Into the Wild (2007)

My colleague was not a huge fan of this, but I always felt there might be something here I could enjoy. This is, in many ways, a very Matt film - it's a (Sean-Penn-helmed) biopic about a young man, Christopher McCandless, who gives all his savings to charity, leaves his family and friends behind, and goes off, 'into the wild', on a long journey towards the Alaskan wilderness. It's the kind of life I might dream of if only I had the courage to contemplate living it. Anyway, did I end up agreeing with my colleague's C+ (from memory) or not?

First, the good. This is a stunningly beautiful film, deserving of being mentioned in the same breath as 2007's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Film. However, Eric Gautier's job here is far less demanding than Roger Deakins' in Jesse James, as the mood approaches wildlife documentary and doesn't have as many of the emotional complexities and themes reflected in Deakins' stunning, expansive and bleak American wilderness. Still, this doesn't detract from the beauty of the images and Gautier should be commended for an excellent job.

The performances are also good. Emile Hirsch (a dead ringer - surely no accident? - for a young Sean Penn) does a good job as the film's protagonist McCandless. William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden are as dependable as always as his despairing parents and the film is well narrated by Jena Malone, who plays McCandless' sister Carine. The film is largely driven, and memorable, however, by a number of shortish cameos, by Vince Vaughn, the beautiful Catherine Keener, Brian H. Dierker and, particularly, the excellent Hal Holbrook, who delivers the film's standout, albeit, brief, performance.

The problem is that that performance also demonstrates how off-kilter the film is, or at least becomes. I don't think it ever quite decides whose side you're supposed to be on. So much screen time and audience energy is invested in McCandless and his adventures and yet you are left with this detatched feeling when it comes to his incredibly selfish interaction with other characters, something not really, or at least not properly, picked up on by the film's narration and, indeed, narrator. This is particularly true of the film's best scene, involving Hirsch and a supremely despondant and emotional Hal Holbrook. who invests it with a genuine and deep pathos. Your opinion of McCandless slides and slies after that point, but you cannot but help feel that it's not supposed to. The last hour or so feels hopelessly unbalanced as a result.

Also, the ending is absolutely awful and flies in the face of much of what the rest of the film has been attempting to say. Clearly this film was made with the cooperation and input of McCandless' family and perhaps this is what they truly perceived to be his 'redemtpion'. It is important to bare these things in mind when you're reviewing a biopic - this is after all about a young man's life - but it equally isn't right to ignore such issues and it certainly doesn't do justice to the film's (admirable) purpose.

So there we have it. If this review feels a little confused, I'm glad, as that reflects how I feel as I've written it. It's worth watching but just expect to have a strong opinion afterwards and to not necessarily feel entirely satisfied. I firmly believe that Penn has a great film in him. This isn't - yet - it.

B- (so the answer to that inevitable question I began by posing is nearly : )

Wanted

Ah, summer movies. Don't you just love them? No, actually I hate them. I despise the summer movie season and have barely mustered enough enthusiasm to get to the cinema more than once a month since April (summer starts early in cinema-land.) But being the UK's most loved cinema critic*, every now and again I feel I ought to get my arse into a movie theatre and watch some brainless popcorn fare, so yesterday I did.

Actually, if I'm honest I was quite looking forward to Wanted ever since I saw the trailer with Angelina Jolie dressed only in an impressive array of tattoos emerging from some sort of bath, dripping wet and looking positively stunning. And when it comes to brainless action flicks, they quite often prove to be far more satisfying than those worthy, earnest pictures that are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. There's no air of pretension here - director Timbor Bekmambetov has simply set out to film some jaw dropping action set pieces and keep the high octane plot moving so quickly you don't get chance to dwell on its ridiculousness. And if we judge a film by what it sets out to try and be rather than judging it against a standard it never aspired to, you have to give this one a pretty solid thumbs up.

Bekmambetov made his name (and what a name it is) directing Night Watch and Day Watch, 2 breathless, adrenaline filled action films that were huge in Russia, and which played pretty well overseas too. I managed 20 minutes of the incomprehensible first before bailing, however will concede that the director had a certain flair for action sequences. That flair hasn't escaped him in his first Hollywood film - in fact some of the action sequences in Wanted are as good as you'll see. There's a couple of especially brilliant scenes worthy of mention. In the first, Angelina Jolie flips her car over a police road-block, onto the side of a knocked over bus, and then drives off. In the second a train spectacularly derails off a bridge spanning two mountains either side of a huge gorge. A film can't get by on amazing CGI-enhanced action alone though (see Transformers for proof, in fact save your money and don't bother). You need some semblance of decent acting, or a decent script: preferably both. I think here they had the former rather than the latter. McAvoy is effective enough in his big Hollywood break. Jolie looks great. Freeman plays the same role that he always plays in these films. They are all effective though.

The plot however is complete crap. For the record, James McAvoy plays a complete nobody who just happens to be the son of one of the world's greatest assassins. Someone who can harness his almost superhuman power into ridding the world of bad guys as instructed by the (and I'm not making it up) the "loom of fate", which is so ludicrous it doesn't deserve further explanation. McAvoy gets drafted into to a group of assassins to replace his slain father, and embarks on a mission to avenge his death by killing the rogue assassin who killed him. Aside from the loom of fate, we have the problem of a final act involving thousands of explosive rats: surely the dumbest conceit in recent movie history.

Despite this failing, I am going to give the film a pass. Summer films are usually braindead crap and this may well be braindead and it may well be crap, but it has enough quality about it to get a half-recommendation from me. Everyone involved seems to be intent on simply making a fun, watchable action film and they pitch it just right. Wanted is very good at being what it wants to be and for my money that's far more enjoyable than seeing a film that aspires to greatness, but which comes up woefully short.

C+

*as voted by the editor of myfilmvault.com

Two more greats

Ben Kingsley

Diane Keaton

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Don't you just love it when a film comes along and exceeds all your hopes and expectations and leaves you with that wonderful trembling feeling of joy reverberating all throughout your body like a guitar string strum in the darkness of a quiet, empty, attic. This, in essence, is 2005's Me and You and Everyone We Know.

In a way, this is typical American Indie fayre and it has scooped a number of prestigous awards along the way. It tells the story of Richard (John Hawkes), a young divorcee struggling to adjust to a new life as a single parent, and Christine (Miranda July), an equally struggling artist, and a strange and intimate connection the two forge following a chance encounter. Of course, in typical Indie tradition, it's about a lot more than that too...

...Particularly kids. This film has some magical performances in by kids (particularly the excellent Brandon Ratcliff), who depict some very interesting and strange young relationships of the kind forged by young people today as they, too, struggle to cope with an ever changing and often frightening world. And yet, that's possibly the best thing about this film. It has a great lightness of touch and that message gets lost in a dynamic screen environment where the word cynicism has no possible meaning or reality. This is a film that, at times, touches on some very serious themes (including the threats, both phsyically and emotionally, faced by this generation of kids), but somehow you never know it. It has to be seen to be believed that a film can carry such strong messages without being in any way preachy. July wrote, directed and starred in this and she deserves unbelievable credit for her astonishing achievement. Contained in this, too, is by far the scene of the year, the first to be nominated by me as such. It is a sublime scene, somehow touching on the dangers of todays internet technologies whilst delivering a totally unexpected moment of sublime and unashamed joy. Perfection.

Don't get me wrong, this is not for everyone and it does have its flaws. I say that a lot. But unlike most times when I say that, this time, I've got to add that everyone should watch this and give it a try. I can readily imagine a large part of the film-watching fraternity and sorority hating this, but I'd still recommend that everyone, everyone, give it a try. You might just find joy, fun, tragedy, tears, vast vast dollops of well-judged quirkiness and, most importantly, a slice of that wonderful, amorphous, indistinguishable, thing known as life.

A-

Teeth

When will filmmakers realise that we've had enough of vaginal castration horror-comedies? However, what first time director Mitchell Lichtenstein's film lacks in originality, it makes up for by being the very best vaginal castration film I have ever seen. In fact, it makes all the other gash gnasher movies look positively inadequate by comparison.

For those that are wondering whether vaginal castration might in fact be a euphemism for something else entirely (what, I'm not sure), I'm afraid not. The film features graphic scenes of men being literally dismembered by something referred to as vagina dentata, which is exactly what you think it is: a toothed vagina.

The lucky/unlucky girl (you'll have your own view) with the affliction is a pro-abstinence teenager named Dawn. She prides herself on pledging to hold on to her virginity until her wedding day, and takes time to encourage other teens to follow her example. By following a strict adherence to complete purity, Dawn is still a stranger to her own body, which will turn out to be bad luck for a number of men because her own body really is quite strange. When she meets a new student Tobey and finds herself unable to stop dreaming of being with him, they very soon start cavorting in a lake in the woods. However, Tobey turns out not to be quite the dashing gentleman we perhaps thought, starts to quite deliberately ignore Dawn's wishes, and quickly gets what's coming to him. The castration that you know is coming is handled well, but Lichtenstein (the director, not the country) is only just warming up because we've got 3 more such scenes and they get better and better!

Lichtenstein cleverly ratchets up the black comedy with each intimate encounter, arguably saving the best 'til last. There's a particularly hilarious scene when she visits a gynaecologist, which I wouldn't do any sort of justice if I even tried to begin to describe it. Safe to say though that out of the 20 people in the theatre, 20 were laughing out loud; everyone seemed to be enjoying it immensely. This wasn't the sort of cinema experience where you're laughing at all the humour and you're wondering why no one else is.

The unenviable task of portraying the afflicted female falls to the talented Jess Weixler. Whilst she has some missteps with her portrayal here and there, this is largely a very impressive debut in a role that could scarcely have been more challenging to convince in. Support is solid without being spectacular, and if one was feeling grumpy I could focus on a few other annoyances, but it is extremely difficult to come out of this film and feel like that. It is the most unlikely subject matter to put you in a good mood but it did just that for me. Lichtenstein has poked fun at the American pro-abstinence crowd, homing in on the fervent religious nutcases that believe masturbation is a sin, children shouldn't be taught about the anatomy for fear of making them want to fornicate and that even watching kissing on TV is something to be avoided at all costs.

Teeth is a surprisingly intelligent and funny sub-horror, that is well worth 90 minutes of your time. I may see better films this year, but I'll wager I wont see a better vaginal castration movie for a fair while.

B+

MyFilmVault's Greatest...

Had this in my mind for a while but wasn't quite sure how I wanted to lay it out. Think I've solved it - I'm happy with it at least!

Over the next few weeks I will be putting together pages for our most honoured actors, actresses and directors. First up a triple bill of 3 of our most nominated men:

Tony Leung

Morgan Freeman

James Stewart

The Woods (2006)

Why, oh, why, am I constantly seduced by the idea of horror films? I think it's something akin to my colleague's unwavering optimism that a good Saw film can be, and eventually will be, made. I search high and low for quality horror only to be disappointed. So, does this fill any gaps?

Put it this way, there is a reason none of you have heard of this. This atrocious piece of filmmaking centres on a young "delinquent" girl sent to a mysterious boarding school (located, oh yes, in the middle of some eerie, haunted, woods) to be reformed. There is some absurd backstory about some witches possessing the school and the woods. Come to think of it, why did I rent this again? Should I not at least have been warned by the fact that it's directed by someone called Lucky McKee?

Anyway, it's not at all scary, there are no thrills and spills and I turned it off after an hour. I did last an hour, however, and I'm proud of that. It's atrocious, completely unfrightening tripe, which at times crosses over from the absurd to the offensive (the heroine is referred to as "firecrotch" by her bitchy classmates because she has red hair. Oh dear, oh dear.)

However, there is one truly scary and frightening thing about The Woods. Patricia Clarkson is in it. Yes, that Patricia Clarkson. The Patricia Clarkson revered by critics and the indie-film watching fraternity. Yes, the same Patricia Clarkson who acts the screen off to awesome effect in the wonderful Station Agent. And it was made in 2006, so no excuses there Patricia. I think Patricia should have taken the advice I'm about to give you:

Don't go down to the woods today!

F

All I'm saying is that it's a odd feeling watching a career end before your very eyes.

A well-respected critic talking about M Night Shyamalan's new film. Wonder what Matt, a bone fide Shyamalan fan, will make of it.

Thought of the Week #1

Thought I'd start up a 'short' new segment on an interesting issue raised in the world of film during the week. This week's inaugural effort comes courtesy of an insightful commentator on this very site - titles that can get lost in translation.

Our commentator noted that 'Lust, Caution', in translation loses a large amount of symbolic allegory from the Mandarin original and a clever play on words. The Mandarin ('Colour Ring') makes an important symbolic nod to the film's pivotal scene as well as retaining the force of what is implied in the English translation. I also happen to think Lust, Caution is one of the worst titles ever, but that's by the by.

Can anyone think of any other titles which suffer in translation? I'll kick off with two.

1. Indigenes - The Translation, Days of Glory, loses a large amount of the political force implied in the original French and reflected in the political tone and disillusionment of the film, particularly the spectacular last reel. The original French points to the isolation and huge sense of irony felt by the North African soldiers we follow during the film upon the supposed 'integration' of these men, and thousands like them, into French indigenous life following the 2nd World War and the battles over equal rights and respect for non native-born Frenchmen that followed. These men fought and died, like indigenous Frenchmen, for those (supposedly) French values of 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' but the reward for their heroic sacrifices was continuing isolation and inequality, the lot of outsiders. The huge sense of poignancy of the last scene, as the last surviving soldier sits alone, in his small room, at the end of the film is regrettably not reflected in the English translation of the title. A huge shame.

2. Okay, so if we got that one wrong, let me leave you with a spectacular failure by the French to capture the essential essence and frightening terror of one of the greatest films ever made. Jaws is called 'Les Dents de la Mer', 'The Teeth of the Sea', in French. A truly spectacular example of how such an expressive and essential title (in both sense of that word) can be so easily lost.

Lust: Caution (Se Jie) (2007)

There have been some very full and interesting reviews and comments on this on the site, so I'll (try to) keep mine brief. It may differ from the others as well.

I had been waiting for so long to see this film, having (yet again) missed it during its cinema run, it was, to be honest, beginning to enter that territory where the ache to see a film enters the protagonist into that otherworldly irrational arena of deep yearning love which, we all know, can lead to great disappointment. How many films have each of us seen which don't live up to the preconceptions we've given them in the deepest, cobwebbed, confines of our souls?

So, if I had this down, pre-viewing, as an A+, did it live up to it?

Ultimately, the answer to this is no. But this does not mean that it's a bad film. It isn't. It just isn't a great one, especially when compared to some of last year's fantastic offerings.

It was very interesting to note the NottingHillBilly's comments on the title. Very relevant indeed. I hadn't known any of that and could not agree more that something very significant has been lost, particularly, as the NHB (sorry!) points out, the scene referred to by the Mandarin title ('Colour Ring'), is easily the film's best and it's high point. The violin-bow taughtness and tension as Mr Yee (Tony Leung) and Wong Chia Chi (Wei Tang) pick out a diamond ring is almost on a par with Sonny's spectacular demise in The Godfather: Part one. Does Mr Yee meet his demise in a similar way? Well, you'll just have to watch and find out. It would certaily be no waste of anyone's time.

Reading people's comments, I cannot help reflecting that I should watch this again as my expectations could well have been too high. Although I concede that this shadowy, sinewy, film twists and turns like vines interweaved in old, crumbling, trees, it just didn't grip me in the way that it should have done and certainly in the way that it clearly aims to. That, for me, was the bottom line, but I may well watch it again and be forced to rethink my view.

I will dwell a little longer on the performances. They are spectacular. Wei Tang is magnificent and the level of torn, deserted, anguish in her eyes is, at times, too real for the viewer to imagine that she's actually watching a film. She delivers a bold, but subtly drawn, performance that anchors the film in a delicately ambianced emotional reality and takes the viewer directly into the heart of those anguished war-torn times many of us have never seen.

However, the star of the show is once again Tony Leung Chui-Wai. He will, once again, top my acting lists for a jaw-droppingly perfect performance. Leung is the kind of actor you watch and wonder why certain Hollywood types are as revered as they are. Leung has a range that surpasses all. By far. From Happy Together's lovestruck Lai Yiu-Fai (who is somehow grounded and dreamy in one breath), through Leung's two drasticly different reimaginings of Chow in In the Mood For Love and 2046 (this gap, more a chasm really, demonstrates Leung's ability more than anything else - I can't remember any one else even attempting, let alone accomplishing, something so dramatic regarding one character's development from one film to the next and the effects of what has got him there. It goes way beyond what even Pacino manages in the Godfathre films), to the bloodthirsty, sadistic torturer on show here, Leung always manages to collapse that boundary between audience and film. I'm not sure who is supposed to be among Hollywood's most revered males, it changes so frequently, but I cannot image a DiCaprio, a Clooney, a Norton, a Foxx, even playing any, let alone all, of these characters. And Leung has, of course, played many more besides. On show here, in other words, is the greatest living actor, at the very peak of his game, showing just how successfully great performing can collapse that irrepressible barrier between moving image and those lacy images of reality which ultimately inspire them. And that seems as fitting a place as any to end.

B-

I'm Back

(Real life image)

Still battling a computer that crashes every five minutes and a dodgy internet connection, I return to give you even dodgier opinions on the world of film.

Some great reviews of late, I'll try to emulate them. I'll start where my colleague points to - Ang Lee's Lust:Caution.

The Best Show on TV

Loved the 2 part season finale. 16 paltry episodes in season 4. Curse those striking writers!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

"What are you, like 80?"

Probably a wise decision for scriptwriter David Koepp to address the notion that Harrison Ford is can still trying to cut the mustard as an action star a good 20 years after he last turned out as Indy (and he wasn't exactly a spring chicken then either). Wise for two reasons: first, it's the best line in the film and Ford's reaction is spot on; second, it makes the absurd notion of a 60-something playing the action hero slightly less absurd if you add a dose of self-deprecation and humour.

Ford has been in need of a sizable hit after a string of not particularly successful releases and this, as much as anything, probably made this movie happen after years of dithering. George Lucas had approached some fine screenwriters and summarily proceeded to reject every effort: most notably those of Tom Stoppard (Shakespeare in Love) and Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption). Why then settle on David Koepp's version?

Well the element of the fantastical is obviously something that appeals to Lucas and it plays a strong part in this. Whilst the entire series has had undercurrents of mystique, this movie, more than the previous three, pushes it more to the foreground. There's also a large dose of silliness that the franchise has not really seen before - certainly not to this degree. Indy's new sidekick Mutt (Shia Lebouef) actually swings from tree to tree in unabashed Tarzan style absurdity (and what's more manages to catch up to a speeding truck). This comes seconds after we have to endure Spielberg treat us to some tree-hitting-crotch style "humour" as Mutt straddles two trucks speeding through the forest. Such nonsense hasn't been seen since the Ewoks with twigs and stones battled and defeated the Imperial force armed with real weapons.

So the real question is (to borrow a line from that other recent franchise reload) "is Ford too old for this shit?" Well things do play a little bit slowly at times. Perhaps in 20 years since Last Crusade, we've become too accustomed to the films like the Bourne trilogy or the rebranded Bond and anything that is played at normal speed seems pedestrian by comparison. Indeed in the run up to this film's release it was exactly the Paul Greengrass quick cutting style that Spielberg said he had deliberately avoided. Whilst it might not have been completely successful, I certainly like the sentiment since hyperactive editing totally ruins any action sequence for me - credit to Spielberg for not going down this route. Ironically though, it may have been more suited here than in Bourne since it may have better hidden the fact that Ford is getting on a bit and was doing his own stunts. That isn't to say it doesn't play well as it does - it's just not a home run, instead just a pretty solid base hit. Indiana Jones never has performed the hyperkinetic action sequences of the likes of Jason Bourne so if any character could continue to be played in his 60s it would be he, but at times you do feel it is a bit like action-lite.

What's never in doubt though is Ford's presence on screen and he again delivers in a role that he made his own. Ably supported by Cate Blanchett deliberately hamming it up as the Russian baddie, and a trio of Brits (Winstone, Hurt and Broadbent - in descending order of the importance) this is always engaging without ever setting your world on fire. Lebouef too is fine in his biggest role to date. After getting notices for Disturbia and Transformers last summer, he returns this year with his supporting turn here, and later on in Eagle Eye - a film that looks silly enough, but may increase Lebouef's star power if marketed correctly.

What made Indy IV a little more special for me was that the very day I saw this I saw Steven Spielberg in the flesh, completely at random, on Hollywood Blvd. If I'd seen him after the film rather than before I'd have congratulated him on a decent effort. Perhaps if I had summoned up the courage I'd have also told him to ditch George Lucas, since his influence on this franchise doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. Then again the Stoppard and Darabont screenplays may have been complete trash?! One final word - I'd much prefer to see these sort of summer blockbusters than anything in which the hero wears a cape, turns green or shoots webbing out of his wrists.

B-

Sex and the City

Someone noted in the run up to the much advertised release of the Sex and the City movie that it would be easier finding a needle in a haystack that it would be to find a straight guy eager to see this film. Well last time I checked I was both a) a guy, and b) straight, and whilst "eager" is perhaps not the most appropriate adjective to describe the feeling in that part of my brain aware of the impending release, I was admittedly quite looking forward to it.

HBOs Sex in the City aired its last episode 4 years ago and it was an unquestionably hugely successful. Smartly written and very well performed, it was a series benefiting from great casting, most notably in Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall, neither of whom had found more than limited success as actresses before Sex, and both of whom won multiple Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for their work on the series.

Costars Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davies couldn't match the charisma of the other two but both brought something to their roles and the chemistry between the four was always abundant on screen, which made the tabloid tales of infighting somewhat surprising. It was this supposed rivalry that kept the movie from happening. First mooted when the show wrapped, it has been a fairly protracted effort in bringing it to the big screen but judging by this Monday's US numbers, fans of the show have been waiting patiently and turned out in force on opening weekend.

That last episode saw Carrie and Big (and if you have no idea who Carrie and Big are you've done very well in getting this far - thanks for trying but you'll probably want to give up any time now) finally commit to a relationship with each other and the logical centrepiece for the movie was always going to be their marriage. This being 2 hours and 20 minutes as opposed to just 20, there was obviously going to be a snag along the way and you'll be hard pressed not to guess what it'll be long before the seeds of doubt are sown into the plot. Like the vast majority of the TV episodes, the film completely focuses on Carrie and, like the vast majority of the TV episodes it is all the better for it. Nixon and Davis try and give their scenes some gravitas: Nixon succeeds, Davis fails - particularly with an embarrassing "No, no" wail at Big; Cattrall rather more effortlessly makes her scenes hugely enjoyable. She was always the comic focus of the show but wasn't always quite as funny as she is here.

Seeing it in LA with a packed theatre was an experience in itself. Sitting next to my girlfriend was a very small dog who had either been smuggled in by the SITC-cast-member-wannabe or who was such a big fan of the show that he didn't want to miss the big screen version. The human members of the audience were very vocal. Whoops of delight greeted the opening credits, cheers and tears met the closing credits and generous laughter and applause lauded even the slightest of jokes. To be fair the film is successfully humorous - Samantha once again gets all the best lines, like she always has, but then Cattrall did always have the best comic timing of all the cast. A line about Samantha being last happy 6 long months ago and "that being quite good for LA" went down particularly well with the hard-bitten West Coast crowd. It was not hard to discern that the movie did everything these people were expecting and that they collectively gave it a very hearty thumbs up. I don't mind admitting I agree with their verdict.

Michael Patrick King, who writes and directs, has a surefire hit on his hands because he has essentially just filmed an extended episode of a show that was a huge success. If it ain't broke, don't fix it they say. It wasn't and he hasn't tried to. Fans of this will lap it up and everyone else will probably not watch it anyway. The opening credits serve as a "here is what you missed" for anyone dragged along but really this is quite unapologetically not a film for them. This is for those that wanted to wear the Manolo Blahniks and Jimmy Choos of the characters, to engage in adult sex talk in swanky NY clubs or to fantasise about dating rich guys who'll buy you a penthouse Manhattan apartment at the drop of a hat. Which one of those fantasies was the reason I watched? The Jimmy Choos obviously.

B