feelinglistless Reviews

Joey (2004–2006)

could become repetitious

[28 August 2005]

Joey is already a loss before the opening moments of the first episode simply because its a spin-off from the biggest live-action sitcom on the planet. The pressure the creators and writers must have felt when handed this behemoth must have been extra-ordinary, since the network will have been looking for something to fill a very big hole. Unless Joey was sitting in a New York apartment with five other people called Chandler, Pheobe, Ross, Rachel and Monica this was never going to happen for them.

The obvious unfair comparison would be the pilot episode of Friends which for me is a perfect 22 minutes of comedy which somehow manages to define all the characters, set up their relationships and still manage to be barn stormily hilarious. Joey's pilot isn't like that -- it's more of a slow burn. It simply doesn't fly in the same way. The funnier moments for example happened when references were made to the previous series, which is either lazy or provides continuity depending on your point of view.

Which is why curiously, it isn't totally awful. The scripts are fairly well constructed and the jokes are pleasingly character based; none of your Chandleresque pop culture references hanging around looking for a punchline. There is some good chemistry between Matt LeBlanc and his co-stars. Drea de Matteo (who I believe was in something called The Sopranos) as his sister Gina has a real aptitude for comedy -- to a degree there is a feeling that some of the slapstick has shifted from the Joey character in her direction. Paulo Costanzo is welcome and again bashes away excellently at the banter. Having a Rocket Scientist in the ensemble is a good choice although they may have difficulties if they don't vary the idiot/genius dynamic between Joey/Michael which could become tiresome.

Which is just one of the question marks. Some of the funnier moments in the mothership were at the time when we'd cut back to Joey and he'd be doing something funny. Then they were used to counterpoint another more tragicomic scene. Here they are just sort of there and after a while it could become repetitious. Also I'm not entirely convinced by Andrea Anders character Alex, who seems a little blank to me. Perhaps they're hedging for not waiting to see what works or doesn't but that's dangerous as in this situation the viewer needs something to hold onto pretty quickly. So she's married, and a lawyer and .... ? But I'm willing to give it a chance, if only for nostalgic reasons. This doesn't feel like the simply cash-in it could have been, with Janice turning up in episode two and Gunther passing by in four. There is a good feeling of treating this as a different show, with a different sensibility. It's quite pleasing that they are taking the time to set up the characters and relationships over a constant stream of empty laughs. But they can't leave it too long before giving us that killer episode which will keep us around. The first two episodes were pleasant but a whole season like this?

According to Bex (2005)

It's been a while since I've wanted to criticise a show so vehemently

[28 August 2005]

So what is Jessica Stevenson doing in According to Bex, other than getting paid? I tuned in fearing the worst but with a little hope in the back of my mind that if Jess was anywhere near the project it would have someone else going on, a spark which would disprove the idea that all Friday night sitcoms on the BBC are bad. In the fifteen minutes before I turned it off, my mouth gaped open so far my lips began to hurt.

The premise seems to be that Bex is a Bridget Jones-type with an on/off boyfriend, looking for a perfect man. But the twist is that as the plot progresses she addresses the viewer and asks people in the street what they think she should do. I'll cautiously say that this isn't such a poor idea if done well. But for a start the members of the public aren't -- they're actors, all of whom you seemed to remember seeing before in an advert or pop video, and to a degree all hopelessly trying to be seen. Bex addressing the viewer are about the only times Jess seems comfortable but set looks like its been brought out of mothballs from an 'I Love...' series. The execution is so rotten that I was happy that my new DVD recorder had an erase button so I could literally dump the programme from the disc and my life.

I have a nagging feeling that the script isn't awful. There was evidence of some perfectly funny lines in there. But its buried under the kind of cruddy acting style which wasn't allowed on US TV in the Eighties as every line is emphasised lest we miss a single joke or jape. Imagine a show in which everyone is talking as though they're doing a parody of Ross from Friends. In the case of Greg Wise (a fine actor I thought) this leads to some frightening eyerolling to the extent at one stage during a particularly unfunny exchange with Stevenson its easy to imagine he's gone into a fit. Jess just looks lost unfortunately, which is a shame because I really like her -- and every now and then you can see glimmers of the actress we know -- but much of the time it's like she's been afflicted with the bad delivery disease infesting the rest of the cast.

Their verbal emphasis is further heightened by a maddeningly loud laughter track. Not an eye roll, a gesture or a stroll passed by without the audience, canned or not, treating it as though it as though it's the funniest thing they've ever seen. At one point it sounded as though the 'howl' button was stuck and it was rotating around and around and around.

It's been a while since I've wanted to criticise a show so vehemently but this really has few redeeming features. To be fair I did only see the first fifteen minutes so its entirely possible I was seeing a sitcom parody wrapped in a dream sequence and those last five inspired minutes could have been really good. I'll hold onto that hope because with this running double bill with a fifth (why?) series of Ardel O'Hanlon in My Hero it feels like quality control in the BBC comedy department is at an all time low. I mean even the sets are horrible with a bar set which looks like it was borrowed from Coupling and the fakest looking office in TV history. If Dom Joly wasn't producing the genius of World Shut Your Mouth (or 'Triggy Happy TV flies the World') later in the evening it would be easy to characterise this to be the place were ex-Channel 4 talent goes to work off all the dark matter which is left over when they're tapping out their genius over so many years. Tragic.

The Legend of Suram Fortress (1985)

the film goes off on digressions

[4/10 · 28 August 2005]

Tonight's film course film was The Legend of the Suram Fortress and during its 87 minute running time it managed to quickly jump into my top five most difficult films of all time. That's difficult to watch; films so different to everything else that you're seeing something totally alien. A brief synopsis would be: a group of Georgians are trying to build a fortress to defend themselves from invaders, but every time they are about to put on the finishing touches, for no readily apparent reasons it collapses. So they go and see a fortune teller who advises them that if they want to get the fortress to stay standing, they need to find a youth, a tall blonde blue eyed boy to be buried into one of the walls during the construction and his presence will ensure that the construction job will be completed smoothly. And sure enough in those closing moments there he is gladly being smeared in cement and eggs, giggling as he's buried alive, with only his mother to grieve.

It actually a fairly simple story. But the director, Sergo Paradjanov, working in Soviet Georgia in 1984, not too long after leaving a fifteen year jail term, doesn't follow any of the film making rules we are used to. There are very few close ups. Very often the action we need to be following is hidden in the bottom left hand corner of a landscape shot, extra-ordinarily easy to miss. There are very few close ups and at times its hard to tell whose doing what to whom and why. Every now and then the film goes off on digressions which have no relevance to the main plot and generally serve to confuse the viewer. The music is utterly mad, with found sounds, on screen instruments and church organ dropped in seemingly at random. At times when nothing seems to be happening, someone will break into a jig, almost playing time until the next scene comes along. But infuriatingly there is an obvious cinematic voice behind it all so you're compelled to try and understand the message whatever it is. One of those times when your eyes are glued to the screen simply because you can't believe what you're seeing.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

weird chemistry

[10/10 · 28 August 2005]

There are certain times at the cinema when it slowly becomes clear that you're the only person who is loving the film. A weird chemistry occurs in which your enjoyment of the evening is diametrically opposed to everyone elses. And so it was tonight during Ocean's Twelve. It really isn't the film anyone was expecting, but that actually means is so much better. If you're a fan of the first film because of all the heist hijinks you'll probably hate this. If you're a fan of Steven Soderbergh and seen all of his films, you'll just love it.

I don't want to talk about the plot here because frankly you wouldn't believe me. Just when you think the film is going to settle down into some kind of recognisable rhythm, something entirely unexpected is thrown in turning everything on it's head. You know the moment at the end of the first film when everything you thought you saw turned out to be something different? Pretty much every scene here is like that. Which is probably were I and nearly all the mean spirited reviews I've read part company. The general feeling seems to be that the plot was thrown together and the story lacks structure. Well yes that's the point. Soderbergh's messing about with what you're allowed to do in a so-called typical Hollywood sequel. It's experimental rather than erratic.

I'll admit to a degree that is a greatest hits of Soderbergh's greatest hits, with a variety of film stock and messy camera angles on display. Flashbacks are in full evidence as are the freeze frames and captions in multiple fonts. But so what? Would it have been better if some hack had been hired to trot out a clone of the first film, clinically perfect without any passion? He should be applauded for not making the same movie again, opting instead for something which resembles his own Full Frontal, with obscure film in-jokes intact. Go with an open mind and a clear heart.

L'Argent (1983)

finally stripped away

[5/10 · 28 August 2005]

Watched all of Robert Bresson's final film L'Argent in film class tonight. This is when he finally stripped away almost everything you would expect to be important in a film -- acting, music and clear plotting. It's about a how a fake bank note leads a man into prison and finally to redemption through murder. Important moments are expressed impressionistically to the extent that the viewer frequently only works out what was going on some minutes down the line. To be honest, it was all a bit too blank for my taste -- I couldn't relate or become involved in any of the character's stories so that in the end there was a general sense of emptiness -- like I'd eaten a pizza which had been in the oven too long and the cheesy topping had gone hard.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

feels like a big screen remake of an old Hannah Barbara cartoon

[8/10 · 28 August 2005]

Not a criticism, but The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou feels like a big screen remake of an old Hannah Barbara cartoon. You could imagine, some time in the 70s, in the style of the old Godzilla series, Steve and the crew discovering a new species each week with each episode ending with a short film of the animal they've found and one of those moralistic things saying how we should treat wildlife and the environment with respect. It's an oddly melancholy you see, filled with a sort of restless contemplation on lost innocence, which is possibly why people who have seen the film tend to be disappointed. It's funny, but in a sad way. You tend to laugh in that way people do over a beer remembering something which happened ten years before when everything was crazy.

Much of this is to do with Bill Murray's performance. His work here is largely very understated -- he understands that Zissou's best years are behind him and that he's effectively playing a version of his old self for appearance sakes. To a degree that's actually were Murray was a few years ago turning up in the things like Larger Than Life with an elephant as a side kick, so thanks to Wes Anderson for Rushmore and saving Bill and us from the decline. There are moments when we get to see the Murray of old and in fact his Ghostbusters persona even pops up in one particularly unexpected scene.

And thanks to Wes Anderson for this film. It's yet another recent example of a director exercising their own film making style, presenting the audience with a choice of following him or missing out on the discreet charms he is going to be offering. There are scenes which are entirely based on the audience needing to be in on the joke and judging by the almost silent crowd I watched it with I can only imagine we're a very small but lucky group.

Casanova (2005)

absolutely tremendous

[9/10 · 28 August 2005]

In case you missed the trailer which has played about a hundred times over the past month, Casanova began tonight on BBC Three in a graveyard preview slot, rather like a weekend film preview in the hopes of creating good word of mouth before it turns up on a main channel. It's an interesting strategy, especially with something which is obviously a premium series for the beeb, and it should really pay off.

Because it's absolutely tremendous. From the opening shot which offers the ageing Casanova played by -- my god -- Peter O'Toole putting words into the mouth of his younger self essayed by instant star David Tennant as he tries to talk himself out of what is obviously yet another scrape, the show just rattles along throwing out costume drama convention after convention. It's been tried before in everything from the film Plunkett and McLean to a Channel 4 version of Anna Karenina from a few years ago, but here it actually works.

It more or less demonstrates why Russell T Davies is one of the best five script writers on TV. In the dialogue he manages to offer a contemporary blend without it jarring with the period. Using the framing device over the older telling the story of the younger, he manages to cover a lot of ground in plot and character terms but without the audience feeling short changed that they're missing the really good bits. But he also knows when to pull back and let the pictures tell the story. There is a great moment in which two people communicate across a crowded room, something I've never seen before in frocks and coats and it's utterly real.

But the directing and editing are fluid as well. Sheree Folkson previously worked on contemporary dramas like Burn It and the The Young Person's Guide to Becoming a Rock Star both of which had a kinetic energy which re-appears here. Forget establishing shots -- don't need them -- they'll just get in the way of the sight gags. The closest comparison I can think of is early Simpsons, that use of mounting montage leading to a punchline, comedic or emotional. I once went to a workshop with some people from Red Productions who are one of the companies behind this and they emphasised a philosophy of telling the story through what you can see and this really embraces that philosophy. The photograph is sumptuous as well; I'm not a huge fan of the Digital Video the BBC are using on their shows nowadays (tends to seem a bit washed out) but there are moments here which have the feel of a pure Technicolour production.

There's all that and there's the cast. I said earlier that David Tennant is an instant star, and he really is. He's just channelling the always excellent O'Toole's charisma to create this uberpersonality -- that ability to be totally likable even when he's (possibly) doing some bad things. Even with all the above the show would flatten out if he wasn't so good. To drop the inevitable reference, he has the magnetism of a young Tom Baker in his series of Doctor Who (although he sort also reminded me of Paul McGann in the audios -- that kind of curious happiness).

I'm also inevitably going to say that Laura Fraser is luminous, but she just is. I was afraid she'd just be getting a cameo, but she's Casanova's life long dream, always on his mind. The camera looks longingly at her in way I've not seen since Small Faces and underlines what a tragedy it is that she's not a STAR! Hopefully this will change that when it turns up on the main channel. I've not seen Rose Byrne before, but it takes something to match O'Toole yet there she is battling away as Edith the maid. I don't want to talk about the rest of the cast because it would give too much away but all are great too.

Just an excellent, excellent thing. If you missed it, I'd wait for the repeat before diving in. I'd imagine that you'll be losing a lot of the emotional resonance if you're just turning up for part two next week...

Melinda and Melinda (2004)

a richer experience

[10/10 · 28 August 2005]

When I reviewed Woody Allen's last film, Anything Else, it was on the defensive. That film had taken a lot of criticism for being identikit Woody Allen, marginalised from reality. I loved that film for both those reasons. I love Melinda and Melinda in the same way, and ironically it seems to be playing those criticisms as strengths.

Which is why it's odd that it's being presented as a return to form, particularly because most of the elements are so similar to his other films. Even the music over the titles has been heard a few times before in earlier films. It has the discussion/storytelling format of Broadway Danny Rose and the mixture of comedy and tragedy of something like Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's still set in affluent Manhatten in which people own houses in the Hamptons and will order out for Chinese food if an already expensive meal is ruined.

I think what makes it a more watchable and probably accessible film is that it feels like a richer experience. The central conceit, of a story being told from a tragic or comic perspective from an initial stimulus is a discussion of the essence of drama. That discussion occurs throughout the film as the two stories echo each other, moments being mentioned or re-described in differing configurations, with suicide played in the darkness and light in equal measure. It gives the piece a background bigger than the characters and their situations.

But there is also a depth and breadth in the cast. As both Melindas Radha Mitchell gives a towering performance. Unlike Gwyneth Paltrow in Sliding Doors (a spiritually similar film) who was called upon to play essentially the same character twice, here Mitchell has to think herself into two spaces completely. Each Melinda, because of their place in the comedy and tragedy sections, has a different life experience and so reactions are going to be wildly different. The tragic Melinda feels to an extent like Judy Davis in Husbands and Wives; comic Melinda is more lovable though, a bit Meg Ryan. Compellingly you fall for both in different ways.

But this is an ensemble piece though, and what's very interesting is that the whole cast isn't replicated through both stories, Mitchell is the only common thread. This means Allen's also played to the strengths of casting for comedy and tragedy. I've never previously loved Will Ferrell, but here, possibly because he's effective Woody avatar he's actually very effective and heartbreaking. Amanda Peet, who I've always known is a wickedly great actress repeats the excellent work she's done in things like Two Ninas. On the tragic side, if Johnny Lee Miller is a bitter mannered with his best attempt at an American accent, Chloë Sevigny continues her consistent work and Chiwetel Ejiofor shows once more that he's going to be a very big star.

You what I think makes this seem like a better film? Woody's started editing again. Lately, the director has been relying on oners with steady-cam and hand-held, with the characters playing within a space. That has the effect of making things seem very theatrical, and also reduces the facility for subtlety. Here, there are many more close ups and frequently the frame will hang on a face giving the actor room to tell a story. There is also a lot less conspicuous improvisation. In only a couple of scenes can we tell that people are throwing ideas in and hoping they stick. Everything feels planned giving this film a rhythm which has been lacking. There are rumours that this could be Allen's last New York film for a while, so it's lovely that Melinda and Melinda looks so amazing, with the photography of Vilmos Zsigmond (who also impressed on Kevin Smith's Jersey Girl) finding yet more new ways of evoking the city.

Woody's next film, Match Point has been made in London, with his next being set there as well. That should give him a shot in the arm creatively. But frankly on the basis of this I don't think he needs it.

Sideways (2004)

something which everyone is talking about

[10/10 · 28 August 2005]

Virginia Madsen has always felt to me like the one who got away. Like an Eighties Monica Potter she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong films, one breakthrough moment away from being a household name. Horror fans might know her work in Candyman and fantasy fans will have noticed she was in Highlander 2 as they were walking out. But to me she's Madeline in the prophetic Electric Dreams, breaking three hearts at the same time, Miles Harding, his computer and mine. Now here she is in the fantastic Sideways one nomination away from a statue. I think she's basically finally won hearts via a single speech she gives at the heart of the film in which her character Maya explains why she loves wine. I won't give away the details, but by the end you'll love wine and love her too.

But that's one of the great things about Sideways -- the chance to see actors I've whose work I loved for years, which no one else has heard of in something which everyone is talking about. I was afraid Paul Giamatti was going to end up being 'the guy from American Splendor' for the rest of his career but here people are putting a name to a face they've been seeing for years. Look at his filmography there are very few films you haven't heard of. In fact in some he's even played proto-Miles, especially Bruce Paltrow's Duets in which karaoke was his love instead. Sandra Oh might look like a discovery but she's equally always been busy (Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Film to Under the Tuscan Sun). I remember her from Last Night and The Red Violin in which she had a quiet dignity far removed from Stephanie. If I'm being honest though I've never watched the sitcom Wings so I don't know about the cult of Thomas Haden Church. But is in George of the Jungle which is good enough for me.

In casting these actors, Alexander Payne knew exactly what he was doing. Apparently George Clooney was actively campaigning for Giamatti's part. Extrapolating that further, we could have ended up with Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and introducing some young actress. All perfectly fine actors and they would have essayed their roles well, and the chemistry would have been there, but it would have felt false -- this didn't need a successful cast -- a dream cast. It needed a group of actors who all seemed kind of familiar without being 'famous' because these are characters who are just like us or people we know. Very refreshing.

Batman Begins (2005)

managed keep the spirit of everything which has gone before

[8/10 · 28 August 2005]

Since the only comic book I've read in years is Whedon's X-Men I suppose I came to the film as a piece of cinema rather than an adaptation. There are probably hundreds of smaller references in here which I'd never understand and I've no idea what fans of the comics make of this (which perhaps puts me on the other side of the Hitchhiker's-style debate). What I saw though was an extra-ordinary piece of film making which managed keep the spirit of everything which has gone before, whilst keeping its own coherence.

It's exciting that the studio would sanction another origin adventure so close to the Tim Burton film. I was never a fan of that -- too stylised for its own good lacking clear characterisation. What's surprising here is that rather than giving what the audience wants, two horns and a cape, we hardly see the dark knight until into the second hour. There is quite a complex flashback structure creating an underpinning of the psychological reasons why Bruce Wayne would want to hang around in caves with bats as friends, while at the same time subtly setting up some important plot information later in the film. If there's a slight problem with the train sequences they reminded me a bit too much of Highlander -- especially all the sword play. Also I defy anyone not to be waiting for Neeson to tell Bale to 'be mindful of the living force'.

The development of the iconography of the bat are also handled incredibly well. In this explanation for the wonderful toys, its Bruce using largely existing hardware rather than items he's developed himself -- and also granted some of them are a bit fantastical -- it takes the point of view that its not about the tools, its how they're used, which is a step up from a magical utility belt which can do everything. Over and again, we are reminded that this is just a man -- a highly skilled, well trained man -- but flesh and blood nonetheless. He gets hurt, we see bruises. This adds an extra vulnerability. Unlike previous incarnations Batman isn't somehow a separate character apart from the billionaire playboy, its the conduit through which the playboy saves the world.

It is a cameo-fest, a dream for any player of Six Degrees. There is a moment about half an hour into the film as all of the major characters are introduced and they're all played by names actors. It's real kitchen sink casting, an Ocean's Eleven for actors of a certain age, but there are some brilliant choices and it's great in particular to see Gary Oldman not playing the lunatic for a change. Michael Caine's Alfred is also a great creation. Katie Holmes just feels like a better more exciting love interest not just around to be saved but integral to the story. There was also something for the Nu-Who fan, with The Long Game's Christine 'Cathica' Adams playing a secretary. One day to go.

What this proves is if you get a Chris Nolan to make a superhero film, you'll get the best example of the genre money can by. He'll take the character seriously, do experimental yet crowd pleasing things with him and make the audience want to see more. Up until now, I thought the cartoon series was the best imagining of the character I'd ever see. This is just as good if not better. Of all the comics adaptations this year I'd be very surprised if any of them are better than this.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

exhilaratingly brilliant

[8/10 · 28 August 2005]

Ten things I loved about Doug Liman's exhilaratingly brilliant film Mr & Mrs Smith.

(1) In the flashback at the start of the film our two characters are introduced. She's called Jane and he's called John. 'John.' I heard myself say quietly out loud. 'John -- Smith?' Only Doctor Who fans would be doing that and only they will know the reference.

(2) John and Jane Smith go to a party. I suspect I'm the only person in that audience to notice that the track playing in the background was 'Every Heartbreak' by Amy Grant (former passion, just after Kylie just before Debbie). I'm weirded out because I haven't heard it many, many years.

(3) The guy from the The OC in the interrogation scene is wearing a Fight Club t-shirt.

(4) It's an Angelina Jolie film I can like. I've never found her all that inspiring but there's just something about the way she pouts, raises an eyebrow, holds a gun and wears knee high boots which slays me.

(5) Can we have Vince Vaugn playing this character in every film? I loved the way he was just sort of there, although I suspect a lot of his part was lost in the editing, although they were right to focus on the central relationship. But seriously: 'I like were you're going with this....'

(6) Doug Liman somehow manages to meld some of the sensibilities of his previous comedies (Swingers & Go) with the action of The Bourne Identity. Some of the gunfights are utterly balletic, and remind me of the Robert Roderiguez of Desperado. There are moments which gun fire and dialogue give way to music and it all becomes a dance. I shivered.

(7) Brad Pitt never really gets enough credit for his comic timing. True there's a fine line with mugging to camera, but 98% of the time he's on the good side. You couldn't imagine anyone else playing this part which is a complement.

(8) The constant conversational within the couple about how some situations suddenly have a whole other meaning and their implications. A real attempt has been made to reignite the sort of quick fire dialogue of the 1940s. This is pure Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday

(9) You just feel like you've seen a movie, not just the impression of one. It hits all the beats on time and in the right order. At no point do you feel short changed or that anything could be done better.

(10) I can't actually understand the ongoing criticism of the ending. Almost every review I've seen says that it's great up until about ten minutes before the end. Actually this could have gone two ways: The Butch and Sundance or what we have. On this occasion the former would really have short changed the audience even though within a certain moral code which some reviews believe movies should follow, that would have created an important ambiguity. But I just thought about Martin Blank in Grosse Pointe Blank -- he can have a happy ending so why not these guys? Then again they do break his golden rule. No unions...

Festival (I) (2005)

an impossible task

[6/10 · 28 August 2005]

I don't know why I feel so disappointed because really, making a film about the Edinburgh Festival is an impossible task, for the simple reason that every one of us who's been there has had a different experience, and any script which tries to capture everything is going to fail. Just can't be done. Writer/director Annie Griffin has said that she pitched Festival as something akin to Altman's Nashville, and you can absolutely see the influence as the narrative takes in an epic sweep of characters at all levels of the fringe, from the household names to the one woman shows at nine in the morning. Which is problem one - Altman had three hours, Griffin gives us 107 minutes.

When the film works, it's excellent. I loved the story of the three Canadian performance artists, one of which becomes infatuated with the wife of the family whose flat they're renting out for the duration. I loved the girl running the one woman show about William Wordsworth's sister Dorothy. I loved the quiet battle against despair of the famous comic's agent, played with great poignancy by Raquel Cassidy. I loved the documentary style moments that took in the flavour and sounds of the festival creating a good sense of place It's these were the most evocative stories, the ones which I could identify with. A concentration on anyone of these characters, a filter of the story through their experience would have worked really well. By separating out of the screen time amongst fifteen odd characters it feels weaker, unfocused.

What derailed the film and my enjoyment was the slow concentration of the story around the ersatz Perrier award and the politics of the people and the voting. Somewhere in there someone makes an impassioned speech about how the festival used to be about Scandinavian dancing in the streets, but has slow become about an unfunny comedian winning an award. Which is ironic because that's exactly what happens in the film. Just when something glorious happens to the Canadians, we cut away to one comic chasing a bimbo around a hotel room or another having a post coital argument with a journalist and frankly it's just unpleasant. To take the Altman comparison further it's like taking Gosford Park and editing in large chunks of Pret A Porter.

Shame.

Runaway Jury (2003)

flashes forward and back

[8/10 · 28 August 2005]

At the time of release, Gary Fleder's The Runaway Jury was largely dismissed as 'yet another John Grisham adaptation', which is odd because (with the exception of a couple of TV movies) his books hadn't been anywhere near a cinema screen since The Rainmaker in 1997 (The Gingerbread Man in 1998 directed by Robert Altman was based on an original screenplay). It does fit within the recognisable formula of well known actors making big speeches in and around courtrooms but in execution it's a far more subtle piece of work than it was given credit for at the time, more akin to the work of Steven Soderbergh in serious mode.

This connection is apparent in the use of time; much like The Limey there are flashes forward and back, imagined scenes and the withholding of information for dramatic effect. Unlike those earlier Grisham adaptations, a second viewing explains the actions of the characters much more clearly because we cumulatively have a greater awareness of their motivations. John Cusack is playing the character we've seen him play a hundred times, but as the film progresses we realise that it's a darker, edgier version and that we're being seduced by him in a similar way to the jurors. Similarly Rachel Weisz has the acidity she displayed in The Shape of the Things but later we have a vision of her vulnerability underneath.

The most traditional and least surprising aspect is the relationship between the Hackman and Hoffman characters. Apparently their big scene were they argue the ethics of a clean trial in a bathroom was not in the original script and was written and filmed later, isolated from much of principal photography. It's a great little scene, well acted, but it feels tacked on. It doesn't further the story and tells us things about the characters we already know, that Hackman is a son-of-a-bitch and that Hoffman would lose if something fishy wasn't going on. But the film would be less powerful without it and the viewer would undoubtedly be saying at the end, 'You mean you had those two and they didn't have a scene together?'.

What makes the film different is that the story isn't about the outcome of the trial in the traditional sense (can the 'good' lawyer provide enough evidence to beat the 'bad' lawyer) but who can manipulate the jury from within and without the reach the most positive outcome for them. The main thrust of the story is told outside the courtroom, in streets, hotel rooms, restaurants and bathrooms. During the trial scenes, at what would usually be important moments like the closing statements, the editor deliberately cuts away to something happening outside. Unlike the majority of studio releases it assumes that viewers have seen movies in this genre before, understands the conventions and gleefully plays about with them, granting the viewer some intelligence, which makes for a refreshing change.

Primer (2004)

Hold it in.

[8/10 · 27 August 2005]

Before you go to see Shane Carruth's film 'Primer' can I make a suggestion? Do not drink anything beforehand - do not give yourself any reason that you might want to go to the toilet at any time during the film. I inadvertently rushed to the men's room about eight minutes before the end, and I've a horrible feeling that in the thirty seconds I was away from the screen something vitally important happened because I totally missed or misunderstood what happened at the climax.

Which is a shame because on the whole I quite liked the film. It's how I'd imagine Whit Stillman might attack the making of a sci-fi adventure. With all my mainlining of Doctor Who these past few months, it's quite a shock to see time travel treated in such a mundane (realistic) fashion. No dimensionally transcendental blue boxes here, just a large metal case which at one point is referred to as a coffin. No popping in and out of a time vortex - this is hard work as the traveller has to sleep in that box for six hours so that they can go back in time six hours.

Shot on Super-16mm this is not a pretty film. It has the look of a 70s British Government Information film crossed with Steven Soderbergh's the maddest excesses of the South American scenes in 'Traffic'. This grittiness creates an atmosphere of taking a sneak peak at a transgression in the fabric of the universe, of two people being given a power they really shouldn't have. The acting style is also fairly understated - even when bad things start to happen the characters take it in their stride. It's quite disconcerting really.

Whilst I enjoyed all this, and it's probably one of the best films of the year I did leave with the sense that it didn't quite work. I'd like to think that my bladder's effected my judgement again, but it feels as though there are problems with the edit. I'd love to know what footage didn't make the final cut because ninety minutes isn't long enough. The film makers have obviously made the admirable choice of withholding information to give the audience the chance to fill in the blanks themselves - a narrative version of keep the monster in the shadows during a horror film.

The trouble is that after an opening hour which meticulously sets up the world and the rules of the game, we're presented with an increasingly fractured story in which vital events which should make an impact shuffle past before the viewer has had a chance to take them in. Causality shuffles into casualty. This inevitably creates an instant audience for a second viewing (and the cinema I saw the film at mentions that the viewer should be prepared to see it twice) but the experience needs to make sense for the one timers. It's important to layer information for people who want to see a film more than once so that they can be amazed, and although I understand what the what's been attempted here, in my opinion a film can't effectively be the trailer for itself this tries to be. Unless I missed something. I'll wait and see it again on DVD. Ooh -- you see what they did there?

Hamlet (1969)

Thrift, thrift

[10/10 · 30 March 2005]

The opening moments in any production of Hamlet are critical because the audience, assuming they know the play fairly well, will already be asking the 'How are they going to do...' question. It's the ghost. Hamlet senior. What is he going to look like? In a film, it's an even bigger challenge, because some people watching might expect a special effect. The approach here is a shot of bright light across the young Dane's face and his voice echoing through the frame. The style of the film is already crystallised. It's not about the surroundings or set dressing. It's about the emotion of the piece, the words. In this key moment we are looking in his eyes as he hear's his fathers words, and that's a device used throughout the piece.

On first appearance, Nicol Williamson might seem a bit old for the part. Certainly, I've seen Claudius's who look younger. But that does a disservice to his performance, which commands every scene he appears in. His Hamlet is far from mad; he's using a bluff technique to search for the why's of his father's death and how he's reacting to it. Unusually. in the intimate moments, during the soliloquy's he's at his most vulnerable, as though he's unable to come to terms with these feelings, and only really comes to life when there a peers to relate to.

A very young looking Anthony Hopkins makes a compelling Claudius, who with his gluttony seems like a man who could do wrong. Equally Judy Parfitt passes the test of being attractive enough for a man to kill for even if her skin is worryingly grey. Although not at grey as Ophelia, played by Marianne Faithful who in some shots looks positively black and white, almost as though the trickery of the film 'Pleasantville' had been used. Which is a shame because it detracts from rather a good performance.

The production was filmed at The Roundhouse Theatre which explains that use of extreme close up and the complete lack of establishing shots. The lighting absolutely picks up the actors faces, making what settings there are perfunctory. It mustn't have been a very easy shoot -- most of the speeches and scenes are played out in one shots -- there is very little editing in places, which allows the text the breath. I've seen the play many times and it was a joy on this occasion to hear how much of our language found a basis here.

The main oddity this time are the supporting actors. This is the only Hamlet you'd expect to find Michael Elphick and Angelica Houston standing around in the background, along with Roger Lloyd-Pack popularly known as Trigger in 'Only Fools and Horses'. The latter is particularly distracting because his face is so familiar and he appears, not only as Ronaldo, but also as a player, one of Laertes friends and a miscellaneous bystander in the duel at the end. One man should not have that many different beards. Also worth noting is the approach to the credits at the end, which are spoken, in a style similar to Truffaut's 'Farenheit 451' over a shot of Hamlet.

Before Sunset (2004)

I fell in love again.

[29 August 2004]

There are certain times (increasingly) when I seem to be the only person in a cinema audience who 'gets' the film we're watching. Who loves it to bits and wants to rush out at the end and paint five stars next to the title on the hoarding outside. It's a phenomena I can trace back to Wayne's World when Robert Patrick in full T-1000 mode pulls Mike Myers over, holds up a photo and asks him "Have you seen this boy?" Stoney faces all round apart from laughing my BCG scar off. It happened again at the end of Richard Linklater's new film Before Sunset. Everyone else offers a collective "Huh?" and I'm applauding and subsequently dancing out of the screen. It's the perfect ending to a frankly perfect film.

In the first movie Before Sunrise Jesse and Celine met randomly on a train in Vienna and decided to spend the night together. They were obviously in love, but deciding that their relative situations were too complicated they didn't swap details but promised to meet again six months later. In the sequel Before Sunset they bump into each other again in Paris and they again talk about how they're feeling about each other and this time what happened before. The little piece in the brochure at the cinema were I saw it advised that you didn't need to see the first film to enjoy this one. Hogwash. It's not that this film doesn't make any sense - it does - it's just without seeing what happened to them in Vienna, emotionally this simply doesn't have the same resonances - you needed to be there with them, because it's as much about your memories of what happened them as theirs. So if you can, get a copy of Sunrise if you haven't seen it already then go for this. It's important.

And now I'm in the utterly horrible position of trying to review it. The problem is that its 80 minutes of two people walking around talking. So anything I say about what I like or dislike will ruin some aspect of it. I've avoided other writer's opinions for months because I suspected this would be the case and going back to them having the 'been there', I'm glad I did. Most of them enthuse, enthuse about what they've seen but in doing so whole swathes of the surprises that are in there spirit away. Don't look here for a detailed synopsis because you're not going to get one. And whatever you do don't read anyone elses.

On a technical level though, it's amazing. Given the real time nature of the story you might expect Linklater, who has already had some experience working with digital video (see Tape) to follow the path of Mike Figgis in Timecode and record everything in one take or whatnot. Instead everything is in celluloid, just like the first film, but it all flows together beautifully - even though its mostly been photographed on single or two camera setups, it feels as though the characters walked around Paris and the film cameras just happened to be there at the right time (in fact I think principal photography took about nine or ten days). It's also a testament then to Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, both highly underrated actors, that their performances also ebb and flow correctly and with great emotional precision. It feels improvised, but apparently every word was scripted by the director and these two actors, opening up some of the themes about autobiography which are apparent at times. But I'll talk about that when the dvd has comes out and I'm happy that enough of you have seen it.

What more can I say? I don't feel like I've said nearly enough to convince you to go find a showing, so tell you about the circumstances of how I saw the film. Since I realized it had been made, it's about the only film I've wanted to see this year (so I suppose the odds on me liking it were stacked in its favour). I assumed that on the first week of release it would turn up at the local Picturehouse @ FACT because its just the sort of thing they would carry amongst the more intelligent blockbusters, indies and international cinema (they had Neil LeBute's The Shape of Things for example). I checked their website last night and nothing. I looked at the cinemas across Liverpool and then Merseyside and it isn't on anywhere. So I went to Manchester tonight instead and saw it at The Cornerhouse. A whole other city, straight after work. Its 45 minutes each way by train so effectively I spent more time getting to and from the cinema than it took to watch the film. You know what? It was absolutely worth it. I fell in love again.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Well I liked it...

[29 August 2004]

Fahrenheit 9/11 has been an extra-ordinarily difficult film for professionals to review. Many of the pieces have discussed Michael Moore's argument or favourite moments within the film but have given few comments to the actual film making, a few cursory notes here and there about pacing or editing. I'm usually a fairly passionate reviewer - if I really like something the reader will find a three paragraph love-in. And I'm very passionate about this film, and happy that it's a cinema documentary people want to see. It's going to be interesting to see the effects it has in the coming months - will it really have power to sway the voting habits of a country?

What is startling for me is how little Moore has changed the way he presents the story. Although I missed the original release of Roger and Me (I was reading about robots in disguise at the time), for some reason I caught all of TV Nation when it turned up on BBC Two and that took me into my university years. Considering the controversy, it's interesting to note how close the new film is to the short ten minutes stories which appeared on television and his previous work.

Throughout, there is still the mix of old tv footage, stunts and illustrative contemporary interviews. The proportions of each have been reduced and increased depending upon the story being told but it is very much Moore's style and just as distinctive as latter day Woody Allen. So here he is still the guy standing toe-to-toe with security guards, making impossible demands of congressman and reducing the description of the US government's response to 9/11 as old clips from Dragnet.

It's a particularly good way of making an argument, but the weaknesses in the film occur when the voiceover drifts away. It's not that we need Moore telling us what to think of the images we are seeing, but it adds a coherence - at times the viewer is disgusted but at the same time wondering what the film-maker's point is other than isn't the world a horrible place. The images don't completely continue the story.

But when the complete story is being told, it's very persuasive. Republicans might want to attack Moore's motives and some of the internal logic, but I'm yet to hear anyone try and rationalize the clip after clip of their President compromising the stateliness of his office. Say what you like about the paradoxes inherent in Moore the man, but it's inspiring that given the tools he has that rather than going after the small fry he's now gone right to the top.

[I saw the film at a Saturday 3:45 showing and it was full. Many journalists and writer who have been to see the film with the public to see their reaction have talked about the heckling and the applause. At my showing the only time anything happened was when a clip of Britney Spears appeared in which she was asked about the Iraq war From out of the darkness deep male voice shouted: "Whore!" He was utterly silent through everything else...]

I, Robot (2004)

It is a soon to be undervalued near-classic. Go see.

[29 August 2004]

I-Robot is an extraordinarily kinetic film. During many of the action sequences the camera weaves and bends around the scenes to the degree that it necessarily disorientates the viewer but without, and this is its strength, diluting the clarity of the narrative. It's an expensive looking film, a well realized coherent futuristic vision. A lesser film would have made the robots a feature from the off -- here they're just another part of the city, weaving through the sidewalks accompanying and serving their human masters. On the surface this is what can by classed as a typical summer Hollywood action film; there are car chases, fight scenes and a race against time.

It is also a perfect example of what director Martin Scorsese describes as 'smuggling' -- wrapping a much deeper message in the trappings of something else. Like Minority Report before it, this is a film which entertains while saying something about ourselves, themes piling up on top of one another. There is the increasing reliance on technology; there is the naivety many of us have about the honesty of big business and it's ongoing quest to convince us that it only wants to help; there is prejudice against others and our reactions to our own prejudices; there is the expectation that things will always be better in the future.

It is a weirdly literate script. It was a brave move to present the essence of Asimov's work rather than produce a straight adaptation. We've seen that before -- it's appeared on television a couple of time (with Leonard Nimoy). A good comparison is the work Robert Altman did with Raymond Carver's work in Short Cuts. Taking the stories and weaving bits and pieces of them in and around each other to create a new vision. In places it's own technobabble is undercut as is it's po-facedness. It's also impeccably structured, opening up the story and the possibilities of this world at a pace slow enough for the audience to catch up, but fast enough that we aren't bored. That it was written by Jeff (Final Fantasy) Vinter and Akiva (A Beautiful Mind) Goldsman is a shock -- but a welcome one.

It is no surprise to me that Smith's performance as Spooner is actually quiet excellent -- as is always the case when he is given good material to work with. For all the giant leaps and superhuman punch-ups, jokes and quips, he manages to give a quite touching layered performance. Equally, Bridget Moynahan's work as Calvin shouldn't be underestimated. Within the running time she has to develop from being a walking computer into a woman with real feelings and she definitely pulls it off. But the real tour-de-force is Alan Tudyk's Sonny. Like Andy Serkis's Gollum, the actor played the role before being replaced by computer animation and like Gollum the process gives the illusion of a real character within the space. Sonny has weight the audience has few difficulties suspending their disbelief. The real success is if the audience forgets they are watching something animated. Well I did.

It is a shame that the film was released now because I don't feel like it's being enjoyed or applauded as much as it should. The viewer has become quite blaze about the action film genre of late as we've lucky enough to have been able to see a series of film which do mix action with ideas. The viewer wants more and now it's getting it, they forget what it was like in the bad old days of theatrical releases for Under Siege 2. In previous years this would be getting five star reviews and be appearing on top ten lists. Instead critics are giving it average reviews, three stars and making flip statements about Will Smith's acting ability. It's annoying and unfair, especially to Alex Proyas who has managed to take all the brilliance of his previous film Dark City and apply it to a Hollywood aesthetic.

It is a soon to be undervalued near-classic. Go see.

Van Helsing (2004)

Not enough tools

[29 August 2004]

Not having seen the Universal films referenced within except for in glimpses from other film and homage I came to Van Helsing without the main images from those films in my head ready to be destroyed. I still came away with a vague sense of disappointment, because for all the exciting set pieces, the deftly realized monsters and the weaving cinematography, the central characterisation and our way into this world is extraordinarily two dimensional and so much like the recent Underworld in moments when we are supposed to care so that the upcoming peril has greater meaning. By the end you want to care more for the overall storyline but you haven't been given enough tools or understanding for that to happen.

Perhaps we've been spoiled. The Joss Whedonverse has created an expectation that even the most extraordinary supernatural narrative can also include a mediation on some great theme and moments of heartbreak. This is also true of the film versions of The Lord of the Rings (which this film stylistically mirrors). But both of those allow the heroes time to breath -- whether its Buffy in a graveyard or Frodo on the road to Mordor, there are moments in which they literally sit down and talk about the impending doom. It also gives the viewer / audience a breather to think about that doom themselves. In Van Helsing that hardly happens, and when it does the dialogue is often of such plodding banality, first draft place holders rendered in celluloid, that its entirely up to the charisma of the actors to carry it off.

And so the dichotomy because for much of the time it is entertaining for that very reason. Hugh Jackman carries over the charisma of Wolverine (and characterisation -- this too is man without a past) and exhibits some of the vulnerability of an early Eighties Harrison Ford (although in places I kept picturing him in a Clint Eastwood bio-pic some day). That Kate Beckinsale can be the all action hero is just a matter of proving again her flexibility -- I thought her a bit wooden and uncomfortable in Underworld but here, even in that velvet corset, flashes of her romantic comedy persona come and go. David (Faramir) Wenham is also good fun in the typical sidekick exposition role working out what to do next when the increasingly convoluted (yet strangely repetitive plot) stalls. If there is a weak link its Richard Roxburgh -- not because he doesn't try his hardest but because this version of Dracula lacks a depth and he simply isn't given enough to do. In the moments when he could be at his most terrifying he's turned into a giant special effect.

Which is rather the overall problem with Stephen Sommers film. At key moments characters walk through an environment being stalked by some invisible evil -- the imagination runs wild trying to picture what kind of menace might befall the 'victim' and then it appears and time and again you're left with the impression of 'oh its a special effect' or sometimes 'oh its a great special effect' -- pulled out of the action the tension dissipating as the meanie jumps out of a window. Also a couple of the action sequences go on too long without ratcheting upwards -- and in one case a battle ends then begins again repeating everything much as it happened before in a slightly different order. But for all this, there are still enough entertaining moments to be worthwhile. Too many ideas then but not enough time given for talking about them.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Some things ...

[29 August 2004]

I've always had issues with action films. I don't have many in my DVD collection and I can count the ones I genuinely love on ten fingers. And when I look at the action films I have enjoyed, it tends to be because I like the characters or the depth of the dialogue. The really clever thing about Jurassic Park, and why it still works even all these years after the shock of seeing dinosaurs has dissipated is because the moments between those victims work so well. And so it proves with The Day After Tomorrow. Magazine after magazine has focused on the special effects wizardry and the creation of the weather. These for me were the weakest moments.

The real strength of the piece is the reaction of the people to the impending doom and their compensation of what transpires. Yes, it's fairly interesting to see the tornadoes hammer through LA, and for the blizzards and tidle waves to take hold of New York. But frankly, nothing seen here is any more astounding than Twister or Deep Impact (other than the fact that they mount on top of one another). My favourite scenes don't include the weather, except as the peripheral cause. Good example: in an unusual twist large sections of the first act of the film take place in a small hut in the highlands of Scotland as three Englishman are the first to notice the unusual readings which would lead to Earth's near destruction and their efforts to get the message out. Unusually for an American film, it doesn't seem forced -- the dialogue feels local -- and without the rest of the theatrics it could be some BBC Two Horizon drama.

Similar moments happen on the other side of the pond as the effects of the storm take hold. Again, I'd take issue with the naysayers who've been poo-pooing the script. Granted there is a moment with wolves which puts the infamous 24 Cougar incident to shame, but again the real drama comes from the isolation of the characters and also the realisation of what's important to mankind and its civilization. Watch out for a major politician considering whether North America should be looked at as a giant triage unit and when a librarian makes a passionate plea about which sections of his need to be saved. Speaking of which -- if this thing is so lame brained, how come there's a fabulous moment when two minor characters debate the importance of whether Neizche's work should be burnt which is right on the nose?

So its intelligent, educational, the direction is fascinating and the acting is superb producing a well rounded action drama. But, now that New York has been destroyed by aliens, freak weather conditions and Godzilla, which other Sim City disasters are Emmerich and Devlin going to film next? A remake of Earthquake?

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

I am sighing by the way

[29 August 2004]

They've done it again, the golden age continues. Spiderman 2 is another triumph, two hours of gripping action adventure backed up with a heartbreaking story. It's funny, heart stopping, everything you'd want or expect - it's better in so many ways than the first film, but also complements it. As though someone was reading my mind many of the objections I had to the first film have been addressed - it feels like one continuous story; it really looks like a man flying through the city now - its incredibly difficult to tell which is human and which isn't; it is also more willing to take time to tell the story.

But - and here I am sighing by the way - it doesn't feel like Spiderman. Not the comic book hero. This isn't an adaptation it's a re-interpretation - and done so well. But the central character just feels too far away from the man who appears on the printed page. Before you start shouting that he's been humanized to make him acceptable for a general audience I understand but I have an argument. Over the years there have been many of adaptations of Sherlock Holmes and countless actors interpreting the role. But I think if you stand them next to each other, the general essence of the character remains the same, because he is what people are tuning in for, to see him solve a case.

So why in putting Spidey on screen have they stripped him of all the characterization which made him such a joy on the printed page? At the basic level it's the wisecracks. At times Spidey's sarcasm is hilarious; the problem is that because he's such a troubled soul in the films it would be incongruous so out they went. Spidey also has a slightly naïve arrogance which means he'll burst into a situation already assuming that he's going to win before realizing the odds are against him; he'll also seek out danger to a certain extent, look for mayhem when he can. In the films, it all seems so reactionary - Spiderman only ever crops up when someone in the vicinity of Peter Parker is in trouble - we never actually see him out on an evening 'patrol' - it's implied but we really need to be able to watch him taking out those petty criminals to get sense of what his life is like so that we can understand the tiredness in his eyes.

There are rumours that Eliza Dushka is in the running for the third film to play The Black Cat. Which is fine - perfect casting in fact. The trouble is that part of that relationship arc is the verbal sparring and sexual chemistry between the two of them. But since this version of Peter seems to want to either look dumbfounded, awestruck or give a deep philosophical it's difficult to see how the dynamic will work. So top of my wish list for the third film is to let Spidey relax into his vocation a little and enjoy the power he has. Otherwise you start to question whether people are turning up for a film which happens to be about a character called Spiderman, or to see Spidey back in action.

Anything Else (2003)

It's a film of small ambitions.

[29 August 2004]

Having had to visit Woody Allen's previous two films on Region One dvd (Hollywood Ending and Curse of the Jade Scorpion) it's actually quite a revelation to see the white on black characters appear on a cinema screen -- I'd forgotten how that looked and the anticipation of what the first moments will be as the usual jazz track plays out, it feels comfortable and familiar. And its this familiarity which fuels the film -- for the first time in a while we are back in the Manhattan of the here and now watching a character based story. Although his films have been no less enjoyable lately they have hung on a concept or mcguffin which drives the plot when for me he's always been more comfortable exploring characters within a simpler structure. Which is why Anything Else works so well.

Yet again I find myself rush headlong against general critical opinion. Does it do anything absolutely new? No. Does it at times feel like Woody Allen by numbers? Yes. But it doesn't matter. I would much rather go to the cinema and see something with a script which is half literate with a good 10-15 belly laughs and god forbid actually makes me thing than the usual crud which passes itself off as a smart twentysomething comedy. The magic this time is that despite what poster might being telling you these aren't perfect characters. For once the director lets their mess of neurosis come into conflict and see what happens.

Jason Biggs like most people in their early twenties doesn't know what they want but can't break from the life they've been dropped into (its actually a much stronger performance than people are giving him credit for -- compare his work here to Loser and you can see he's learnt a few things in the intervening years. Woody himself might be the mentor of the piece but he's also a psychoanalytical mess (and the director seems to enjoy not having to carry the film as well as write and direct it -- he's always underestimated his talents but here he's very touching). Christina Ricci is adorable but as a girlfriend would a pain to get along with but for perfectly good reasons (secretly I assumed that the work she does here is similar to what we're missing in the still painfully unreleased Prozac Nation) including her mother played by Stockard Channing (I can't believe she's never been in a Woody Allen film before). The main ensemble is set off my Danny DeVito the gatekeeper to Biggs freedom (oddly also not been through the Woodster mill either before).

It's a film of small ambitions. It plays out against a backdrop of very few sets and locations. A massive amount of the story takes place in Bigg's apartment and on the benches of Central Park. This has the effect of allowing the audience focus on the dialogue. Instead of following the usual route of giving kids hip references which both immediately date a film and clang about to anyone the same age as the characters, Allen instead drops mentions for the giants of literature, philosophy and music. If this is the environment these characters have grown up in and the culture they've been exposed to they're hardly going to start talking about Britney Spears (although do look out for a cameo by a contemporary music artist). Which is I suppose what makes it so involving. We're watching someone else's world and getting lost there. No one complains about Middle Earth, so why all the back biting about this version of Manhattan?

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Bloody brilliant

[29 August 2004]

Frankly I don't know where to begin with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Having not entirely been enamoured by the previous two films both of which were far too long to sustain their storyline and didn't have enough humanity to make the viewer care what happened to anyone I went in with a certain foreboding. My main, if not only reason for turning up this time was the knowledge that Alfonso Cuarón, who directed the beautiful Great Expectations and thrilling Y Tu Mama Tambian was behind the camera -- I wanted to see if someone with his talent would be submerged within the needs of this kind of franchise. I needn't have worried.

The new Harry Potter film is bloody brilliant.

I know. I can't believe I typed those words either. But its like watching a whole other film series. The closest comparison I can think of is Star Trek : The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan. In that case, out went the massive set pieces, the portentious dialogue and the assumption they needed to be answering all of the big questions and in came a revenge drama mixed with a meditation on the legacy of the past -- and so happens here. From the opening moments when Harry is practicing his magic under the covers so as not to attract the attention of his Uncle which is presented in such a way as to imply that he's doing the wizard version of what other teenagers his age might be doing under the covers, its obvious that we're in the hands of a director who has a clear vision how he wants to tell the story of how Potter is growing up. Unlike the previous films were the characters forever felt like puppets wheeled in to speak their lines on cue, here they gain all kinds of dimensions and so we actually care about what happens to them. It's quite a shock -- from watching an animated storybook illustration to a real film. For more evidence watch for the moment when the kids are trapped on the stairs and the new head boy dashes about trying to take charge and is roundly ignored.

Remember in previous films how the Quiddich game was the main feature for nigh on half an hour, with the build up and the sports film style presentation with a beginning, middle and end in which we essentially waited for Harry to win by catching the snitch? Here the game becomes something the kids do as part of their normal school year -- we don't even find out who won (although its implied). Hogwarts the school has developed into somewhere which feels like a real place rather than a bunch of sets and for the first time we even have a sense of the geography of the place. And perhaps more significantly the costume design has become more varied, with Harry and friends in their civies more often and Haggrid in particular displaying a greater wardrobe.

Is it all down to Cuaron? Well the scriptwriter Steven Kloves is the same as on previous projects (perhaps he was happy to have greater flexibility), and its widely acknowledged that is the best novel of the series. But we welcome as photographer Michael Seresin, whose previous work includes Angela's Ashes, Birdy, Fame, Bugsy Malone and Midnight Express and there are some similarity in the camera-work with those films -- the pallete in particular which includes blue and greens in comparison to the reds and browns of the past. Its more fluid, with greater use of hand held and steadicam. Throughout you feel like you're in the action instead of watching from the outside. Its visceral to an impressive degree.

But the real improvement is in the performances. Its still an British character actor's convention but even they seem to be having fun this time with more dramatic performances. David Thewlis as Lupin and Gary Oldman as Sirius Black prove yet again why they're continually hired to play the grey areas in us all -- both share some very touching scenes with Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, as does Maggie Smith. But they're greatly helped by the fact that this time they have something to bounce off, because the kids have gown up slightly and actually give proper performances. Radcliffe shows the power bubbling under, especially in the Gilliamesque opening scenes. Rupert Grint's Ron Weasly used to be a collection of facial expressions. They're still there, but now he has something behind the eyes even though on this occasion he's mainly the fall guy. The real revelation is Emma Watson who given the chance to relax and probably offers the performance of the film as Hermione, suddenly a kickass, passionate, intelligent role model -- no longer the annoying, grump know-it-all.

So I loved it and can't wait to see it again so that I can pick up on all the details I missed. Two things can happen from here -- it's either going to be the turning point in the franchise as later episodes make the first two as reductive as The Phantom Menace or it'll be the aboration, the good one, the Live and Let Die of the Roger Moore James Bonds. My great fear now as I await The Goblet of Fire is that it'll be back to business as usual, the magic of this one bleeding away. It's being directed by Mike Newell who on the one hand has made things like Enchanted April and Awfully Big Adventure which would suggest something in the old mood. But he also made Four Weddings and Donnie Brascoe so it could go either way...

Firefly (2002–2003)

The following review contains moments of total jabbering incoherence. You have been warned.

[29 August 2004]

Firefly. Where do I begin. There are times, now and then, when something new arrives, be it music, painting, scientific discovery, film or TV which just makes me take a step back (metaphoric or otherwise) and go - 'Ooooh!' Something is so good, so in-tune, that it sucks me in and creates an indefinable something which is impossible to put into words without sounding like either a pretentious idiot or a yabbering nutcase. Without a doubt it is one of the best pieces of television ever created and the heartbreaking thing is no one but a few interested souls have seen it. This should have been as important a step in TV terms as The X-Files, or before that Hill Street Blues. Instead it was cancelled before anyone got a chance to see it.

Over the last couple of days I've tried to describe the series to people. It's a western set in the future with spaceships and horses. They swear all the way through it but in Chinese. One of the main characters is a Shepherd or holy man and another is a Companion or prostitute. It's about a group of interplanetary traders trying to make their way. And there are no aliens. No sound in space. And funny in a Douglas Adams / The Simpsons way and in places better than Star Wars. It sounds ridiculous and the blank faces I've been getting are heartbreaking.

Basically its impossible for me to review it. I feel like I'm too close, unable to express rational thought. I can't see its failings. No its only failing is that it strives to be utterly original in the face of overwhelming banality. At no point does it do anything if it can't be done interestingly. For example, the aforementioned Shepherd somehow has a genius knowledge of weapons and vehicles. Being a Companion is a legal and respectable trade. The comedy relief pilot is married to the amazonian second in command but he can be utterly serious when need be and she can be a laugh riot. And time after time you'll think an episode is about one thing and it'll be turned on its head and it'll actually be about something else even more extra-ordinary. That cack like Andromeda continues and this does explains why the world is still run by the children of morons.

It's not often I will recommend something unconditionally, but here I am. Just buy it. Its 25 pounds at Amazon on DVD, and Tesco have got it in store for 30. It's a bargain. If you like sci-fi - buy it. If you like Buffy or Angel buy it. If you like comedy adventure - buy it. If you simply want to take a chance to see something extra-ordinary - buy it. Think of it as an investment. Even though by the end you'll be a wreck because you won't understand why something so right could only last for so few episodes, and you want to know what happens next, you'll be heartened to know a film is coming next year, which hopefully answer some of the questions. So think of it as an investment, so that when all of your friends are talking about it you can smugly say you were there first. Or if you want to be a real friend invite them along now for the ride.

Jersey Girl (2004)

Clerks 2 coming soon...

[29 August 2004]

Ok, lets begin. Kevin Smith's new film Jersey Girl has been publicized as his grown up film, his attempt at creating something which will attract a stronger mainstream audience whilst still retaining some of the sensibilities of his previous film. A sort of Chasing Amy with less swearing and substituting gender politics with the themes of fatherhood and much less swearing and in an even bigger departure NOT set in the world of Jay and Silent Bob, the View Askewniverse. A decent parallel would be that if he was Woody Allen, this would be his Annie Hall, a break from the earlier funny ones. As such it's had a wildly contradictory critical reaction and its not hard to see why.

So lets get the negatives out of the way first. This isn't the most original film ever made. In here you'll recognize elements of Jerry Maguire, About A Boy, Jack and Sarah and Bounce and a fair few tv movies. It's the closest Smith is going to get to making a Richard Curtis style Working Title film. But these are genre issues - watching Farscape you can hardly complain that you've seen space ships before. Also, without being too spoilery, the presence of Jennifer Lopez at the start of the film does weigh the thing down somewhat, perhaps, like the child it might have been nicer if we could imagine about her mother. And although the new CG View Askew logo at the start is lovely, it does rather reminds the viewer of who's going to be missing from the film.

But those are the only criticisms, because my god this is a great film. In all the right places, its funny, touching and exciting. It's difficult to talk about the plot because unlike other examples of the genre you aren't always sure what's going to happen next and that's partly because of the convincing work done by the actors. Ben Affleck's character, the same kind of fractured personality which he played Changing Lanes could go either way and does say some extraordinarily nasty things at times so you aren't sure if certain plot points will be played out. His leading lady, his character's daughter, Raquel Castro is real find -- like few child actors before her she can actually carry a scene all by herself even at her tender age. But that could be said of everyone in here. George Carlin is sweet as Affleck's father and Jason Biggs proves he can play sidekick just as well as the lead. Just like Elijah Wood in Eternal Sunshine ..., it's quite a shock to see Liv Tyler without her Elvin robes and ears as she demonstrates the abilities in light comedy which made Empire Records such a treat all those years ago.* There is also a great little performance from someone turning up for a cameo. I won't tell you who it is, but it rather reminds you that he was a serious actor once.

But what of Kevin Smith's work? It certainly feels more like a mainstream film than any of his previous efforts. This is obviously due in part to the hiring of the experienced Vilmos Zsigmond as his cinematographer this time, who gives the scenes a depth we haven't really seen before (not everything is done in a oner. Look see - actual coverage - cutting between people when they're talking!). But what stuns me is that it still feels like a Kevin Smith film. At times when he could have toned down his distinctive dialogue, he simply doesn't, leading to some wonderful riffs which you simply wouldn't find elsewhere. And don't believe the hype the pop culture references are still in attendance, just toned down here so that they aren't the point of the scene. Now that Kevin has passed on The Green Hornet because he said he never got into the business to make action films, if this is the kind of film he's going to be turning out, I'd be perfectly happy. This isn't a 'monumental achievement' but it'll make you laugh and cry in equal measure and sometimes that's all you need from a film.

* She obviously has a sense of humour too - either that or she hasn't seen the second episode of the Clerks Cartoon when Randall and Dante are locked in a freezer which features the following dialogue.... Randall: If you were Steve Tyler from Aerosmith and you could have any woman in the world, who would it me? Dante (passionately): Caitlin... Randall: See I'd choose Liv Tyler ...