Showing posts with label Natalie Portman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natalie Portman. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

My Blueberry Nights (2007)


As our avid readers will know, I've been gagging for this for ages. Wong Kar Wai is probably my favorite living director, with the possible exception of Terrence Malick, and, despite certain major reservations (Jude Law; Rachel Weisz, see below), I was fascinated by how this, his first American film, would turn out.

Wong's American odyssey tells the story of broken-hearted Elisabeth (Norah Jones) who, after the failure of her relationship with the love of her life, strikes up a relationship with a sweet and charming cafe owner Jeremy (Law) before taking off on a road trip across America and meeting an assembly of motley characters along the way without ever quite leaving Jeremy behind in New York.

I can't help but feel that this could have been so much better than it is. Pretty much everything falls below, if often only just below, those impeccably high standards Wong has set for himself following his spectacular resume. Wong is without oft used cinematographer, the one and only Christopher Doyle, and it shows. The cinematography - particularly the beautiful and exotic contrasts between the sensuous blues and reds that linger like homeless raindrops in the delicate New York night - is good, but it's not great. The acting is good, but it's not great. The dialogue is good, but it's not great. The story and the narrative drive are good but neither are great. The... well, you get the idea. Take the acting - I just can't, in all honestly, swap Tony Leung, the greatest living actor, for Jude Law without accepting that something has been lost. I also cannot believe Wong cast Rachel Weisz in this and my opinion of him has gone down as a result. Weisz is a terrible actress, although she's not as bad here as she often is and I was genuinely shocked to hear she had been cast in this.

Whilst Law is categorically not Leung, he deserves credit here. He gives a subtle and measured performance as Jeremy and must take great credit for the chemistry between his character and Elisabeth which, at times, lights up the film and provides - by far - its best moments. He is, however, eclipsed by debutant Jones. Jones, who has achieved previous fame as a (forgive me Norah) MOR musician, lights up this film. She is as sweet and sensuous throughout - particularly in the excellent scenes with Law - as the bubbling and foaming blueberry pie that interposes itself occasionally on the action. She is the best thing in it and her performance is some achievement for a debut. Wong clearly has an ability to draw great performances out of non-professional actors and actresses. He does here with Jones what he did, in Chungking Express, with a fresh faced and extraordinarily charismatic Faye Wong, though the characters are as different as cheese and blueberry pie.

For me, this is a film of might have beens. The whole thing could have been great but it ends up being merely good. More should have been made of the scenes between Beth and Jeremy and a potentially interesting sideline, involving the always excellent and underrated David Strathairn, is not developed enough. The storyline involving the poker-playing, deceptive, Leslie (Natalie Portman) is unsatisfactory and very unfulfilling, especially in the film's overall context.

This is, by quite some distance, Wong's 'worst' film I've seen and the only one that doesn't earn a recommendation quality grade. That doesn't make it bad but it does, regrettably, make it a disappointment.

B

Friday, 21 December 2007

V For Vendetta

Avid readers of our great site will have clocked, in our recent rundown of grade-boundaries, that F-graded films are rare...

Well, V is almost one. Very almost. It's actually just a piece of subjective prejudice that keeps it at D- and if you want to know why, you'll just have to read on...

This film is completely hopeless from start to finish and pretty much everything about it is atrocious. It's actually very difficult to review films as bad as this because you have very little interesting to say and that is as big an indictment of a film as they come really.

Natalie Portman is as god-awful as her accent, the normally brilliant Hugo Weaving is incredibly annoying as the hero you couldn't care less about, the chemistry is terrible between the two leads, the plot is garbled and unclear (if timely, I'll come back to that), the dialogue is among the worst I've ever had the misfortune to sit through and the boring, predictable, violence serves no point whatsoever. Utter garbage.

As you can probably tell, I'm not the Wachowski brothers biggest fan. They dress up cliched and pretentious in a ridiculous cloak of intelligence draped in pointless violence that achieves nothing. The result is that a would-be interesting point is lost somewhere in the vast terrains of egotistical nonsense they heap on us. I've seen three films they've been involved in and they'd score D+, F, C+ and... well you'll just have to wait and see.

And I really can't tell you how irritating "V" - the 'hero' - is. Two or three minutes in you are already desperate to smack him in his grinning mouth. Would breeze into my top 20 worst characters ever depicted on screen.

Look at him! Don't you just want to smack him?

The long and the short of all this is that this is a hopeless, awful, film that has nothing to recommend it at all and I would seriously advise all to ignore like the plague. It is, therefore, completely and fully deserving of an...

F

But...

I'm a lefty and this film, does, at least, make a couple of relevant points about the society in which we live. I did, the next day, catch myself thinking about the nice way it suggests a revolution can be brought about by a symbolic firework (so to speak), and it does make a point about the facistic levels of immigration control and immigration policy in 21st Century Britain, so, because of that I'm going, purely on the basis of subjective prejudice which got me thinking about it again the next day, give it a very very generous:

D- Or perhaps that should be "V for Very (Very) Bad"

BTW, this is voted number #144 on IMDB's list of all-time great movies. How is that possible? I genuinely am stumped, this is a completely awful film from start to finish. Even the guy who wrote the graphic novel disassociated himself from it. I don't blame him!