If May was the Month of Driftwood...

June will be the month of... Whatever the opposite of driftwood is...A wood? A copse? A forest? Anyway, I'll soon have the internet again and plan to post a number of things I've been working on whilst I've been internetless including my much feted "A Defence of Episodes I-III". I have now rewatched them all twice in the past year and have a lot of evidence for my defence.

One thing... I think some of the lack of activity on MyFilmVault reflects just what a shocking month May has been. Some solace has now arrived in the form of the archaeologist and also Jeff Nichols' interesting looking Shotgun Stories, which, surprise surprise, is not showing in Leicester.

"[Ron Howard ] substantiated recent rumors that he and his collaborators are hard at work trying to bring an Arrested Development movie to fruition."

The world would be a poorer place without it.

Renewed!

Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut

-- Before I lose it, I will burn it to the ground. Your holy places - ours. Every last thing in Jerusalem that drives men mad.

-- I wonder if it would not be better if you did.

There's much in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven that may be seen to portend to modern day struggles. Scott's film is set during the time between the 2nd and 3rd crusades, when Christians have seized Jerusalem as their own and Muslims fought to reclaim it. Its existence as troubled then as it is now, with battles fought with equal conviction and righteousness on either side. William Monahan's script never preaches but instead offers a few wry observations about Jerusalem and religious conflict that very clearly could equally apply today. It cleverly eschews the temptation to present one side as good and the other as evil. This is a film that, whilst features a fictitious main character, presents a balanced portrayal of a number of historical characters and events.

While other movies could so easily have portrayed the Muslims as religious fanatics, Kingdom of Heaven instead presents them as arguably the more sympathetic race. This is helped, in part, by the impeccable performances of Ghassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig. Massoud in particular, as the Muslim military leader Saladin, excels in a role that he plays with understatement. His Saladin is compassionate and thoughtful; a man who speaks with authority and intelligence. William Monahan's script nicely reveals more about his character in subtle touches like Saladin's picking up a fallen Christian cross before placing it carefully upright. One simple action does not tell us that Saladin understands more about Jerusalem, religious conflict, or humanity than anyone else, but it does reveal how Saladin is both moderate and considerate.

The Christian's are led by the dying King Baldwin (an uncredited Edward Norton) who is hidden by bandages and a mask because of his advanced rabies. Power struggles between the various Christian Knights, Lords and Templars undermine Baldwin's truce with the Muslims, a truce that is completely vanquished upon Baldwin's death. His death heralds an epic battle in which the Muslims attempt to recapture Jerusalem, which comes to be is defended by a peasant blacksmith, Balian, who only came to Jerusalem to beg forgiveness for an act of rage inthe opening minutes of the film.

This is a Ridley Scott film, so it goes without saying (though I'll say it anyway) that it is exquisitely shot. Scott handles everything from the close ups to the battle scenes with style and this director's cut unquestionably enhances the film. The theatrical release ran 145 minutes, but this 194 minute cut gives more context to some of the conflicts in the film. This is not some self-gratifying extended version that puts in a couple of reels of film we could have done without. They're essential to the story and to the film. Monahan's final draft apparently ran an incredible 260 pages - equating to over 4 hours of film. This is simply not a story that can be adequately told in just over 2 hours. We learn more about the politics, the struggles and the relationships of the principles. Motivations become clearer; people's actions are more understood because we can see the consequences.

However, there are a couple of serious flaws that not even a director's cut can overcome. I'm sorry to say that one of the things that held me back from raving about this film as much as I do Scott's other work, was the performance of Orlando Bloom. I'm afraid that it isn't any better in this extended version. He simply has not got the standing required to pull off the role. He is so badly miscast that I just can't understand how Scott could get it so wrong. This is nothing against Bloom, who seems like a thoroughly decent guy - anyone who starred in Ricky Gervais' Extras gets some large brownie points in my book, but he is badly out of his depth here.

In these sword and sandal epics, there comes a point in the film where our hero delivers a rousing speech to rally the troops. Bloom just cannot convince as someone who will light a fire that burns inside you. He doesn't strike me as someone who can inspire or motivate someone to accomplish magnificent achievements. He just has not got the gravitas for a role like this, and it doesn't matter whether he has buffed up or not. Everything else, from the voice to the delivery, is all wrong. It's not as bad as Brad Pitt's effort in Troy, but it pales into complete insignificance if stacked alongside Russell Crowe's performance in Gladiator. Comparisons may be unfair but if you are aiming for greatness, you have to put yourself up against the best. I'm afraid Bloom falls a long way short.

There are other flaws, though none as damaging. Eva Green is not particularly effective in her role as Baldwin's sister, although she fares better in the director's cut, enjoying a number of scenes that were originally left on the cutting room floor that actually (and I come back to a word I used earlier) give her character more context. Yet in the longer version she's still not very memorable and again I'll (probably unfairly) compare her to her Gladiator counterpart - and in so doing you have to say she is completely out-acted by the stunning Connie Nielsen, in a not too dissimilar role.

I've mentioned Gladiator twice now but comparisons are perfectly valid since this a genre that Scott himself reinvigorated - in fact he practically reinvented it. Gladiator is a brilliant piece of filmmaking - something beyond doubt, even if it's not a film you particularly enjoyed. Scott's directorial accomplishment on that film was magnificent but he has created a rod for his own back since it is his own film that'll be held up as the torch-bearer for any future such epic. Well Scott has made another very good film here, but one that just doesn't compare that well to its superior predecessor.

Director's Cut: B+
Theatrical Cut: B-

La Vie En Rose

This is of course the Edith Piaf biopic that saw Marion Cotillard win the Best Actress Oscar this year, the first win for an actress speaking in a foreign language for 4 decades. The win was more than deserving - it's a terrific turn in which she manages to inhabit a character so convincingly regardless of whether she's playing her in her 20s or late 40s. This may not be the stretch it sounds, but when Piaf died at the age of 48, she inhabited a body that wouldn't have been out of place in that of an 80 year old. Ravaged by arthritis, addicted to drugs, alcohol and audiences and plagued by heartache and sorrow, Piaf's turbulent last few years are hauntingly portrayed by the 34 year old Cotillard who truly gives an extraordinary performance.

So often, Oscar rewards actors for playing real people simply by doing a great impression of them. Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress but in no way shape or form did she deserve an Oscar for her extended impression, albeit a good one, of Kathryn Hepburn. The level of difficulty was tiny compared to someone having to create a character from scratch, with mannerisms a voice and an emotional complexity that no-one has seen before. However every so often Oscar get it right and their love for 'real life portrayals' isn't misguided. This is one of those times.

The film itself drew some criticism - indeed many critics suggested Cotillard carried it. I'm not totally convinced by this. The narrative is chopped up so much it's as if the script was thrown into a blender and the scenes pieced together in no particular order. Indeed it makes Alejandro González Iñárritu's films, with their characteristic timelines that whip back and forth, look positively linear. Much of this is designed to convey Piaf's disintegrating mind, where associations, memories and even dreams start to take hold of her life. She is frustrated by not being able to recall the memories she wants to, instead remembering things she'd like to forget. But is the film's structure a flaw? I'm not sure it is. It does mean that scenes that would be more poignant later on, are thrust upon us earlier, without us being able to see Piaf's startling decline. I wonder whether it would have been more effective if it had played out in a more straightforward chronology, but I don't think it is a serious flaw.

Perhaps more of a problem is that so much of Piaf life is covered, that few strands or moments can be dealt with in much detail. We flash forward or back so quickly that we never really get to spend much time in the moment. Quite momentous events in Piaf's life a fleetingly shown, and I think the film would be better had the director had not been quite so ambitious from the get go.

There is no denying however that Cotillard is far and away the best thing about the film. Her performance lands her in second place on my 2007 list, just behind Tang Wei, but on another day I could quite easily see myself reversing their spots. The film ends with a captivating rendition of Je Ne Regret Rien. It's poignant and captivating and the perfect way to end a film that may have its flaws, but one that features a star-making turn.

Be patient. It's good.

Enduring Love (2004)

After getting a good Ian McEwan fix with Atonement, I wanted more. Okay, this was on FilmFour and someone told me it was based on a book by Ian McEwan and this happened to be a couple of days after I saw Atonement but hey, who’s counting?

Sadly, this was no Atonement - the film that is. I haven't read either book and am in no place to comment on the literary merits (or otherwise) of either. I really want to read Atonement and also quite want to read this, but the film has not inspired me to head down to my local library to grab a copy.

It’s an absolutely fascinating premise which, again, suggested A+ possibilities. A couple picnicing in a field suddenly catch sight of a hot-air balloon ballooning (excuse the pun) out of control, up into the ether. Containing a small boy. With his grandfather hanging onto the anchor rope. Joe (Daniel Craig) and some other bystanders, including Jed (Rhys Ifans), attempt to come to the rescue and end up floating up heavenwards themselves. Joe and Jed and the grandfather jump but another would-be rescuer leaves it too late. Joe and Jed set out to find him but discover only his body imploded in on itself. Jed then feels an instant, spiritual, connection to Joe which grows and grows throughout the following weeks and ends up leaving Joe questioning his own sanity...

If that sounds like an interesting premise, it is. Sadly, the moment the body hits the floor and the balloon disappears into the sky, things go rapidly down hill. Essentially a story of a bizarre obsession, that obsession is left rootless and ultimately becomes deeply unconvincing to the audience. This is not helped by a below par performance from Craig, who is yet to convince me, and a poor piece of casting in Ifans, who is simply not up to the job of such a deeply unsettled and unhinged character as Jed. The chemistry between the two is poor and the film is ultimately unsatisfactory as a result. Samantha Morton, on the other hand, is typically excellent as Joe’s beleaguered girlfriend Claire. Sadly though the director does not invest enough trust in her character for the amount of screen time she gets to save the film.

A real shame as this could have been genuinely great. Sadly it just ends up being all hot air and little substance.

C+

Is In Bruges worth paying £2 to avoid?

I certainly thought so. After 30 minutes of "humour" that had all the wit and creativity of schoolyard name calling I left. Indeed schoolyard name calling might actually be wittier than calling fat people elephants then getting them to chase you, calling others "spastics" or "retarded" and then saying that someone would tip the balance like a big fat retarded black woman on a see-saw. Noel Coward-esque, I think you'll agree.

Anyway I couldn't take any more, I couldn't believe this had scored 78% on rottentomatoes, I couldn't believe that anyone in the cinema was actually laughing and so I up and left. The car park was free to exit after 8pm. I left at 7.15 and think it the best £2 I've spent this week.

Atonement (2007)

I have to say, I was surprised by this one. Very surprised. Okay, I didn’t expect it to be awful, but I didn’t expect it to blow me away either. But it did.

It’s a little difficult to describe the plot without giving the game away but here’s a taster. Essentially a love story which has to endure a misunderstanding with horrendous consequences, the film charts the lives of Robbie (James McAvoy) and Cecilia (Keira Knightley) as they attempt to get back to one another. I shouldn’t say any more.

The set-up, the first half an hour to forty minutes or so, is superb, faultless, film-making, with the possible exception that the audience is left in no doubt about some things it might have been better to leave them in doubt about. It then loses its way before ending everything pitch-perfect and allowing the tears to flow.

I don’t like, nor have I ever liked, Keira Knightley. I find her performances typically hollow and unconvincing. Not here though. She’s not top five for 2007 quality (or most other years for that matter) but she delivers a performance that is certainly noteworthy, although she is upstaged by the excellent Saorise Ronan, who plays the jealous, confused, spiteful, younger sister to perfection. Although there’s more for Ronan to play with and the character has much more to her than Knightley’s, the delivery is excellent and well worthy of a top five finish.

I do like, and have long liked, James McAvoy but felt a bit like he didn’t have much to do here. Although I didn’t find the two lead characters all that challenging, the chemistry between them was again, pitch-perfect, especially in the first act which fizzles and cracks like electric summer thunder. It’s a shame this wasn’t quite sustained. If it had have been there was definite A+ quality in the material and the staging. It’s not quite there but it’s not far away either and I can certainly see myself returning to it and I don’t normally say that for films like this. This had something about it, that great, indefinable, quality that lingers long in the mind, put there by a quality film’s sinewy tangles, threads and mysteries.

Recommended.

A-

Hallam Foe

Jamie Bell is certainly one of the best young actors working today. Since his breakout in Billy Elliot 9 years ago, which won him a BAFTA at the age of 14, he has gone on to star in 9 films. The three big projects, a Peter Jackson remake, Clint Eastwood war film and a Doug Liman sci-fi film are all interesting choices, even if I'm not a fan of any of them. His smaller, independent choices seem similarly thoughtful, even if some are more successful than others. Undertow is probably the best film on his resume, aside from that breakout debut and I though it a very decent effort. Indeed my colleague rates the film considerably higher than that and Bell, and the film, land on his 2004 year end list.

Bell's latest film sees him star as the title character in Hallam Foe, who lives in a tree-house, wears his dead mother's make-up and clothes and demonstrates difficulty or an unwillingness to accept the that his mother has gone, and that his father is engaged with to a much younger woman. Hallam also has problems with social interaction although one suspects these were present before his mother died.

This is a coming of age story that features a main character with a clear past (credit to screenwriter David Mackenzie), and exhibits quirks not just for the sake of being quirky, but for believable and sometimes touching reasons. Very few young actors can boast the feat of being able to carry a film single-handedly. Bell is one of them and he has again proved it here.

B

Shine A Light

To fully hammer home the dramatic impact of the world's best group playing on a screen taller than 5 double-decker buses stacked one on top of each other, Martin Scorsese, a lifelong Stone fan who conceived and documented the film, decides to precede the concert footage with an 11 minute introduction that takes place on about a 6th of the full IMAX screen. After that short black and white intro: bam: Jagger and co are out on stage in all their 60 foot tall glory, blaring out Jumping Jack Flash on a digital sound system that is just stunning.

Jagger works a crowd better than anyone and the wow factor of the energy he brings to the stage is never diluted, no matter how many times you've seen it. You see it on the reaction shots of those in the front rows - helpless grinning, everyone in awe of a showman who basically careers over every inch of the stage like a complete nutter. That infectiousness transcends from the Beacon theatre in New York to the IMAX in London and, whilst nothing can quite match seeing them live, this was very very close to the real thing.

The old standards sounded great but it was a couple of the lesser known tracks (at least I hadn't been aware of them) that were amongst the most satisfying. Everyone in the band seemed to enjoy playing She Was Hot - Jagger's interaction with the backing singers was brilliant. Watts, Richards and Wood all kill it - it's I think the 3rd track in but it played like the last encore; they leave everything out there and it is quite brilliant. Other highlights included Jagger's duet with Jack White on Loving Cup and a terrific Faraway Eyes which sees Wood enjoying playing a pedal steel (no I hadn't a clue what one was either) and Richards and Jagger delivering lyrics with comic flair.

I don't know enough about music or even the Stones to compare this to other tours, other eras or other bands. What I do know is that I spent so long smiling, my jaw ached; people in the theatre were enjoying it so much they were giving their own secret rounds of applause after each song; and that I have an urge to see them play again right now.

Scorsese is quite clearly a huge fan who has used their music in many of his films as background music or even in place of a traditional score, as he did with his frequent use of Gimme Shelter in The Departed (sadly they didn't have that great song on their setlist here). What he's achieved here is a captivating look at an amazing band on one amazing night. Songs are interspersed with archive footage, carefully selected for insight or comic value. He and his team must have pored over hundreds of hours of news items and interviews to get what they wanted. Scorsese has cut together a brilliant film that is essential for any Stones fan, and highly recommended for everyone else. The last shot with which Scorsese closes the film is quite brilliant too.

A

Movie Years Awards Redux

Some belated Movie Years Awards for last year. Matt has finally awoken from his film coma and supplied me with his finalised year end award lists. Very interesting reading they are too, especially his left-field choice for Best Actor! Check them out here.

I've also rejigged my side of the page as well. Having bought on DVD and rewatched my original #1 and #2 choices for last year (The Lookout and Michael Clayton), I've decided Michael Clayton should get the numero uno spot. The Lookout actually drops down a couple of notches. It doesn't quite play as well second time around. It's still a terrific film, but it has a couple of flaws that hold it back from being the best of the year. I still absolutely adore the A+, 10/10 score by James Newton Howard though. Joseph Gordon-Levitt also falls off my Best Actor list, allowing room for Casey Affleck, who I was actually going to put in for Tony Leung anyway. Now they're both there.

Random American Idol Post

At risk of revealing how sad I am, I watch American Idol. I tend to watch it on the internet and edit it quite heavily if that makes me any less sad?! Probably not, but anyway - there is a reason I am posting this confession. There's a very decent contestant this year called David Cook. This is his version of Mariah Carey's Always Be My Baby. It's excellent.

Oh and by the way I once had dinner with Ryan Seacrest, which is to say I didn't have dinner with him at all, but he was on the very next table to me once in Nobu.

The track is audio only - sorry about the rubbish photo. Very interested in getting Matt's opinion of this. I suspect he loves the original version too much to enjoy this (< /joke>).

More Short Reviews

Music Box

Costa-Gavras is a director of some repute who I have to admit I'd not heard of until recently. He is best known for directing politically charged films, including Z and Missing, both of which won Oscars and were nominated for multiple awards. I rented Missing recently largely because Jack Lemmon starred and received an Oscar nomination for his work in it. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture and obviously was well received at the time. I found it rather dull and Lemmon, and indeed fellow nominee Sissy Spacek, have done much better work elsewhere.

The same can be said in discussing Music Box. Jessica Lange was the recipient of an Oscar nominee for her work in this but it really isn't award worthy. She plays a lawyer whose father is accused of war crimes, and takes on the case to defend him only to learn things aren't as straight forward as they appear. Lange is fine, she breaks down in tears at one point and fights with her father but at no time did I think Lange was doing something extraordinary. Perhaps her character just wasn't interesting enough. Perhaps she hasn't the screen presence needed. Perhaps the story just wasn't gripping enough. Whatever the reason, Music Box didn't hit the right notes. C+

Love Story

According to some reports, and adjusting for inflation, Love Story is one of the highest grossing films of all time. Okay it's not in the league of Star Wars or Gone With the Wind. I'm talking top 40 rather than top 5, but even so, being amongst the top 40 highest grossing films of all time is quite something, especially when the movie was shot for just $2 million. For that sort of budget, being in the top 40 grossing films of the year would have probably been quite an achievement, but this is truly outstanding. The film was a bit of a phenomenon, as well as the incredible box office gross, it went on to secure multiple Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Actor and Actress. Incredible. So surely the film is totally captivating? Not even close.

Maybe it's aged badly. Maybe it just wasn't that good in the first place. Maybe I'm a cynical, hard to please bastard. Or maybe spending 90 ultra dialogue-heavy minutes with two infuriating, totally unrealistic individuals who have about as much charm as a particularly uncharming traffic warden just isn't for everyone. The leads, Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw went on to have startlingly dreadful careers for two Oscar nominated newcomers. O'Neal has starred in nothing of note and racked up an impressive 6 Razzie nominations since, which I think is rather more reflective of the quality of work in Love Story than an Oscar nomination. A bit unfair perhaps, because his performance is certainly not awful, but it is an insult to anyone who's been nominated for an Oscar to see a performance of such blandness being nominated alongside them. MacGraw's post Love Story career is even worse than O'Neal's, although she doesn't have the Razzie noms to boast of. A 14 episode stint on Dynasty is just about the highlight. 1970 must have been a poor year at the movies for such banality to find itself grossing over $100 million and scoring Oscar nominations in 7 categories.

If you want a plot summary, two irritating college students fall in love, spend some time being ungrateful, churlish and rude to his parents, get married before "tragedy" befalls them. It's described as one of the greatest "weepies" of all time. You can probably guess what happens. I lasted 50 minutes then watched the rest on fast forward, playing the DVD only when the great Ray Milland was on screen. D

Curb Season 6

I was a sad young man on tuesday night as it was the last one in the series of Season 6 of - I would say - the best Curb yet. Hilarious from start to finish. It also introduced Leon, one of my favorite comedy characters of all time. The chemistry between him and Larry was pitch-perfect. Genius. Favorite line whilst they were discussing a fake mugging:

"I'll fuck you up Larry."

Doesn't sound funny on it's own. But, trust me, the scene was just about perfect. The whole damn series was just about perfect. And the last episode? Well, that was perfect.

Please please make series 7

Slow Movie Month

It really is. Just thought I'd reinforce the point. There has been nothing that has even remotely captured my interest for weeks. Really want to see The Orphanage but, surprise surprise, it's not on in Leicester!! Maybe Son of Rambow will be next for me.

Have seen quite a few things on DVD. Need to catch up with reviews.

Il Postino

Not sure I've used the adjective 'lovely' to describe a film before but there's nothing else that seems more appropriate. The elegant, simple story, the wonderful setting, the restrained, subtle and superb performances make this a really enjoyable experience. It's a great film that does so much with so little.

The title character is played by Massimo Troisi, who died just two weeks after filming ended. It's a dreadful shame that he never got to see how successful the film, and in particular his performance was. He received posthumous nominations at the Oscars, BAFTAs and Screen Actors Guild awards. All were completely deserved.

Massimo is Mario Ruopollo, a simple villager living on a beautiful Italian island in the 1950s. When a famous Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda (an excellent Philip Noiret), is exiled on the island the postmaster places an ad for a postman solely to deal with the poet's mail, an ad Mario applies for and accepts despite the offering of a wage described as a "pitance".

Mario has no care for money and takes the job principally to meet a man whose poetry he becomes captivated by. He sets about befriending the poet in his own understated, slightly awkward way. The two become close, with Mario inventing metaphors with Pablo's help - metaphors he will use to try and win the heart of the most beautiful girl in the village.

Il Postino was made for just $3 million. It went on to gross $75 million worldwide, including $20 million at the US box office. It was nominated for 5 Oscars, including Best Picture. It won the Oscar for Best Score.

Every success afforded this delightful film is no more than it deserves. It relies on nothing more than exceptional characterisation, realised by truly gifted actors, the principle being Troisi whose death just after filming is a real tragedy. How wonderful though that he left behind a piece of work that will unquestionably be remembered for many years to come.

A-

The Bank Job

Can you tell the quality of a movie from the trailers that play before it? Generally I can't stand watching trailers and aim to turn up to a film about a minute or two before the opening credits role. However you can't always time it right and I sometimes get there too early and have to sit through previews of films I either don't want spoiled in any way, or films that I have zero interest in seeing.

Before Roger Donaldson's The Bank Job we had trailers for:

The Eye - an unconvincing blind Jessica Alba undergoes an eye transplant and starts seeing things. The trailer asks us if we can believe our own eyes if they are not our own. I think the answer is yes, unless your trapped inside a stupid horror film.

21 - the film about the MIT students who took on Vegas at Blackjack. Good story, lousy looking film.

Never Back Down - whose title I think says it all.

Street Kings - Keanu Reeves plays a cop struggling to overcome a plot that looks like the sort of thing we've seen done before. Many times.

It seemed the sort of crowd that the distributors were expecting was easily pleased and not particularly discerning, so when the main attraction started I wasn't exactly hopeful. However this adaptation of a true story is actually pretty entertaining.

Jason Statham is not someone whose films I look out for but he's not someone I'd refuse to watch either. He's effective enough in this as the car dealer who is approached, indirectly, by MI5 to rob a bank in order to recover some sensitive photographs of a member of the royal family. The twist being that he doesn't realise that's what he's organising - he thinks it's a straight-forward bank robbery. Statham assembles a motley crew of slightly irritating East End wannabe gangsters and gets to work on digging a tunnel through to the floor of the vault.

Donaldson is an effective director and London is presented fairly nicely in retro-fashion, which adds a little bit of interest. The are problems. The robbery is not particularly gripping or ingenious, like it was for example in Rififi. There aren't any characters that keep you glued to the screen, like there were for example in Sexy Beast. It's simply a decently put together film, decently acted with a decent script but little that stands out as excellent. Perhaps the only stand out in fact is David Suchet as a sleazy, evil porn baron. It's the one noteworthy performance in the movie.

The Bank Job is not something you should try and see on the big screen. It'll work perfectly well on your TV, but is is certainly an above average piece of work that'll hold your interest throughout. C+

One Minute Bad Reviews

That is to say these are all reviews of bad films rather than bad reviews. Maybe they're both. And of course when I say they are bad films, what I really mean is that they are alleged masterpieces or at least quite highly regarded. I just didn't like them...

The Seven Samurai

It is no secret that I can't stand the pained expressions and histrionics of the style of acting that characterised Japanese cinema in and around the 1950s. Actors of the era performed with the idea of emulating the Noh form of theatre where actors wore masks. Their facial expressions are designed to appear mask-like but it just ruins the film for me and this is one of the worst examples. I tried watching this before but gave up after 20 minutes. This time I stuck with it but didn't particularly enjoy it. I really don't see the hallmarks of a masterpiece here. It is needlessly long - scenes are painfully extended with the director cutting to face after face to see the same sort of reaction. There's one quite elderly guy (possibly Yohei) who looks like he's about to cry every single time he's on screen and it is infuriating. Not my cup of sake at all. D

Radio Days

I've been on a Woody Allen role of late with Hannah and her Sisters, and The Purple Rose of Cairo cracking the A+ barrier and Zelig and Broadway Danny Rose also faring very well. This however didn't do it for me. There are a couple of wry observations in Allen's semi-autobiographical look at the end of the golden era of radio, but it doesn't have the engrossing characters or plot nor is it consistently funny enough to hold one's interest. C

The Ladykillers

This is the British comedy of 1955 that was remade by the Coens a few years ago to little success. Judging by the original though they were hampered by the source material. A gang of would be crooks plan a bank raid from the home of an old woman who they lodge with, pretending to be classical musicians. It's not very funny, it's not very well acted (yes even Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers can be off their game) and it's so low budget that consecutive shots in the same scene look as though they were filmed in different seasons. One minute it's brilliant sunshine, then we cut to a reaction shot and it appears overcast. All the interior shots are appallingly lit and the whole thing just doesn't hold together very well, with scenes badly strung together, badly edited and even the simplest of action sequences having no coherence. D

The Grapes of Wrath

Another alleged masterpiece another bad grade from me. Maybe I'm just not in a very charitable mood of late, I guess after such a spectacular year in the cinema my expectations are sky high. This though doesn't come close to its Best Picture nominated billing. John Ford won Best Director ahead of Alfred Hitchcock, whose Rebecca won Best Picture and must have directed itself. This was in the days of Picture/Director splits being very rare. Hitchcock never won an Oscar despite deserving at least 3 and the decision to reward Ford here was a strange one. The film doesn't hold up well although I suppose at the time, a young Henry Fonda starring in a very American epic (an adaptation of a pulitzer prize winning Steinbeck novel no less) was the sort of thing that went down well. They should have gone with the Brit though since his film was far more accomplished and the direction in Rebecca is exemplary. The Grapes of Wrath just did not hold my interest at all. Maybe the novel works better. D

Slow Movie Month

The post-Oscar season is always a slow one in terms of new films. There's nothing of any quality released since all the decent films came out in order to qualify for awards consideration. I've not been to the cinema in over a month (shocking!) and there's not even anything around that looks like it might be a decent guilty pleasure. I may try and catch The Bank Job before it disappears and maybe The Orphanage looks half-decent.

So apologies for lack of posts. I should be catching up on films on DVD to fill this void. I've seen a couple so I'll get some reviews up this weekend. In the mean time it is only 2 weeks until the Rolling Stones/Martin Scorsese film Shine a Light comes out on IMAX. I can't wait.

Modern Classics

#2 The Talented Mr Ripley

With the sad passing of Anthony Minghella yesterday I decided it was about time to do another extended review of a recent film that I believe to be near perfect in every way. You can find the first entry in this series here.

The Talented Mr Ripley starts at the very end of the film with a voice over that gives us a glimpse into the tortured mind of Tom Ripley. "If I could just go back. If I could rub everything out. Starting with myself. Starting with borrowing a jacket." As he delivers this briefest of prologues, Ripley's face is revealed, one shard at a time, each one symbolising the many different facets to his character. The movie's title is revealed on screen with the word "Talented" being last in a string of adjectives that flash up in turn, including Mysterious Lonely Confused Haunted and Passionate. Matt Damon is handed the unenviable task of portraying every single one of them over the 133 minutes if the film.

The jacket that Ripley mentions in the opening voiceover is a friend's, who he substitutes for during a musical performance overlooking Central Park. Among the very well off guests are Emily and Herbert Greenleaf, who spot the Princeton emblem on the borrowed jacket and comment on how he must have known their son Dickie, who also attended the University. Out of embarrassment Ripley doesn't correct their error and from this initial misunderstanding, Ripley soon agrees to travel to Italy to persuade Dickie, who is enjoying southern Italy at the expense of his father, to return home to New York and do something more worthwhile.

The opening exchanges fly by in a matter of minutes but so much is established here in terms of plot and characterisation that you imagine that Minghella (who wrote the screenplay) must have condensed scores of pages of the novel into just a few brief minutes on screen. Scenes are short, sharp but packed with insight and detail. Ripley is shown in the washroom brushing down the jackets of guests at a classical concert and is then seen playing on the main stage at 1.30am before a caretaker turns on the lights to stop him. In these two scenes, which take seconds, we understand that Tom Ripley is a nobody, yearning to be a somebody. There's no exposition here, the audience aren't treated as idiots with a Ripley voiceover telling us what we can see on screen. We understand Ripley wants to be someone. It may be for this reason that he introduces himself to an American tourist, Meredith Logue (Cate Blanchett), as Greenleaf at an Italian dock. It may also be, as the Greenleaf chauffeur puts it, that "the Greenleaf name opens a lot of doors".

Once in Italy, Ripley sets his sights on ingratiating himself with Dickie (Jude Law) and his girlfriend Marge Sherwood (Gwyneth Paltrow) by convincing Dickie he knew him at Princeton and pretending to be huge fan of Jazz since Dickie is obsessed by it. In no time at all Tom befriends the couple and is invited by Dickie to stay at his apartment.

I remember just prior to The Talented Mr Ripley's release in 1999 that Anthony Minghella was telling the press that "the whole world will be at Jude Law's feet" when they see the film. To this day it probably remains his most perfect role. Dickie is the carefree playboy who oozes confidence and a magnetism that has everyone enraptured. As Marge puts it to Tom later in the film "When you've got his attention you feel like you're the only person in the world." Law captures this perfectly.

Yet for this to be convincing those around him have to be faultless as well and Damon and Paltrow also deliver turns that should be regarded as highly as Law's was. When Dickie plays sax at a Jazz club early in the film, and invites Ripley on stage to sing along, there's a delight on Ripley's face that perfectly illustrates what Marge's point. They sing Tu vuo' fa' L'americano on stage and Damon doesn't take his eyes of Law for even a split second. It's perfect choices like that that build characterisation and help the viewer completely understand these characters.

The other side of Marge's illustration of the world of Dickie this that while you have his attention "it's like the sun shines on you and it's glorious, then he forgets you and it's very very cold." Everyone in the film feels the cold shoulder of Dickie at one point or another, but none feel the pain that this brings as intensely as Tom, not even Marge. Dickie suggests that Tom should return home once he can no longer pay his way, and after Tom suggests he return in the new year under his own steam, Dickie rebuffs the idea, saying instead that he'll be moving in with Marge. An argument ensures in which Tom cracks open Dickie's skull with the end of an oar. It's a beautifully filmed scene withe Tom and Dickie aboard a small motor boat floating in the middle of the pristine bay of San Remo - the water as intensely blue as the cloudless sky.

We cut to the same location minutes, maybe hours later. As Minghella puts it in his script: 'The boat rocks, gently, the sun sparkling indifferently on the waves. Ripley lies by Dickie in the bottom of the boat, in the embrace he's always wanted.'

Jude Law's absence from the rest of the film is, incredibly, not felt at all as the tension mounts with every lie Ripley tells to the police, to Marge and to Dickie's family as Ripley keeps everyone at arm's length, trying to conceal what has happened to him. Tom passes himself off as Ripley, withdrawing money with his passport and checking into hotels, in order to create the illusion that Dickie is still alive.

Suspicions grow, particularly a friend of Dickie's: Freddie Miles, played by the impeccable Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman makes a brilliant entrance earlier in the film: "Don't you want to fuck every woman you see. Just once,". Freddie Miles is not quite the playboy Dickie is, but certainly has the confidence and the swagger and sees through Ripley straight away, sneering at him when he reminds Dickie not to forget to catch the 8 o-clock train.

In the best scene in the film Miles pays a visit to what he's been told is Dickie's apartment, only to find Tom there and Dickie nowhere in sight:

FREDDIE
Did this place come furnished? It doesn't
look like Dickie. Horrible isn't it? - so
bourgeois.

Now he's poking at the Hadrian bust.

RIPLEY
You should watch that!

FREDDIE
In fact the only thing which looks like
Dickie is you.

RIPLEY
Hardly.

FREDDIE
Have you done something to your hair?

Ripley starts to smile, his eyes darting around the room.

RIPLEY
Freddie, do you have something to say?

FREDDIE
I think I'm saying it.

And the thing is he is saying it: in every word, in every gesture, in every disparaging look.

Damon's perfect here too and completely shines in scenes where Ripley is confronted by someone. He's note perfect when being accused by the police in Venice, and again when confronted by Marge back in Rome. Marge finds Dickie's rings, which he had promised to never remove, amongst Tom's possessions. He tries to convince her of an innocent explanation but fails and loses his towel in the process. He returns to the bathroom, scrabbles around for some sort of weapon, which he secretes in the pocket of a bathrobe and again tries to convince Marge of a reason for him having the rings.

Tom desperately tries to persuade Marge that Dickie gave the rings to him, with such intensity that he doesn't notice he's gripping so hard on the razor that he cuts his hand open. Blood drips from his robe. Marge is retreating all the time as he advances, eager to appear sincere and sympathetic, but actually appearing more ominous and calculating. Marge is seemingly the only person in the world who knows the truth and as she backs away from him, her face reveals terror, devastation and pure hatred in equal measure. Paltrow is absolutely breathtaking here she responds with "I don't believe a single word you've said" and it's astonishingly convincing. The scene ends with another a friend of Marge's, Peter Smith Kinglsey, arriving at the front door. Marge, terrified, screams and sobs into his arms.

I would go so far as to say that this film contains the very best performances in the careers of Jude Law, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon. All are sensationally gifted actors, amongst the very best of their generation and they all given note-perfect turns in Minghella's film. Credit to a director who not only had the foresight to bring such talent together, but to get the very best out of them. Paltrow, Hoffman and Blanchett are all Oscar winners, Law and Damon both nominees but I truly believe their work here is better than anything they've done since, and all have done some pretty amazing work -it's just that they're so good here that it eclipses anything else.

The film ends with Ripley destined to get away with the murder of Dickie but cursed to a life of loneliness. His chance at happiness with Peter Smith Kinglsey is vanquished when Meredith Logue runs into Ripley, who's on a cruise with Kinglsey, as he watches the sunset. I'm coming across as way too obsessed with this film here, but Matt Damon's line reading is just unbelievably good. Meredith calls out "Dickie" for she only knows Ripley by that name several times. He turns in disbelief greeting her with "Hello Meredith" - his voice filled with anguish and desperation. When she points out that she's traveling with family he knows at once that there is only one way out. Peter knows him as Ripley. Meredith knows him as Dickie. Peter and Meredith know each other. Someone has to go, and it can't be the one traveling with family in tow. His cries as he strangles Peter play over a closing shot of Ripley as he sits on his bed, staring blankly as the film closes with the exact shot with which it opens.

Anthony Minghella created a breathtaking film. It is stylish captivating and beautiful, featuring wonderful cinematography a haunting score and as detailed and thoughtful a screenplay as you could wish to see. Quite clearly the source novel is a brilliant piece of writing but Minghella's adaptation is simply perfect. He brings to life an array of characters that are vivid and dynamic. They evolve over the course of the film, none more so than the Mysterious Yearning Secretive Sad Lonely Troubled Confused Loving Musical Gifted Intelligent Beautiful Tender Sensitive Haunted Passionate and Talented Mr Ripley. Matt Damon plays every facet of his incredibly complex character to absolute perfection. It's just one of a number of world class performances that are realised in Minghella's masterpiece.

A+

Juno (2007)

Okay, so I know that it has become trendy and cool to say that you like and 'get' this film. I don't know if I 'get' it, I think and hope I do, but I certainly like it. In fact, I more than like it. I love it.

I am actually surprised to be sitting here saying that. The film never really took my fancy and even when I did agree to go, I expected nothing greater than a jolly, quirky, light piece of afternoon fare. Not so.

Well, it is all these things. In places, it's a film with a soul lighter and more full of grace than air and it's certainly quirky, with a masterful performance by Ellen Page delivering that aspect to such great effect. It's also so much more than all this, though, and the film is simply littered with great, genuine, characters, who are as ordinary as any I've ever seen on screen, with the possible exception of the late Roy Scheider in Jaws.

That last sentence should point to what a complement this is. Nothing is more difficult to portray than ordinary. Most characters are just that, characters. Some, of course, are deeper than others, many hued, and full of emotion, but so few surpass that to portray the humanity we see before our eyes everyday, a humanity it is so difficult, if not impossible, to bottle. It is to Juno's vast credit that it is a film flooded with performances that take its protagonists to such a level. This is particularly the case with J.K. Simmons' masterful (and I do not use that term lightly) turn as Juno's Dad and Alison Janney's similar effort as her stepmum. They simply do not get enough screentime, though, in fairness, that is more forgivable in a film of this nature than it often is. Olivia Thirlby is also great as Juno's friend Leah. The one slightly less satisfactory effort is Michael Cera as the superbly named Paulie Bleeker. Cera has much work to do to leave the large shadow of George Michael Bluth behind and this performance sailed very close indeed to that wind. I haven't yet mentioned Jennifer Garner and Jason Batemen who are both perfectly cast in roles that end up lending that vital extra dimension to the film that, ultimately, makes it so damn good...

...Their relationship also ends up providing the film's best scene, truly one of those rare and beautiful moments which stay with you long after you've left the stale popcorn smell and stained carpets of the Leicester Odeon. Perfectly pitched and delivered. I have no shame at all in admitting that I cried like I haven't cried for a while.

I know this is a review of Juno but I can't help ending by echoing my colleague's comments about 2007 as a whole as this will be the last film I'll see at the cinema from 2007. It has been a great year, and I've still got many - potential - treats (American Gangster, Into the Wild and others) waiting for me on DVD. Fantastic. So that's an...

A+

For Juno.

Has any film year ever produced three A+ films for a single person before? Well, dear readers, you'll just have to re-read our lists to find out. Unbelievable. And 2008 has delivered another one already.

I'm in dreamland.

2007 completed list to follow soon. Where will Juno - and its protagonists - find themselves?

Anthony Mingella

At 1.35 today I heard the shocking news that Oscar winning director Anthony Minghella had died at the age of 54. He was a director whose work I looked forward to every year and his death is very sad not only for his family and friends, but also for an industry that will never again be touched by his immense talent. By way of tribute, rather than look at a career retrospective, which is certainly warranted with such films as the 9 time Oscar winner The English Patient, multiple Oscar nominee Cold Mountain and 2006's absorbing Breaking and Entering, I'll concentrate on what I believe to be his best work: The Talented Mr Ripley. The extended review will appear tomorrow.

Laura Linney

The daily poll on IMDb is which Laura Linney performance is your favourite of this deacde. Tragically the biggest vote-getter is the answer that basically says I've no idea who she is.

That's a real shame since she constantly delivers outstanding work. She features on my Movie Years awards 3 times, winning for her terrific turn in You Can Count On Me, which doesn't even make the top 5, as shown here...

I am not that familiar with Linney's work. 1991 (17.7%)
Sarah in Love Actually 1949 (17.4%)
Annabeth Markum in Mystic River 1173 (10.5%)
Joan Berkman in The Squid and the Whale 889 (7.9%)
I don't have an opinion here. 827 (7.4%)

For those that haven't, go rent You Can Count On Me and see not only a terrific film but one of the best female performances of the last 10 years. Stunning.

Slow Movie Week

Little bit addicted to this...

There Will Be Blood (2007)

This is a strange film. In all honesty, it's difficult to know how to judge it but I'll give it my best shot.

I must confess that I've been looking forward to this as much as any other film this entire calendar year. It did leave me feeling disappointed, as I was expecting pure excellence, but I'll try to be as impartial as possible.

The story centres (and I do mean centres) on oil baron Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) who will seemingly stop at nothing to see his empire grow and grow. But when Plainview's lust for fortune takes him to the town of Little Boston, California, in the second decade of the 20th century, he comes into conflict with the town's church and preacher (played by a very off kilter Paul Dano), his own family, and, ultimately, with himself.

To say this is Daniel Day Lewis' film is something of an understatement. He is in every scene, certainly every scene of note, bar one. His performance is so outstanding that the character eats up every moment with sublime force and power. A truly tour-de-force performance if ever there was one, Day Lewis brilliantly depicts a highly complex and dynamic character, who has so much going on inwardly and psychologically, it is difficult to depict, even in a (near) three hour film. Despite my snooty denunciation of the Oscars the other day, it is hard not to call Day Lewis a worthy winner. He is. But will he win the Matt nomination for male performance of the year 2007? You'll just have to wait until Friday, until I've seen the final film still on at the cinema on my 2007 radar, to find out.

The main problem with all this is the complete lack of support for Day Lewis. Yes, there's Paul Dano, who is good at times and I really must emphasise at times because at other moments it feels like he's some terrible child actor auditioning for the college play and failing to be cast. His line delivery is, at times, that bad. This is ultimately a great shame, as an otherwise interesting character is lost somewhere in Dano's unconvincing delivery. The ending particularly suffers in relation to this. Dano aside, the only other performance worthy of note is Dillon Freasier, who is good as Day Lewis' son, H.W. Plainview. For a film with designs on 'epic', this is ultimately unsatisfactory and it is an aspect of the film that falls a little flat, detracting from the overall feel.

Yet, and despite the near 3 hour running time, this is, at no point, a difficult watch. The character is interesting enough, and Day Lewis' performance captivating enough, to maintain a firm hold on the viewer's attention. It is also a further testament to Day Lewis. The film would have hugely suffered in lesser hands. The cinematography, by Robert Elswit, is also excellent and a shot of an oil rig burning against the deep California night sky lingers long in the memory.

I think that final judgement will have to be reserved for a second watch and it says enough that I am looking forward to watching it again, at some point. Though it in no way leaves you hankering for more in the manner of The Assassination of Jesse James or (the very different) Cloverfield, to name two recent examples which have succeeded in drawing me in deeper.

Flawed but well worth a watch. Day Lewis' performance just demands to be up in lights and is truly worthy of the entry fee alone.

B+

What They're Up To Next

With the Oscars now well and truly behind us, and some analysts looking forward to next year's race (Reservation Road is my tip), MyFilmVault are looking at where are lucky Oscar winners are headed next. Obviously we expect all readers to ensure they've seen their Oscar winning work first...

The Coens (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay)

Burn After Reading

On my top 10 Most anticipated for 2008, this sees the Coens back in the comedy game with George Clooney cast alongside Brad Pitt. Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormund and John Malkovich complete an impressive cast. Critics will be worried that this sees the Coens return the lighter and not altogether successful fare of the likes of Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. I happen to be a big fan of the former though and Clooney is of course a living legend so I can't see any potential pitfalls. Now watch it bomb.

Daniel Day Lewis (Best Actor)

Ruining my column (selfish) Daniel Day Lewis is rather choosy about his projects having made just 3 films since the turn of the millennium. He is well known for other, often quirky, interests and may well put his feet up at least in the acting sense for a while before committing to another picture.

Marion Cotillard (Best Actress)

Public Enemies

Rather excitingly, Cotillard has been cast in this Michael Mann's project. Unsurprisingly (for Mann), Public Enemies is listed on IMDb as a crime/drama which tells us little, but costars Christian Bale and Johnny Depp tell us quite a lot more. Both have a pretty good track record with their choices (the horrible Pirates of the Caribbean sequels notwithstanding) and, although Mann can be hit and miss, his films are always ones to keep an eye on.


Javier Bardem (Best Supporting Actor)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This looks a little dicey. Not only does it have the worst title in recent memory, it's a Woody Allen film which these days can mean anything from brilliant (Match Point), to distinctly average (Scoop) although I think it is fair to say his latest films are more the latter. Bardem stars alongside Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz so all may not be lost but I fear this one may be one to avoid.


Tilda Swinton (Best Supporting Actress)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Limits of Control

We'll gloss over the Narnia sequel (zzzzzzzzzzzz) and ignore what seems to be a supporting turn that she's set to deliver in the aforementioned Burn After Reading and focus on two very exciting looking projects. The first is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - another film on my 2008 preview. It's David Fincher's new one and stars Brad Pitt as a man who ages backwards. Fincher rarely puts a foot wrong and this is being talked up as one to look out for. Her other project is The Limits of Control which perhaps sounds even more exciting. Slated as a 2009 release, Jim Jarmusch tackles a (according to IMDb) crime/drama/thriller. I loved Jarmusch's Broken Flowers and it'll be really interesting to see him take on a completely different genre. It also features an unvbelievably great cast as well, with Bill Murray, John Hurt and Gael Garcia Bernal joining Swinton, which I dare say is even more exciting than the pant-wettingly exciting ensembles listed above.

Rambo

Arriving in cinemas with its much publicised 236 body kill-count in a meagre 91 minutes of running time (that's 2.59 kills per minute) Rambo is the 4th entry in the franchise that started with First Blood in 1982 - a movie that featured a kill count of zero and was actually fairly highly respected.

This is of course absolute nonsense. No one's going to watch it for great dialogue, great acting or anything resembling originality. This is murder-porn which may very well be the new form of torture-porn, a sub-genre that became popular with the increasingly absurd, disgusting and atrocious Saw franchise and Eli Roth's two (despicable) Hostel films.

If torture-porn is repugnant (which is is) then why am I going to give murder-porn a (semi) pass (which I am)? The answer is maybe that the violence here has a video game/cartoon like quality that makes it possible to detach yourself slightly from what would otherwise be fairly disturbing. Bodies go flying at a rate of 10 a second, limbs flail, blood spatters. It has such a weak grip on reality that you find yourself amused by proceedings rather than outraged. Rambo even manages to explode a WWII bomb that generates a mushroom cloud (and then impressively outruns the aftermath) which you have to admit is a pretty neat way of dispatching multiple bad guys at once. And these bad guys are set up to be so evil that killing them doesn't really matter anyway.

It's very violent. It's dreadfully scripted. It's appalling acted. It's also very funny. I'm not sure it always intends to be, but it is. And for that reason it's almost worth your time. D+

Oscar Predix

8/10 which was probably not bad. Bonus points to me for getting Tilda Swinton and for predicting a Best Actress upset. Minus marks for guessing the wrong upsetter. I went for Ellen Page. It was of course Marion Cotillard. The only other one I missed was Best Cinematography which was a travesty.