Much to the annoyance of the real film critics out there, I'm quite consciously contributing towards the internet's rapidly expanding amateur film review presence. But hey, I have a passion for film so who's to say my amateur ass cant have an opinion, ey! ey!
So feel free to add any comments if you approve/disapprove of the points I make. Here we go...
(Recent to oldest)
A WINTER'S BONE
Directed by Debra Granik
It just goes to show that when it comes to the pre oscar buzz, timing is everything. A Winter's Bone - clearly one of the stand out films to emerge from mainstream Hollywood in recent years - adds further weight to this theory.
The film features Ree (played by newcomer Jennifer Lawrence), as a determinde yet eternally placid 17 year old. While living in some of the porrest and most rural area of the deep south, she finds herself in the unfortunate circumstance of having to raise her younger siblings due to the mental deterioration of her mother and a semi absent father. Superficially the world we're being presented with here seems like a white hilly billy 'Precious', however the effective representation of real contemporary poverty is not exploited for cheap tabloid shocks. Living in extreme poverty is not the film's main source of contention. Complications arise when her father is imprisoned by the local sheriff but escapes bail causing the family home to be threatened with repossession. The setting of the film, and the ultra realistic, almost documentary like style, is completely intrinsic to the narrative and dramatic power of this film. We get such a sense of Ree's dire cirumstances in the exposition that the consequence of her losing the only thing of value to her and her vulnerable siblings provides a heightened sense of dread. For once, style has a purpose more than to function as an interesting aesthetic type.
The film's main triumph is that it manages to marry together completely different forms seamlessly. The essence of the plot resembles something we may see in classic film noir (one person looking for a missing person, only to subsequently uncover a conspiracy), whereas the style and look of Winter's Bone suggests a much less generic and more downbeat realist drama. However this could not be further from the truth. Dramatic tension and narrative are the primary driving forces in this film. The director Debra Gravik, has proven herself a great contemporary filmmaker. With seeming ease, she manages to modernise a tradional Hollywood genre without sacrificing that which makes a compelling story: character, empathy, tension and plot.
- January 2011
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
It happens less and less. A film that isn't necessarily 'about' something, where 'stuff' happens. It's not conceptual, there is no clear antagonist, no hip technological gimmick that justifies the extortionate IMAX/3D fee, no fashionable celebrity, no cliched and overly familiar character/plot devices. It's just a good film that relies on good old fashioned characterization, witty dialogue, perceptive observation, great acting and beautiful moments of tension.
So its clear I slightly enjoyed this film. When watching The Kids are All Right I did think to myself, 'how did this film get made?' and more to the point 'How did it get released in a multi-plex?'. As I dwell on these questions I feel like a reverend whose recent crisis of faith had been eschewed by a deeply visceral religious experience - 'He does exist!! Despite my growing skepticism!!'. Long live cinema!
The Kids are All Right is refreshingly good, a diamond in the rough of all the derivative crap that pollutes our cinemas. The film introduces us to a middle aged lesbian couple - played by Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, who struggle to deal with the abrupt arrival of their sperm donor following the active curiosity of their two teenage children.
This is the perfect set up for much family orientated tension, but this is never done cheaply. All characters remain relatable throughout, regardless of their faults, causing us to view much angst and conflict but in a way that leaves us ambivalent about who is in the wrong. Its a rare film in that we use draw on our own personal familial experiences to make sense of the characters behavior rather than generic character tropes that usually govern Hollywood types.
It seems as no surprise that Annette Beninng - now less prolific than she was 15 years ago- chose to accept a role that allowed her to express her talent and range in a way that makes you believe in her character so much. She may have appeared on the silver screen less in recent years but we can rest assured that this has not diminished her ability. Although Benning has received most of the praise for the acting we should not ignore the efforts of the two other leads: Mark Ruffalo and Julian Moore, who are equally suited to their roles. Moore's loose and unfocussed role providing a perfect contrast to Benning's perfectionsist Doctor. Ruffallo's character is reminiscent of his breakthrough 'You can Count on Me' character, similarly laid back and charming, but hopefully now this film has reached a wider audience many more higher profile roles will come his way. Mainstream cinema is really in need of being propped up by an actor with genuine depth and charisma.
Not since The Wrestler have I watched a film that manages to effortlessly charm and provide occasional moments of sweet pathos. It's real achievement is its ability to prepare you for melodramatic turmoil yet hold back from erupting into Soap Opera leveled histrionics. The moments of anguish are generally underplayed and more effective because of that. The comic tone of the film is never sacrificed for over earnest seriousness, the moments of pure sadness filter through subtly, in the midst of the fun.
This is a fantastic film that will no doubt receive many honors come the awards season. Even now as I write this review my vivid memories of these lovable characters revisit me: their faces, beautifully portraying a sense of betrayal and a yearning wish fulfillment.
- November 2010
WALL STREET 2: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
I once said: Greed is Good' - Yeah he said it!! He said it again!!! Oh the familiarity of a great film is echoed again by the same character who first uttered that iconic line in the zeitgeist film Wall Street.
Like all sequels 'Wall Street 2' is burdened with expectations set by its predecessor; also like most sequels it fails to live up to them.
At first glance it seemed unusual that the curious and wandering mind of Oliver Stone's would decide to revisit a world he had already explored (WS2 being his first sequel), but in light of the recent Financial disaster and economic meltdown of 2008/2009 Wall Street has become as fascinating a topic as ever. This combined with Michael Douglas' understandably warm feelings towards portarying the character again -which has earned him his only oscar, and the Wall Street franchise's status as a huge Hollywood asset made the great anti hero's return inevitably.
Like my reaction to all announcements of a sequel (apart from Emmanuelle 2) I winced at the thought of a great character's return, but my apprehension was tempered by Stone's claim that he had a new story to tell. I found my doubt was subsiding, and in its place was a growing sense of excitement and optimism. I began to hope that this character would effectively be used as a vehicle to explore new relevant ideas. This would unburden the film from having to live up to its past acheivements, as a whole new context was there to interact with. It would be almost impossible to repeat Gekkos relentless evil charm as an extension of ruthless capitalism represented by the 80s excesses and grotesque materialism. A new world was here to portray, one where economic growth was not to be taken for granted, and corporate greed would have dire consequences we would have to live with.
For the first third of the film it confidently attempts this, the release of Gekko from prison - for money laundering, runs parrallel to the financial meltdown. The satisfaction watching this opening segment derives from our knowledge of how extreme the financial situation becomes as the characters continue to underplay its significance. It's not often that real life news events inform our sense of dramatic irony. This is effective and makes for a very engaging opening.
However as the story unfolds and various plotstrands develop the film loses great focus and becomes less about what made it initially quite interesting. In doing this Stone has lost sight of what he originally intended to do. In an attempt to get his iconic hero (Gekko) something to do, the family story regarding the recolcilliation with his daughter takes precedence over a story in which the financial crisis is integral. We find ourselves entering the cinema wanting a thought provoking critique take on modern day capitalism told via the perspective of one of the great characters of cinema, but we leave feeling underwhelmed by a cliched sentimental story. Our anti-hero attempts to reform his behaviour by ironing out the characteristics that made him interesting in the first place.
The film's lack of focus, I can only assume, was the result of many re writes and much tampering after years of pre production. Many of the subplots and supporting roles are given too much screentime to warrant being in a film which they add very little (i.e the environmental investment), leaving us not really caring much at all for anybody or anything. In spite of this the film isn't the worst thing you'll ever see, it all comes together quite nicely and is just about watchable enough, but it's another disppointing addition to the huge list of unneccessary sequels.
- November 2010
PRECIOUS.
It was with slight trepidation that i finally decided to bite the bullet and watch this widely appraised film. Im usually wary when critics generally laud praise on a film to such an extent, particularly when those critics are 'Hello magazine', 'The sun', 'Cosmopolitan', 'Oprah'. To be frank,alarm bells ring.
Any apprehension of this film was overcome by my intrigue generated by the fact that it managed to capture so many peoples imagination. So from a social/cultural point of view I was eventually drawn to it.
Over the past month i have watched quite a few films, but very few of them warranted a review from myself as much as this one. Not because i enjoyed the film, i didnt. I hated it. But because it managed to create such a complex response, and one that evolved as the film was fully absorbed. Id find it hard to tell anybody whether i could judge it as a good or bad film. My evaluation would boil down to which kind of criteria you would judge this film by. i think a more appropriate way to anaylse this filml would be to respond to the question 'was it a worthy film?'. Im my opinion, no not at all.
I am not deluded or arrogant enough to think that everybody will share my feelings on this matter, this is just one man's opinion. However those that do not agree with the points i make constitute part of the reason why i think this film is toxic.
Precious is a fantastic example of a shallow melodramatic exploitation film; of the worst kind. Watching it repulses me, and taking into account the way it has been, and will continue to be, perceived by many makes me feel even more ill. It's the hollywood ghetto drama version of watching tortue porn. The is no value or meaning in its message, it's ideologically redundant. It's effect on the audeince are purely down to the visceral and graphic imagery. The images shock, repel, and are hard to watch but no empathy is created for the character we see masterfully portrayed on screen. Throughout the film our protagonist: poor obese african- american girl, is repeatedly beaten by her mother, raped by her father, gives birth to two of her fathers kids (one of which has down syndrome), and then contract AIDS.
An 'uplifting film' some sycophants are calling it. These people are, of course, the 'Oprah' watching masses. Thanks to the day time Queen Hostess with the Mostess, this horroshow made it to our cinemas. Altogether her and her followers can happily and smugly interpret their watching of this freakshow as some sort of cathartic spiritual journey of overcoming adversity ('There's a little Precious in all of us'). What they are actually doing is acknowledging a hideous and exaggerated stereotype as 'realistic', whilst enjoying the thrill of extreme brutality and deprivation. It's the same viewing process as watching 'Nasty Anal Sluts', with the final abrupt, yet postive, climax as the 'cum shot' - if you will.
My response was relatively complex to this film becuase it is so well made. The acting, some of the direction, editing, is quite superbly put together. The girl playing Precious, in her debut role is astonishingly convincing as an illiterate ghetto girl - particularly when you see how she really is (a middle class, college grad). The rest of the cast - made up of artists operating out of their realm (Mariah Crey, Lenny Kravitz and Monique) are equally convincing. The brutual 'set pieces' are effectively constructed, you wince as these moments happen, at times its hard to watch.
It is the films power to jilt you that I find contentious. It's becomes easy to confuse the film's impact as worthy and somehow spiritual, but it is not. It's impact is only superficial. We wince when Precous' mother throws a pan at her head not because we have such an emotional attachment to her situation or because the contextual background informs us that this is inevitable but simply because it looks realistic. It's serious subject matter dealt with no depth and much visaul pinache. Like a Shakespeare sonnet adapted into a music video.
This film is purely symptomatic of the technological and CGI-centric Hollywood, and its impact on the contemporary melodrama. No longer are we content to understand the emotional pain of our protagonist through abstract imagery , powerful dialogue, understatement, no! Now its fashionable for the sum of human experience to be represented by 'Hey guys, this is what it would LITerally look like. CLOSE UP too! Doesnt it look dead REAL!!!'.
The development of technology has only caused filmmaking to regress in every other department. Im still waiting for the time when the sole value in aesthetics is replaced by a return to a filmmaking that is emotionally engaging rather than visually striking.
- October 2010
