edinburghstoryteller Reviews

Broken Flowers (2005)

A strange little film...

[7/10 · 19 April 2006]

Jim Jarmusch hovers dangerously on the edge of being pretentious quite a lot of the time. He stepped wholeheartedly onto the bad side of that line with Coffee and Cigarettes but managed to completely avoid it when he made the outstanding Ghost Dog, back in '99. With this movie, he falls somewhere in between, but definitely closer to the good side than the bad.

Bill Murray's last few performances have shown that he is an actor of real quality and this is no exception. He plays this part beautifully and the writer doesn't really give him a huge amount to sink his teeth into, which makes that fact all the more impressive.

The story is very simple and really nicely handled. This movie shows how much you can do with very little, as long as you do the important stuff well. If you want a clutching-your-sides comedy then look elsewhere but if you're after something different, sedate and thoughtful with some amusing moments then you could do a lot worse than this one.

Crash (I) (2004)

Flawless...

[10/10 · 13 February 2006]

This is outstanding. If you're feeling disillusioned with the state of movies or you'd like to see some social commentary without being preached at, then watch this immediately. It is everything that a movie should be.

It's a strange film to categorise, in the same way that Magnolia is. It kinds of stands outside of the standard stuff and just exists as a brilliant piece of cinema. There isn't really a role or a central storyline - just a succession of people, real people, living through a few days in LA. Their lives intertwine, in much the same way that they handled things in Magnolia, but that's not the important bit; it's just important that you sit back with an open mind and observe.

It's very rare that you find a movie that is - essentially - about race that doesn't try to preach at you one way or the other. Racism is a very cloudy issue these days and Crash does not say 'Look at this evil racist' or 'Look at how badly these people are treated', it shows a succession of people being real, genuine people right in the middle of this very tricky subject and lets you draw your own conclusions.

There are some fantastic acting performances in this. Terrence Howard and Matt Dillon in particular are superb, most notably the former. He was nominated this year for an Academy Award for his role in Hustle and Flow - which he was also brilliant in - but for me he should have been nominated for best supporting actor for his part in this too. He owns the screen when he's on it.

In short - this is a magnificent movie. It richly deserved it's Academy Award for best picture - I've seen all other nominees and this stood head and shoulders above all of them. I honestly believe that if you don't appreciate the quality of this film - whether you like it or you don't - then you need your head looked at. If you haven't seen it, watch it.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Pretty disappointing movie, all in all...

[2/10 · 7 February 2006]

Ignore all the hype that surrounds this movie. It's been one that produces vastly differing opinions at either end of the scale, but not because of the qualities of the film itself - there's far too much political nonsense wrapped up in the way people are viewing this movie and it should be judged on no more than how efffective it is at portraying the story in question. Too many people seem to have gone into this having already made up their mind that they were going to hate it or that they were going to be mesmerised by it.

In truth, it's a fairly ordinary film. If it wasn't about homosexuality it would barely have gotten a mention, but as it is everybody feels the need to show how enlightened they are by writing melodramatic stories about how it's changed their life. That's just another bandwagon for people to jump onto though. In reality, this has a few decent moments, a decent premise and some stunning cinematography; apart from that it's badly put together and ignores far too many details.

When I say 'details', I'm talking about the fundamentals, the foundational stuff. For example, the accents start out pretty bad and by the end of the film they're just plain awful. Jake Gyllenhall doesn't know how to ride a horse which - given that he's playing a rodeo rider - is just sloppy directing by Ang Lee. Apart from that though, I thought Gyllenhall was the better of the two main parts. Apart from the accent and the riding he did a very good job with it. Heath Ledger just mumbled a lot.

The main problem with this movie is that it was about their struggle to come to terms with what happened up there on Brokeback Mountain - about their inner turmoil over it given their strict, traditional upbringings. With that in mind, they jumped into the sack with each other WAY too easily. It didn't build - it was far too easy a transition for them to go from nothing at all to stroking each other lovingly, and when that's what you're building a film on top of you need to make sure it feels authentic. This just didn't.

So overall, some really nice camera-work, some mixed acting, a flimsy plot and a criminal lack of attention to detail adds up to a pretty ordinary movie. I wouldn't bother with it if I were you, but if it's one you want to have an opinion on then then don't expect anything spectacular. The scene with the fireworks is pretty cool though.

Yellowbeard (1983)

Outstanding movie...

[9/10 · 7 February 2006]

One of my all time favourites. I would have given it 10 out of 10, but that just doesn't seem right and - to be honest - I suspect the filmmakers would agree with me on that one. It's not a movie that tries to be good - in terms of actual quality...if you see what I mean - it just works absolutely beautifully.

Graham Chapman is magnificent as always, John Cleese is the best Blind Pugh character I've ever seen and the story is a joy to be a part of. Taking a more pirate-oriented look at the Treasure Island tale, this movie wantonly stumbles from scene to scene without ever apologising for itself; which I find hugely refreshing. It is laugh out loud funny in parts and just plain good fun in all the others.

Don't listen to the naysayers - this is brilliantly bad and it's well aware of the fact. Don't go see it if you're looking for Oscar worthy stuff, because it is a world away from that. It's low-down, dirty, well-written nonsense of the highest calibre.

In the Cut (2003)

Deeply cynical, sellout movie...

[1/10 · 7 February 2006]

This was dreadful.

I had high hopes for this film, because I'm a big fan of Meg Ryan's acting abilities - she's very good. And indeed, it's not her that I fault for this travesty of a movie - the part they gave her was awful.

I wasn't shocked by this movie, it wasn't 'too edgy' for me, it was just pointless. I spent the whole thing hoping it was going to improve and trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it started out pretty ordinary and continued to be that way for the whole picture.

It was dark for the sake of being dark, Meg's character was really badly overwritten and by the end of the film I really couldn't give a crap if a nuclear weapon suddenly went off and killed everyone involved. In fact, that might have been a better way to go. There was just no substance - it was all about trying to be edgy and dangerous, but without some real meat to base that on, all you have is a second rate picture with poor lighting and a bad script.

Overall, a disappointment. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

The Aristocrats (2005)

Has no right to be as funny as it is...

[8/10 · 3 February 2006]

I'm sure you've heard the premise - no drugs, no sex, no violence, just obscenity. What you have here - and this isn't a spoiler because there's no plot to spoil - is a massive group of very funny people talking about one of the fundamental 'comedian's jokes': the Aristocrats.

It starts out relatively tamely and you begin to wonder what on earth this is actually going to be about, and then it gets steadily more unpleasant and depraved until - about 15 minutes in, when rape and incest start to show up - you start to think to yourself, 'Can they possibly make this subject matter funny?'. Or at least that's where I was at that point.

I gave it the benefit of the doubt though and decided to persevere and then about ten to fifteen minutes later I was laughing so hard that I was wiping away tears and clutching my sides.

This movie has no right to be funny. It's a horrible idea for a film and it shouldn't work, but the editing team (who must have had a massive quantity of material to work through) deserve some kind of medal. They somehow gave the movie structure and direction, managed to throw in some social commentary without getting preachy and - more than anything else - made me laugh till it hurt at something that should never have even raised a smile.

It's tacky, it's crude, it's unpleasant but at it's heart it's a work of genius. If you do decide to watch it, get the DVD - the second competition winner is brilliant, and some of the actors' extra bits are really good - Jon Stewart and Kevin Pollack in particular.

Kung Fu Hustle (2004)

Top quality, deeply bizarre film...

[8/10 · 3 February 2006]

I liked this movie - I liked it a lot. Pretty much from the outset I could tell I was in for something a bit different and it didn't let me down.

Without going into detail or revealing any specifics about the action, this is a little like a live action cartoon. Filled with outrageous action sequences and entertaining dialogue, this film glides along merrily, keeping your attention from start to finish. With some genuinely funny moments and some stunning visuals, I think you could find this deeply entertaining whether you're a fan of the genre or not.

Don't go watch this film if you're looking for gritty, realistic fight scenes, because you'll be disappointed. Think more along the lines of the Matrix meets Roadrunner meets Iron Monkey and you'll be somewhere close to the mark.

A good time to be had by all.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

Funny, stupid - everything you'd expect...

[7/10 · 25 January 2006]

This was really good.

If you don't like vulgarity and you like your comedy to be sophisticated then don't watch this because it is way off on both those counts. A lot of the comedy is purile and stupid, but it still manages to be funny. A huge amount of the credit for that goes down to Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson: two naturally funny people who work extremely well together. You get the impression that a lot of the jokes came directly from them - or if not then the writer did a great job of judging the people they were writing for. It all feels very natural and that makes it very easy to laugh where you're supposed to laugh and cringe where you're supposed to cringe.

All the actors do a good job of playing the parts they were assigned and they've managed to squeeze a love story into this shameless smut vehicle without it getting too gooey and sentimental (which would have felt completely out of place).

I wasn't expecting too much, but I was most impressed. It's worth watching for Vaughn and Wilson alone. Without them playing those parts I suspect it wouldn't have worked, but it does - so who cares? It's a brazen, funny movie that knows exactly what it is and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Two thumbs up.

National Treasure (2004)

A good time had by all...

[7/10 · 25 January 2006]

National Treasure is not a documentary, it's a story, and as long as you realise that before you go in to watch it you should be very pleased with what you find.

Nicholas Cage has been on a quest his whole life to find something (the eponymous National Treasure) and we follow him as he goes after it. Simple as that. The story holds together very well and the action moves forwards in a very slick, polished kind of a way.

I wasn't expecting much from this because I'd heard some very lukewarm reviews, but people really need to stop saying that every movie that comes out is trying to be something else and assess them on their own merits. Nicholas Cage is as good as ever, the plot works just as it should, it grabs your attention early on and - if you let it - will sweep you happily along as things steadily unfold.

Although the ending wasn't great, overall this movie works very well. Very good, very easy, very entertaining viewing.

Sahara (2005)

Good, mindless entertainment...

[7/10 · 25 January 2006]

If you're looking for a stunning plot, Oscar worthy acting and airtight continuity then don't watch this movie. You won't like it. A lot of the negative reviews for this complain about the believability of some of the action scenes and how stupid the henchmen are. This is true - some of the scenes are flat out stupid if you scrutinise them, but if that's what you want to do, what are doing watching an action flick with Matthew McConaughey and Steve Zahn as the lead roles? I mean come on - Steve Zahn? If you just want to see something mindless and enjoyable then this is a great movie. The plot is very dubious indeed, so just forget about that. The chemistry between the main actors is great and the film moves from action scene to comedy scene to action scene with a kind of happy-go-lucky indifference to things such as realism that you can't help but get swept along for the ride.

I enjoyed this movie from start to finish and would recommend it to anyone who's looking for a bit of mindless entertainment. It's not like Indiana Jones and it's not like James Bond - it's like Sahara and it makes no apologies for being just that. And rightly so.

Wolf Creek (2005)

Very good movie, if rather frustrating...

[7/10 · 25 January 2006]

To say that this is based on the Wolf Creek killings in the Australian outback is pushing the term 'based on' WAY beyond its limits. What happened in Oz and what happened in this film are so far apart I'm a little surprised they can actually lay claim to it being based on a true story.

Setting that aside though, this is a very well made horror movie. They do a very good job of getting you to the place where things start to go bad without having any of those moments where the scantily clad girl goes out to investigate the strange noise armed with a wooden spoon. It's all very believable, and all pretty reasonable, which is what makes it so disturbing.

I won't spoil the story, but the characters all act like real people thrown into a deeply unpleasant scenario. There are MANY moments where you're screaming at the screen for them to do something so obvious that it's hard to see how they could do anything else, but at the same time you can just about believe that a group of tourists under that much stress would do exactly what they end up doing from moment to moment.

One thing you should certainly know about this movie is that it is extremely unpleasant. Not in a 'monsters and ghosts' kind of way, but in a depraved, nightmarish kind of way. It's the raw believability that makes this movie so haunting.

Having said all that though, there are bad points too. There are so many moments in this movie that the main characters could easily have fixed their situation that there are times you kind of want them to die. Also, I think it goes a little too far. I think subtle horror is far more frightening than the in-your-face kind - and whilst this film is very clever in that it's a subtle aspect of the in-your-face horror that unsettles you, there are bits that seem to be in there just to see how far they could push it.

Overall, I would recommend it - but it is not one for the faint of heart. And you probably shouldn't watch it if you're about to go on a road trip across Australia ... like I am. D'oh!

The Descent (2005)

Best horror movie around right now...

[8/10 · 25 January 2006]

To be honest, I wasn't expecting a hell of a lot from this. I was hoping for a lot - because I do like it when they get horror right (and it doesn't happen very often) and I really enjoyed Dog Soldiers, Neil Marshall's previous offering - but I was half expecting to be disappointed. Thankfully though, I was very pleasantly surprised.

If you've seen Dog Soldiers, forget about it for the purposes of this movie - the two aren't even vaguely similar. The earlier work is very tongue in cheek and a good laugh; this one is tense, gripping and jump-out-of-your-seat scary at times. It's not scary in a Shining or a Ring kind of way - it won't get under your skin like those do - but it will have you on the edge of your seat, make you feel deeply uncomfortable and made me jump a mile on several occasions.

The acting is very good - don't listen to these people who are saying the actors phoned in their performances. It's not Oscar-worthy stuff by any means but they're unknowns who do a very good job of becoming distinct, realistic people and making you give a crap what happens as the story unfolds. An essential part of any decent horror movie.

I watched this and Wolf Creek in fairly quick succession and actually think this is the better movie. Wolf Creek goes a little too far for my liking, and the main characters in that - far more prestigious - movie are so frustrating that there are times you kind of want them to die. This doesn't do that. This is far less realistic but handled extremely well. I'm looking forward to Neil Marshall's next offering.

Spirited Away (2001)

Beautiful film - comes highly recommended...

[8/10 · 25 January 2006]

From some of the reviews I was reading I was expecting something very trippy, but very well made. In many ways, that's exactly what I got, but if you bear in mind that this is a fantasy tale it's really not as weird as many people make it out to be. Some of the ideas and the imagery are bizarre - in fact most of them are, it must be said - but nothing feels like it was thrown in there purely to be different. It all feels like it has a place all of its own.

It's sometimes hard for animated films to draw you in and make you feel involved with the characters, but Spirited Away does this brilliantly. Even some of the stranger ones - you find yourself becoming deeply involved in their little sub-stories. The end result of all this is that it becomes a joy to watch, from beginning to end.

I would recommend this to virtually anybody who appreciates good movies, because it is so well crafted that if you approach it with an open mind and simply allow yourself to be swept along with it, you cannot help but enjoy it.

Unbreakable (2000)

Hugely underrated and misunderstood movie

[8/10 · 10 January 2006]

I love this film. I'm the only person I know who doesn't hate it, but I cannot fathom why it gets such a bad rap from everybody. It seems that Shyamalan's films have this a running theme - with the notable exception of the Sixth Sense, which pretty much everyone seems to get. He makes movies that are very subtle, and which seem to need you to focus on them just right to fully grasp what he was trying to do. I've enjoyed all his movies, but for me the alien part of Signs takes a lot away from what I believe to be the central storyline and as such the whole movie suffers a little. Yet I know other people who think Signs is his best, specifically because of the way the alien plot line accentuates the central one.

Unbreakable is a beautifully simple film, but I think it has to hit you just right for you to completely get it. All the actors nail their parts, particularly Bruce Willis and his kid. Shyamalan takes an interesting (if slightly fringe) theory and puts it in a real world context, with a real family. Somehow he manages to never go overboard with it and - for me at least - it gripped me from the first moment to the last. Samuel L Jackson's character history is really nicely crafted in the middle of the other plot lines and you get genuinely involved in the people Shyamalan has created.

Don't get caught up in all the talk of the twist ending. The ending is good, but if you spend the whole movie waiting for this tumultuous twist you'll inevitably be disappointed, and the movie stands alone without it.

Don't go into this movie expecting another Sixth Sense or Signs. It's very very subtle and very understated. If you don't like slow movies, just don't watch this because it moves at a very sedate pace, but I personally think you'll be missing out. You'll likely either love it or you'll loathe it, but at least it will make an impression.

Land of the Dead (2005)

More of the same...

[5/10 · 10 January 2006]

I'm a big fan of George A Romero. Night of the Living Dead is still one of my favourite movies, and his others make for great viewing too. When I saw the trailers for this I was expecting something a little bit new and different. Unfortunately I was disappointed in this regard.

Overall it was quite good fun, but it didn't really go anywhere. The basic premise was that the world has been all but overrun with zombies, with the remaining humans living in fenced off, protected areas and scavenging for food and supplies in the zombie-ridden towns. When they go into one of these towns at the start it becomes apparent that some of the zombies have started to communicate and put together rudimentary thoughts.

But then nothing of consequence really happens. The story is completely run of the mill and - whilst it's quite entertaining - you've seen it all before. The zombies can think a bit, but they're still just the same slow, lumbering dead folk. The extent of their new powers is the ability to knock down wooden barriers and walk across a river.

After the remake of Dawn of the Dead pleasantly surprised me by doing something different and a little bit scary with the genre I was hoping for some new take on George's classic approach, but it's just another run-of-the-mill zombie movie with better special effects, a bigger budget and a worse story.

Worth a look if you've nothing better to do, but his older stuff is much better and if you want something new and improved, get the new Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later.

The Incredibles (2004)

Pixar have done it again

[9/10 · 10 January 2006]

All the hype you've heard about this movie - all the people who've seen it and talk about how great it is - it's all completely justified. It seems that Pixar can do no wrong at the moment (although I'm a little dubious about the upcoming 'Cars', but we'll see). They've produced another movie that is so much more than mere animation.

The animation itself is breathtaking. They somehow manage to make it look very cartoony but remarkably real at the same time - almost like a cross between CG graphics, claymation and real materials. The way they handle hair, fire and water in this is simply unbelievable.

Setting the visuals aside, though, this film would be great if no animator had ever come near it. The script is genuinely funny and beautifully timed, the characters are good, the story is very simple but it works really nicely and the action sequences are magnificent, flowing displays of computer generated brilliance. All in all, you can't really fault this movie. It stands as one of Pixar's very best.