagle Eye isn't very good. The problems, of varying importance, include Leboeuf's ridiculous facial hair, no chemistry at all between the two leads, Monaghan proving herself totally incapable of convincing in any given scene and a plot that holds up to no scrutiny at all. Worst of all, it's just not in the least bit interesting to a chase movie where the bad guy is a (spoiler in white) computer.

This is not worth the price of admission, so save your hard earned money. Heck, this isn't even worth the price of a cheap pirated knock off.

D

Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading is not a good film. Despite being directed by the Oscar winning Coen brothers. Despite starring 3 Oscar winning actors in Clooney, Swinton and McDormund. Despite starring Oscar nominated actors in Malkovich and Pitt, Burn After Reading is not a good film.

This is ill-conceived, badly executed and a complete waste of everyone's considerable talents. You almost wonder whether the Coens decided to see if they could dupe audiences into liking something so awful. It plays as if they wrote it on the back of a napkin in a bar one evening - possibly whilst drunkenly celebrating last year's deserved Oscar success. No idea is dismissed as too stupid. No joke is seen as too unfunny. No plot thread is left tied up. What we have is a mish-mash of semi-formed ideas all thrown together with the unifying theme of isn't it funny when these great actors play idiots. Well, frankly, no it isn't.

I have no problem with their "lighter" stuff. After last year's outstanding No Country for Old Men, it was only right that they change pace dramatically, and they've had proven success with this sort of thing. O Brother went down very well, so did The Big Lebowski. For me their most successful foray into light comedy was the grossly under appreciated Intolerable Cruelty. It had a genuine wit throughout with wonderful set ups, charming performances, hilarious visual gags and terrific one liners. Everything in fact lacking in Burn After Reading.

This may get a pass or even a recommendation based on the talent involved but don't be fooled by anyone that tells you this is anything better than average. For my money it is significantly worse. The Coens have followed up their very best film with their very worst*. A real shame.

C-


*Worth pointing out I've seen all their films except The Ladykillers which got slated so may in fact be worse than this. If I'm completely honest I also probably just preferred Fargo to No Country for Old Men.

Dear Lord

The UK all time box office top 3:

1	Titanic	1997	1998		US	69,025,646
2	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone	2001	2001		US/GB	66,096,060
3	The Lord of the Rings; The Fellowship of the Ring	2001	2001		US/New Zealand	63,009,288

Mamma Mia has just passed $66 million and now has Titanic in its sights. Are we really okay with Mamma Mia being the UK's highest grossing film of all time?

Check out the review.

In The Valley of Elah (2007)

Once again, I'm woefully behind the times, having wanted to see Paul Haggis' Iraq-war themed mystery thriller since it first came out. This time, I can't blame it on Leicester cinemas. So having finally managed to rent this last night, was it worth the wait?

Haggis' film, like all the others centred on Iraq, did not meet with box office success. It has been argued that American audiences cannot cope with the content as the country remains to this day impossibly divided (like the rest of the world) over whether or not the war was justified. It will be very interesting to see whether Ridley Scott's forthcoming Body of Lies (fronted by the heavyweight pairing of Di Caprio and Crowe) will fare better. Certainly, In the Valley of Elah pulls no punches and will not have gone down with everyone, depending on their politics. But this is a film review, not a political commentary, so I'll limit my observations to all things cinematic (for the most part at least!).

The film centres around Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), whose son Mike, a soldier just returned from Iraq, goes Awol. Hank heads to Mike's base to try and uncover the truth behind what's happened. But when Mike's body turns up, dismembered and burnt in the New Mexico bush, Hank's investigations with local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) uncover a number of painful and hidden truths.

This is, throughout, a very sad film as Hank's military precision swamps his emotional compass, leaving others in his life alone and vulnerable. The moment when Mike's body is found is very sad indeed and Lee Jones does a brilliant job here (similar, in a way, to his fantastic performance in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada) of conveying the emotional distance a military man has from his feelings, without ever letting go of that human touch and closeness all of us possess for those closest to us.

The various twists and turns, and the intrigue that accompanies them, are suitably gripping and, although it begins to drag a little towards the end, the film generally flies by at a well judged, emotionally fraught, pace.

Still, in the main, this is a character driven film and character-driven films live and die on their characters. Lee Jones, as I say, is excellent and holds the film together well and his calm, assured, mature and measured performance is well supported by the other male characters (this is a male dominated world in more ways than one), who are essentially soldiers and/or detectives. Susan Sarandon also provides excellent balance as Hank's despairing and defeated wife, although she doesn't get a lot of screen time. The same can be said for James Franco - I really like Franco. He's got the looks, the emotion and the ability to be a real star. I wonder if he will be. He never gets the opportunity to showcase his talents here (in a deeper role) and that is a shame.

Then there is Charlize Theron. I can't remember why, or when, this was, but I was convinced Theron was just another beauty on the box, whose looks had got her where she was. How wrong could I be. Theron ate up the screen, spat it out, stomped on it, then ate it again in her unbelievable performance in Monster. She does it again here, but in a much more delicate, subtle, and feminine way. I genuinely think this will end up being one of my favorite performances of all time. She is brilliant and mesmerising and owns every scene she is in, particularly one show-stopping moment when she utterly puts down three chauvinistic male detectives she spends the entire film fighting against. Whilst, perhaps, not being quite as effective, what this film highlights, in the briefest but yet most violent of lights, about the continuing oppression of women deserves mention in the same breath as Silence of the Lambs. It certainly maintains that dignified, non-preachy, aura that drives an emotional stick right through your heart. And that, primarily, is down to Theron. In a number of ways, its one of those ordinary, everyday, performances we're always harping on about on this site and Theron operates on that, incredibly difficult to hit, tone. Brilliant. Theron is fast becoming my favorite living actress anywhere in the world, almost to the point where I would pay to see any film she's in. She's also hilarious in Arrested Development by the way. Like her character (and unlike a number of Hollywood's other leading ladies), Theron has never got by on her looks alone, but her depth, brilliance and talent. Stunning in every sense. The chemistry between her, and Lee Jones, is also spot-on.

As I'm writing this, I think I'm realising that I liked it a lot more than I thought. It's not an easy film, and I wasn't sure I would return to it, but I think I will, at the very least for Theron's performance. Credit to Paul Haggis too, for a fantastic ending, when I thought he'd gone and blown it (although, Paul, if you're reading, that song which closes the film is awful and totally out of place). Sorry I ever doubted you. It ends up as a hugely effective, and (once again) emotionally shattering, last scene. I'm now sure I'll watch this again.

One final word must again be directed towards the most unfortunate man in cinema, Roger Deakins. Well, unfortunate in the sense that he's never won an Oscar when he should have won about five, but not unfortunate in that he is one of the most talented men in the world, and a man who is very clearly in touch with his emotions and how they relate, in turn, to other human beings and to light and sound. The cinematography is again magical and perfectly tuned in to the film's bloodline. Deakins manages this every time. It's no accident that I end up liking all of the films he photographs, true testament to the beauty and importance of the image and what it means.

Regardless of the political message (though I have to say that I can't understand why anyone would find it hard to accept, this is an accurate, and very sad, depiction of a very distant but very much genuine, reality), this is an excellent film, well worth watching. There is so much going on here, there will be something for everyone to enjoy, especially those, like me, who just love watching a great performance jump out of the television to such an extent that you believe she could be living next door to you.

A-

Gomorrah

Italy's official entry to the 2008 Oscar race is a densely layered, sprawling look at the criminal underbelly southern Italy. Despite being completely scripted, Gomorrah retains a documentry feel throughout and almost plays out like an secret expose on the criminal masses.

The criminal organisation in question is that of Italy's oldest: the Camorra. Originating in the region of Campania and the city of Naples, it finances itself through drug trafficking, extortion, protection and racketeering. It is also reportedly responsible for at least 4000 deaths since the 70s.

Portraying any aspect of this on screen is an unenviable task but Matteo Garone has taken it on, both as director and one of several screenwriters. The Camorra has some estimated 7000 members, has existed in one form or another for 500 years and is organised into a reported 150 clans. Tackling such a huge entity borders on the imposible and whatever Garone had done would only ever have scratched the surface.

Gomorrah takes 5 tenuously connected characters and tells us the story of each, interweaving each others plot with that of the other 4 only in the loosest of ways. Any audience member expecting a neat resolution where the seemingly unconnected storylines suddenly fall into place will be disappointed. No attempt is made to tie anything together. Garone and his team of screenwriters have had the confidence to let the quality of each story line stand alone. And for the most part it is a wise decision. Each character is well written and well performed. The common theme in each thread is the exploration of how the Camorra affect the entire comunity - from those within the set-up and those who have ambitions to be in it, to those who want nothing to do with it.

Helping the documentry feel is the casting of non-professionals, 3 of whom have been arrested for real life crimes since the film was released. The book on which this is based is a non-fiction work by Roberto Saviano so this is as close to a documentary as you can get without actually watching one. And for the most part it works very well.

If I had to be critical I would say that the lack of focus probably went too far at times. Comparable films like Traffic and City of God have rather more definite links between the plot threads and you get rather more invested in individual characters than you can in this film, since everything feels so detached. It is very hard to be moved by anything that happens when you don't really feel you know the characters very well. Its deliberate detachment, delineated structure and roving focus means emotions are rather more muted than they perhaps should be - even scenes that should be shocking or saddening fail to elicit the emotions they perhaps should.

Nevertheless, it's an extremely accomplished film and one that is particularly well directed. Several scenes stand out and give audiences a taste of a director who has a flair for visuals. One overhead tracking shot that's followed by a static shot of a member of the Camorra walking off into the distance is particularly memorable.

Gomorrah is certainly something I'll be revisiting - I suspect it might play a little better second time around. Whilst it wont end up threatening for awards with me at the end of the year, don't be surprised if I'm in a minority. I think critics and awards givers will not be shy at all in rewarding this ambitious, and for the most part, highly successful attempt at filming the near-impossible.

B

Pre Bedtime Quickie

What Happens in Vegas (2008)



This new post title has nothing to do with the fact that Cameron Diaz (or Ashton Kutcher) are in this film. I promise. I just can't be bothered to write a full review.

That actually doesn't reflect the quality of the film, although I do always struggle to find a lot to say about Rom Coms. I really thought I would hate this but have to - begrudgingly - admit that I enjoyed it, though it certainly won't be changing my life.

This has literally the worst plot in film history. Jack (Kutcher) and Joy (Diaz) meet in Vegas, get drunk and get married. They then realise they hate each other, whilst standing next to a slot machine. Joy gives Jack her last quarter as they march of, in total hostility, to get as far away from each other as possible. Jack puts said quarter in said slot machine and wins 3 million dollars. Both claim the money. It ends up in court. A judge with the combined intelligence and legal insight of Sarah Palin and my arse then decides that he can somehow freeze the money and force the two of them to live together and 'work' at the marriage, otherwise they will never get the money back. 'Hilarity' (well, its never quite hilarity, but it's decent entertainment) ensues and the inevitable happens which I won't write because you've already guessed it.

Despite this absurdity, this really isn't a bad film, which is saying something because so many of these films are really really bad. This is enjoyable and it passed the time nicely. Kutcher's character is utterly obnoxious and hugely grates on you until he wakes up to himself but, that aside, the whole thing is, generally speaking, an enjoyable 'romp' even if the performers and cinematographer won't be winning any MyFilmVault awards in 2008. All in all, a nice way to spend an even being distracted from all this constant nonsense and bullshit about the fucking credit crunch. Anything that can take you away from that for an hour or two can't be all bad.

B-

Cinematography of the Year 2001

I'm loving this award. It's a very difficult one to call most years, and 2001 is no exception. Once again, there are a number of noteworthy candidates.

Janusz Kaminski was my frontronner. He bequeathed AI a beautiful, haunting and distant look which adds to the sublime sadness of this divisive film. Regardless of whether or not you loved (like me) or hated (like everyone else) this film, credit must go to Kaminski for photographing such a lasting and memorable vision of the future, the likes of which have not been seen since Ridley Scott's magnificent Blade Runner.

There are others well worthy of a mention in dispatches. I loved the pastel-shaded, gentle and beautiful Americana of Antonio Calvache's work in In The Bedroom and some of the vistas in the Fellowship of the Ring (the opening montage, coupled with Cate Blanchett's haunting and rapid dialogue, is stunning) are unforgettable, if slightly derivative (in places). Andrew Lesnie deserves credit for that, it was some undertaking after all.

Black Hawk Down (Slawomir Idziak) looked great, with great use of filters, as did Donnie Darko (Stephen Poster) (again, witness the opening bike-ride scene accompanied by Echo and the Bunnyman's sublime 'The Killing Moon'). And, even though I hated the thing from start to finish, Hannibal (John Mathieson) looks great too. I particularly remember one image of police sirens crossing a bridge in a beautiful, pensive, and smoky light.

However, I've gone for Declan Quinn's work for Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding. Once again, this is a film of light and look which reflect its mood. Monsoon Wedding feels and plays like a leaf slowly turning to its natural colour by the unfailing passing of the year. It's deep, sensuous, mystical, exotic, romantic and beautiful. The use of colour is striking and perfectly framed. The whole film, particularly perhaps its pivotal moments, is simply washed in a radiant, sensuous, tropical blend of heady passion, feeling and meaning, a movie of transcendental and atavistic luminescence and spectral conjuring. A great, if underrated film, and a worthy winner.

Catch Up With The Classics

Record of a Tenement Gentleman (Nagaya Shinshiroku) (1947)



Yasujiro Ozu made one of my favorite films of all time - the magnificently emotional and sad Tokyo Story - so I was very grateful to receive two Ozu box-sets for a recentish birthday. I'm just sorry it has taken me so long to get round to seeing them. This is the first in my Ozu catch up.

This 1947 effort is one of Ozu's first films. With a running time of a measly 71 minutes, the film focuses on Kohei, a young boy abandoned by his father who has gone off to Tokyo to look for work. Kohei follows a poor tenement dweller home and the tenement then bicker and argue over who is to look after the boy. Then, of course, the inevitable soul-searching is done and lessons are learnt, albeit rather hastily, given the running time.

The main problem with this film is indeed its running time. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the kind of emotional punch in the face Ozu is going for here in an hour and ten minutes. You are left feeling that you simply don't know the characters well enough, don't quite fully understand where they are coming from, and the eventual emotional turnaround, therefore, feels far too quick and out of shape. It's a lovely idea and what there is of it is, for the most part, done very well. It's simply that there is not enough of it. A real shame. This feels like a three hour film squeezed into 60 (or so) minutes.

The performances are generally excellent. Shoko Lida is exceptional as the harsh, brutal, unmarried Tane who ends up being tricked into taking the boy in. It's an excellent performance and it is mainly down to her that the film, and its turnaround, works at all. Hohi Aoki is full of emotion and sadness as the young, abandoned, boy. It's fortunate, though, that it is mostly a silent part (he's got the expression and the emotion down pat) because he's awful whenever he has to open his mouth, especially when it's to cry. Also nice to see a fleeting and measured appearance by MyFilmVault lister Chishu Ryu.

This is worth a go. It's only 71 minutes of your life after all. The cinematography is noteworthy and full credit must go to Yuuharu Atsuta for the way a desolate, broken and sad post WW2 Japan is landscaped. The music is sweet, enchanting, and adds another, much needed, layer to this thin effort. And, of course, there is Ozu himself. No one does abandonment, isolation, loneliness and sadness like Ozu. And with this being filmed in 1947, there is again another layer of meaning in here. Like so much of the best Japanese cinema of this era, the film carries a strong socialist message (naturally reflective of a communalistic culture like Japan's) about duty, helping others and about right and wrong. It's just a shame that, like so much else about this film, there is simply not enough of it to fully drive home the point. Like ships passing in the night, this is a silhouette of something strange and beautiful but one you know you are never destined to know on a deeper, more soulful, level.

B-