Saturday, 29 August 2009

The Anderson Tapes (1971)


Sidney Lumet has directed numerous films that are viewed as cinema classics. 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Network and even Serpico are all highly regarded by film lovers and film critics alike and have all, except Serpico, received an Academy Award nomination. I recently discovered however that Lumet has directed many, many more films than the ones he is most famed for, most of which I've never heard of. The Anderson Tapes is one of those and by complete chance I happened to stumble across it on BBC1 the other night.

The Anderson Tapes is essentially a heist/caper movie. It follows an identical plot outline to many other caper movies, for example one of my favourite films, The Italian Job. We meet our leading character (in this case it is John 'Duke' Anderson played by Sean Connery) who has just been released from jail. This immediately tells us he has been on the wrongside of the law at least once. It is then revealed that he wants to commit another crime almost as soon as he is a free man. Said crime is revealed and described as the lead character seeks out his crew that will aid him throughout. The final act or two is dedicated to the crime itself. Familiar?

So Anderson has been released from prison after serving a ten year sentence. Whilst he was locked up there has been an increase in surveillance and survelliance techniques such as security cameras are now an established part of everyday life. Upon visiting an old lover, who lives in a swanky apartment, he comes up with the idea for a new crime. He and his crew will drive a van up to the building and rob all the high value goods from the other apartments in the building. Simple. However, unbeknowst to Anderson his associates are being monitored, each for different reasons and by different organizations but none of them can put the pieces together and anticipate the heist allowing it to go ahead and Anderson and his gang make their way through the various apartments, rounding up the inhabitants and robbing their goods. Eventually, the police are informed and they assemble a large presence outside the building and close in on the unsuspecting men who once alerted attempt to escape.



The Italian Job is the magnus opus of heist/caper films. It is excellent from start to finish. Sadly, The Anderson Tapes is not. The actually heist begins around the hour mark of a film that runs for about ninety five minutes and sadly Lumet forgot the make the first hour interesting. It's worse than uninteresting, it's mindnumbingly boring or perhaps that's a little harsh. We are introduced to our characters but once the heist begins it kind of felt like that first hour didn't really count or matter at all. This should come as a surprise because from the description of the plot above the plot does actually sound quite interesting. Things do improve however once the heist begins but even then the overall pacing was a little out. It was a little bit pedestrian at times, seemed to lack any urgency but at least the second half was a lot more watchable.

One thing I did like here was the flash forward scenes we see on numerous occasions during the heist. When Anderson's group enter the various luxourous apartment's and we are introuduced to the victims of their crime, the story suddenly cuts only a few hour ahead to the point at which the victim's are giving witness reports of the very scenes we were about to see before the leap ahead in time. They give their reports and then we go back to the actual heist scenes.

Unfortunately this positive note is tarnished somewhat by the horrible, ear splitting electronic score Lumet seems insistent on using in order to instigate each flash forward in time. I understand why he would have wanted to use it. After all, The Anderson Tapes main focus is on technology, from surveillance through to telecommuncations and back again. Right from the opening credits which uses an illuminous green L.E.D style font in telling us the name of the film it was obvious that Lumet wanted to orientate his heist movie around the subject of technology. We are constantly seeing some piece of equipment, be it CCTV, a computer screen, telephone or monitors. In fact, the police are alerted of the robbery by a hospital bed bound child who uses his amateur radio equipment to contact them and when Anderson is apprehended he immediately has a recording device thrusted in front of his face whilst being asked for a statement. Lumet presumably thought that an electronic bleeping noise fitted in with this theme, which perhaps it did, but was there any need to make it sound so ugly?

All in all The Anderson Tapes just isn't very interesting as pathetic an attempt at criticism that is. It feels a little half hearted and when there are so many better heist films out there Lumet's effort suffers and seems a little weak. And this is a disappointing because actually it's quite a nice idea for a film. I liked the over exagguration on surveillance but ultimately as a film I felt it lacked quality execution with little in the way of atmosphere. It does make me wonder how talented a director Lumet is. I'm astonished that only four years later, he would direct Dog Day Afternoon, a film that may not be a caper movie, but is however very similar in genre to The Anderson Tapes and about ten times better. He has directed 46 films yet I couldn't even name ten of them. Did Lumet just strike lucky throughout his career? Perhaps he did, but he certainly didn't strike lucky in 1971.

Rating: 5/10

Friday, 28 August 2009

CRASSIC NOT CLASSIC #1 The Usual Suspects (1995)


"Who is Keyser Soze?"
(actually it's pretty bleeding obvious)


Prepare yourself for spoilers. Allow me if you will to set the scene. The date today is the 28th August 2009, that is fourteen years and three days since Bryan Singer's showpiece The Usual Suspects was released over here in the United Kingdom. In these fourteen years the film has garnered mountains of critical acclaim. IMDb, that's the Internet Movie Database, has it listed as the 22nd best film of all time. Empire Magazine has it listed as the 61st in their list of the Best 500 films ever made. So when I sat down to watch it a few weeks ago I was expecting something incredible. Sadly however, The Usual Suspects gets the priviledge of being the first entry into my bad good films section which has been named quite brilliantly by me (thanks to my genius ability to rhyme) 'Crassic Not Classic.'

The story begins on a ship which explodes. This leads to a curious policeman wanting to know all the details as to who, how, what, why and when (actually he knows when...or does he...!?). His one witness is Roger 'Verbal' Kint, played pretty well by Kevin Spacey. What follows is an overly complicated story in which Kint tell us lie after lie about a large cocaine heist until ultimately the most famous twist in film history is revealed to us. Yawn.

The twist is nothing new when it comes to story telling. Most films, even those that are not famous for boasting a huge plot twist, have twists and turns along the way to their conclusion but not all films put all their eggs in one basket like The Usual Suspects does. There is no subtly here, it basically all hinges on what plot turn at the very end.

After the film had initially finished I thought I had enjoyed it. Then, as the days passed, and I thought about the film and thought about my reactions as the story unfolded I realised that I didn't enjoy all that much. Thinking back over it, attempting to understand everything that happens until the revelation is completely pointless because none of it actually occurs. OK, on first viewing we are likely to try and understand what is happening because we are unaware of the final outcome but on a rewatch everything would be completely redundant. We waste the time trying to interpret the majority of the film just to then be told that it was utterly pointless to do so.



I also have issues with the films attitude towards itself. It thinks of itself as refreshing, original and really quite clever but in truth it is none of these things infact it just looks a little tired and lazy at times two words I'm sure Bryan Singer would be horrified to hear aimed at his 'intelligent' little flick.

Don't get me wrong The Usual Suspects is not a badly crafted film, It doesn't display any of the techniques associated with 'bad' film making but by constructing the story the way it did it went and made itself completely unrewatchable. Unlike other films boasting big plot twists, The Usual Suspects has absolutely nothing else going for it and I doubt I will ever want to see this overrated, overconfident mishap ever again. This probably sounds more like a rather short rant than a critical review but a short rant is exactly what I needed to do in order to vent my fury at such a poor attempt of a film.

Rating: 2/10


Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Public Enemies (2009)


"They ain't tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time."


After a recent viewing of 2004’s Collateral, Michael Mann instantly became a director whose filmography I had to explore. Heat had been sitting on my DVD shelf for a good while and to this day I still haven’t viewed the film critics call his best. I also added another Mann DVD to that shelf in the form of The Insider but that too is still to be viewed. So I was obviously excited at Mann’s 2009 release Public Enemies, his latest effort revolving around the genre of crime.


The film portrays the true story of F.B.I. agent Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) and his attempt to track down and apprehend public enemy #1 John Dillinger, the notorious bank robber, played here by Johnny Depp. The impression is given that Pervis is the best man for the job as we see him take out Pretty Boy Floyd, another bank robber high on the F.B.I’s wanted list, midway through his efforts to seek out Dillinger.

In other reviews of the film that I have read it has been highlighted that Johnny Depp is fifteen years older than Dillinger was at the time in history in which the film's events take place. Not being familiar with the notoriety of Dillinger, this age difference was not something that bothered me as Depp came across totally believable in his role. This should not come as a surprise to anyone as Depp is firmly amongst the world's elite actors and a huge favourite of mine. Depp's portrayal of Dillinger is one of a man who comes across as a cool customer and Depp has some excellent dialogue to back this up. Despite him being the villian of the film's story I was on his side throughout and was a little saddened after the film's final scene (which impressed me greatly on both a stylistic and intensity level) had finished.

The other two main roles of Pervis and Dillinger's female interest Billie were given to Christian Bale (as I have already pointed out) and Marion Cotillard respectively, both of who were unspectacular in their roles. Bale was his usual, mediocre wooden self whilst Cotillard's performance can be classed as nothing more than solid, which is a disappointment as I hear she is an actress with bundles of talent. Here though, she was given little screen time to shine in her role and provide us evidence of that.

On a positive note, there are some great action scenes throughout. Many have complained about the shaky cam effect, a side effect of shoddy camera work all too common in the modern era and an effect we hear many a complaint about. For me however, the shaky cam issue in Public Enemies was non-existent. Instances where shaky cam did occur were when Dillinger and his men were on the move and the camera was in amongst the group which gave off the appearance that we too were walking with these people. Personally, I thought this worked quite nicely and the shaky cam was nowhere near the severity that can be seen in other films. People who speak of it being anything other than mild in Public Enemies are, in my opinion, being a little unfair.

Public Enemies does however fall a way short of the near perfect score that I would give to Collateral, a film I find fault hard to ascribe to. My biggest issue with the film was the lack of attention given to the supporting characters. By this I mean that I thought there was little attempt at telling us enough about them and expanding on their roles and at times I had to give more thought than I should have to when it came to reminding myself which supporting character was which and what there role was in the whole Dillinger saga. Perhaps this was a purposeful choice by Mann, choosing to put the majority of attention on Dillinger, after all he was public enemy #1. But personally, a little more attention to detail on this aspect of the story telling, especially when Mann had so much source material to choose from and researched so hard whilst making this film, would have bumped up my rating significantly.

A small comment must also be made about the score for Public Enemies. For it's score Mann drafted in Elliot Goldenthal, the same Elliott Goldenthal that Mann got to score Heat (a score that received near universal critical acclaim) but it just did not work out here. It has been a while since a score struck me as being odd as much as this one did. There were a few times when it seemed completely wayword and misplaced.

When it comes to making crime films in the modern era Michael Mann is certainly the front runner and by some distance too. He has his own, non-generic style that appears obvious to me after viewing only two of his films and this is something that cannot be said for many mainstreams films from similar genres.

I am very curious as to how Public Enemies will perform at the Academy Awards this year. With the Best Picture Award widening it's bracket back to ten nominations surely Public Enemies will be one of these. Whether it will win or not I am unsure but collectively Mann, Depp and Cotillard have a history of Oscar nomination and success in the Best Director, Actor and Actress categories before and it would not surprise me if the first two were nominated again this year. Only time will tell.

Sure Public Enemies has its flaws and I would not call it a 'fantastic' film but what I would call it is a really, really good one that is highly enjoyable to watch and since when was being called a 'really, really good film' been a criticism? Roger Ebert describes this a a very well disciplined film and he is spot on with that assessment. It is a film that knows exactly what it wants to do and does it. It is a film that strays away from the cliches that it so easily could have fallen prey to for that it should be commended. It may not be Mann's best and it may not turn out to be Mann's second, third or even fourth best (I'll have to find out for myself) but what Public Enemies is is a film that surely strengthens Mann's filmography even further, justifying claims that he is a truly splendid director of film.

Rating: 7.5-8/10 - recommended

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Airplane! (1980)


Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.


David Zucker is a one trick pony director who has dedicated his film career to churning out mostly parody/spoof type films. More recently he has directed the latter half of the Scary Movie franchise films in numbers 3 and 4 and has produced the universally condemned Superhero Movie and the soon to be universally condemned Sci-Fi Movie. Along the way he directed the not so bad Naked Gun films which did actually provide some great comedy moments even if the gags did start to become slightly repetitive.

But there was a time when words such as 'atrocious', 'average', 'forgettable', 'mediocre' and 'useless' did not apply to Zucker. In 1980, the year which produced two classics in Scorcese's Raging Bull and Kubrick's The Shining, Zucker, along with his brother Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams (ZAZ as they have become to be known) directed and wrote their first feature length film, a film that comes very close to the classic status of the two films mentioned above, albeit in the genre of slapstick parody comedy.

The film follows Ted Striker (Robert Hays) a man who is now fearful of flying after a traumatic incident he was involved in during the war. Elaine Robinson (Julie Hagerty) was the love of his life during the war and Ted wants to be reunited with her. The trouble is, Elaine is now a stewardess and Ted is going to have to overcome his fear of flying if he wants the chance to charm her. He boards the flight but she initially spurns his advances. Things take a sharp turn to the right however when a large amount of passengers on board the flight, including the pilot and his crew, are struck down with food poisoning. Fearing that nobody is going to be able to land the plane successfully Elaine realises that Ted may be the only chance there is of survival.

I firmly believe that what ZAZ have created here is the greatest comedy of all time. It's a film where there is no need to talk about film techniques. Cinematography is redundant, there is no special musical score or great lighting effects, it is just good, in fact very good, laugh out loud comedy from the moment it begins.

Dr.Rumack (played by Leslie Neilsen): "You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital. "
Elaine: "A hospital? What is it?"
Rumack: "It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

The above is just one of the many examples of incredibly witty gags in which ZAZ play incredibly successfully on the double meaning and context of words found in the English language which make it one of the most quotable scripts in film history. It's a script that could almost be described as shameless. At times you will cringe (whilst laughing your head off) at the corniness of some of the gags but that is what makes Airplane! so good. Comedies are just not made like this anymore, it's simple. Also, I do wonder where it all went wrong for the Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker partnerships because they have not made a comedy that comes anywhere near close to the greatness of Airplane! ever since and the way their filmography is heading, it doesn't look like they ever will.

If anything negative had to be said about Airplane! is that it takes everything it uses from elsewhere but this isn't really a negative at all because Airplane! isn't simply a rehash it's a highly original piece of work that acknowledges that it's borrows from other sources but then turns it all into something really rather special. Airplane! is a truly great comedy that will really take some beating to knock it off it's perch. It's the only comedy that I would consider one of my favourite films of all time. It's a must see for people that like a good laugh, groan and a giggle.

Rating: 9/10 - highly recommended.


Monday, 17 August 2009

Road To Perdition (2002)


"There are many stories about Michael Sullivan. Some say he was a decent man. Some say there was no good in him at all. But I once spent 6 weeks on the road with him, in the winter of 1931. This is our story."


Michael Sullivan
Snr. (Tom Hanks) is both a member of an organised crime mob and a father to his son Michael Sullivan Jnr and Peter. Peter and Michael Jnr curiously wonder what their father does for a living and eventually Michael Jnr sneaks into the back of his fathers car when he and fellow mob member Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) are sent on a job. Through a hole in the bottom of a door to the warehouse where the job takes place young Michael witnesses the brutal killing of a man by Connor. When Michael Snr and Connor flee the area they notice Michael Jnr and it is obvious that he saw the horrors that occurred inside the warehouse.

This incident, the first time that Michael
Jnr witnesses what his father does for a living sets off a series of events that makes up the majority of the film's story and allows us to see the various themes that are evident in Road To Perdition. Ultimately the film is about the consequence of gangsterism and more specifically living a violent life as an individual impacts on your life as a member of a biological family. And this it what a like about Road To Perdition. Most films like to glamorise violence but Road To Perdition flips this over showing how this type of life can negatively impact your offspring. I also like the touch of both father and son being called Michael Sullivan. This deliberate naming of your child as your own name instills thoughts of the father wanting his son to grow up in the same way as he did but in this case this is far from the truth as we can get.

It is also imperative that attention is given not only to the father son relationship between the two Michael Sullivan's but to the other 'father and son' relationship that we see. Here I refer to the relationship between John Rooney, father of Connor who unlike Michael was all for his son following in his footsteps, and Michael Sullivan Snr. Although not biologically related there is a clear sense of a father/son relationship between the pair with Hanks' character looking up to Rooney as a father figure of such. We see evidence of this when Sullivan Snr explains to his sons that Rooney helped the family out in times of trouble in the past indicating that Sullivan has viewed Rooney as a father figure for many years. The last half hour of the film is where the plot really steps up to the next level. It is an incredibly powerful half hour even if it does suffer from being quite predictable and fatalistic. It is here that Sullivan Snr's choice of choosing his relationship with Rooney over that of his sons really comes back to trouble him.

On an acting level I was entirely convinced by Tom Hanks' performance. I felt he was a little uneasy and unsure of himself at times but nothing too tragic. Neither Daniel Craig or Paul Newman overly impressed me either but again their performances weren't bad so to speak. I thought the standout performance went to Jude Law. I haven't seen many films in which he is required to play 'the
villian' but he was convincing here and probably should have at least been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars.


But back to the positives. The cinematography here is simply wonderful, surely one of the best efforts of 2002. The opening photo to this review is just one example of this and it is no surprise than Conrad Hall won a posthumous Academy Award for his efforts here. The night time scenes really are a joy to look at as Hall uses some truly original lighting effects
whic results in some beautiful looking shots. Hall also perfectly captures the rain drops dripping from the characters clothing as they walk through many a Chicago downpour.

The film also has its
humerous moments particularly when Michael Snr is teaching Michael Jnr how to drive prematurly so that Michael Jnr can act as his father's getaway driver from the various banks he needs to 'take' money from. In one scene, Michael Snr has exited one particular bank but Mcihael Jnr is nowhere to be seen. Then, gradually, a car appears on screen as Michael Jnr slowly pulls up at the side of the road.

I guess the main question is do I like Road To Perdition? Well I guess I do. It's not
Mendes' best (for that see American Beauty) but it certainly comes with the highest of recommendations and further strengthens my thought that Mendes is a special director of whose other works I am keen to see. Many comparisons can be made between American Beauty and Road To Perdition however despite them being from rather different genres. Both have as their focus the emotional family problems suffered by one man in the situation he finds himself in in his life and it is a topic that Mendes handles perfectly. The plot, as I have said, is nothing entirely special but it is Mendes' attention to detail in what plot we do have, the emotions that Mendes' stirs inside of us as a viewer, Hall's wonderful cinematography and the spectacularly slow but incredible pacing to the film that I truly respect about it and what stands it above many films.

Rating: 8.5/10 - highly recommended.


Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Eagle Eye (2008)


"Jerry Shaw, you have been activated. Your compliance is vital."


The action-thriller genre is, in my opinion, a tired and overused genre of film that is all to easy to produce in the modern era and takes something really special, like The Matrix, in order to stand out. Year upon year these instantly forgettable, heavy on C.G.I. action-thrillers are churned out by distinctly average directors and they go on to be instant summer blockbusters. Eagle Eye, directed by D.J. Caruso ("rehasher" of the Hitchcock classic Rear Window), was the latest in this long line to be added straight to the rubbish pile.

Jerry Shaw (played by Shia LaBeouf) is a young man who displays high intelligence but ultimately lacks focus in his life and is in financial trouble. Upon the double discovery that one, $751,000 has been deposited in his bank account and two, a large amount of military weapons and forged documents have been delivered to his flat, Jerry receives a phone call from a mystery woman who claims that the F.B.I are about to apprehend him. He doesn't believe her but she proves to be correct and the F.B.I do indeed apprehend him. He continues to receive phone calls from the woman who helps him escape custody. Jerry eventually meets Rachel (Michelle Monaghan) who has been receiving similar phone calls. The pair continue to receives the calls and the woman continues to help Jerry and Rachel evade the continuous efforts from the Chicago Police to capture the pair.

Plenty more happens from this point but in truth it is all irrelevant. Midway through the film, up to the point at which my plot summary ceases, I was shaking my head in disbelief at what Caruso was attempting to get away with and what he was expecting us to accept as real. As a plot, Eagle Eye is incredibly implausible. 'Why, there have been many implausible films, many of them classics,' I hear you say. And you would be true in saying that, but the problem that Eagle Eye presents is that it doesn't think of itself as implausible. The story unfolds in the real world, the stuff in the film is real stuff; real news channels, real cars and real modes of public transport. Implausibility is unintentional yet the whole first half in which we are expected to believe that this woman, (who actually turns out to be a 'supercomputer'), can control every security camera, L.E.D display screen, traffic light in Chicago, can monitor every mobile phone of every citizen, can observe all the traffic on the busy city streets and can even control the exact movements of cranes in scrap yards, is precisely that...totally implausible.

Further implausibilities include Jerry and Rachel's sudden ability to achieve things that even Jack Bauer would struggle to get away with. They manage to hold up an armoured van with incredible success, they manage to sneak on and off an aeroplane that one would assume had a high military guarded presence and then they have the audacity to attempt to, and unsurprisingly yet amazingly, sneak into the Pentagon! Yet Jerry and Rachel are, in truth, your everyday Joe Bloggs not super stealthy agents. Just how do they do it..incredible!

This is not my only issue. Everything in this first half of the film feels incredibly timely. For instance, there was a moment in which Jerry falls onto a train track and seconds later a train appears whizzing towards him at high speed so that he has to quickly recover from his fall in order to avoid certain death. Also, when they are sneaking off the cargo plane after it has landed, they obviously don't really know where they are going. Fortunately for the pair there is an emergency exit map right in front of them. How handy! This timely nature of events occurs simply to fabricate suspense creating a computer-game-like atmosphere, which is as far from reality as you can get.


The sad thing is a lot of people will enjoy this. It certainly looks slick and it has an electric pace to keep even the most inattentive of people alert and on the edge of their seats. It is filled with explosion after explosion, after explosion, after explosion, after explosion, chase scene, after chase scene, after chase scene, C.G.I. overload if you will, and for a large proportion of folk this is all good. But for me it is incredibly unoriginal and pretty dull.

Overall, Eagle Eye is a train wreck of a film. Sure, the special effects here are great and the film is incredibly intense, so intense that I half expected to be holding my X-Box 360 controller in my hands when I looked down at them whilst watching Eagle Eye. Trouble is, when I did look down at them and saw no controller in my hands, the film becomes impossible to enjoy. Shia LaBeouf, supposedly one of the brightest young actors around, produces an all too familiar 'Shia LaBeouf role' which happens to be a distinctly average one. The film is an insult to our intelligence as human beings which just reels off implausibility after implausibility until it's conclusion, which happens to be the all too familiar unnecessary love scene moment. After only just meeting, in a rather peculiar scenario, with little time to get to know each other before the next implausible attempt to evade capture is imminent, it seems that actually they really quite like each other. Bleurgh.

Rating: 2/10 - Terrible.

Thursday, 6 August 2009

The Wrestler (2008)


"I don't hear as good as I used to, and I ain't as pretty as I used to be. But I'm still here, I'm the Ram."


Darren Arononfsky is one of the most intuitive and original film directors of his generation yet most people have probably never heard of him. Both Requiem For A Dream and The Fountain, two of his earlier works have, in my opinion, the potential to be consider masterpieces of cinema in years to come and the term 'masterpiece' is not a term that I use often or loosely. These two mentioned above are not household name film, especially the latter. Requiem deals with the sensitive subject of drug abuse amongst other traumatic subject matters in quite an extreme and at times rather depressing way and The Fountain, a firm favourite of mine, is heavy on symbolism and requires much work to fully understand it. The Wrestler on the other hand, is a much more 'people friendly' type of film and due to the Oscar buzz that it received is a film I suspect most people will have taken notice of in 2008. But in no shape or form does this mean Aronofsky is selling out. The Wrestler is just a different type of film, requiring a different type of mood and the documentary style feel that it has is perfect.

Mickey Rourke plays an aging wrestler, Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, whose glory days are past him but he still wrestles part time in smaller venues. He still gets the adoration of the fans and is highly respected by his fellow professionals but despite this Randy, who is separated from his wife, is depicted as quite a lonely man. He frequently visits a strip club where he has struck up a friendship with one of the women, Pam/Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) who works there but she is reluctant to get involved with a paying customer. Randy's aging body is struggling to cope with the demands of wrestling which regularly causes him to suffer wounds and after one particular hardcore bout in which he receives numerous minor injuries after being attacked with staple guns, barbed wire and glass Randy suffers a heart attack in the locker room. This near death experience causes Randy to realise that he is getting older, his bodily more fragile and that he can no longer keep living in the time warp that is the glory days of his past. After being warned by the doctor that continuing to wrestler may end his life, he retires from the ring (cancelling his 20th anniversary match against Ayatollah in the process) and attempts to make it up to his daughter after alienating her for years, continues to meet Pam the stripper in an attempt to garner more than just her advantages as a stripper and takes a job working behind a deli counter, much to his displeasure. After being recognised at the deli counter Randy realises he is in the wrong job and quits in a rather violent fashion and reschedules the 20th anniversary match much to Pam's displeasure who finally realises Randy is more than just a paying customer. He goes ahead with the fight but is clearly suffering from angina and as he goes to finish Ayatollah off with his signature 'Ram Jam' headbutt the camera blacks outs leaving us to wonder if he has died or not.



It is quite bizarre to think that a film that features the 'sport' of wrestling has garnered such positive acclaim by critics. But in truth, this is a film that has much more depth than simply being about wrestling. Sure, wrestling fans will drool over this but The Wrestler is a film that can easily be enjoyed by non-fans too. Wrestling just asks as the shell to a film that really is about the realisation of overlooking stardom in search for emotional comfort. Randy is a performer but he is also a person who has let his fame cut off all the ties to people he cared for. The fans adore him and he respects that but as his career takes it's toll on his body he realises he needs more. Ultimately however, he realises that he has little, no love in his life and a daughter who no longer cares, he is compelled to return to the ring, to the cheers of the crowd, which he realises is the only good thing in his life but it is the one thing that ultimately finishes him off.

Simply put, Mickey Rourke produces one of the most believable performances of the 2000's. The role of Randy felt like it was made for Rourke so much so that at times I forgot I was watching a ficticious picture and instead I thought it was a biographical documentary before my eyes. I genuinely believed in the character and for this to be the case is quite an achievement. It has been a long, long time since I cared about the happenings of a film character as much as I cared for Randy. There was a connection to be had between the viewer and Rand, he represented anyone who has ever felt loneliness, regret and emotional need. Rourke does a dazzling job of portraying very simple human fears that we all feel at some point in our lives. I haven't seen many of Rourke's films but this must surely be his best performance to date. Sean Penn's performance in Milk must have been mind blowing to deserve the Oscar nod he got over Rourke although I sense Rourke may have been robbed.


Hopefully this popular picture will open movie goers eyes to the other works of Aronofsky which although are not as easy to digest as The Wrestler is, are certainly just as rewarding, if not more so, than this excellent film.


Rating: 9/10
- highly recommended.

Wednesday, 5 August 2009

Annie Hall (1977)


"A relationship, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark."

In 2002 film critic Roger Ebert described Annie Hall as everyone's favourite Woody Allen movie and although I cannot comment on this statement (because to date it's the only one I've seen) the general consensus is that everyone does seem to love it. It is after all the one he is most famous for, it is the film that when asked to name a Woody Allen film, would first come to mind. It is also Allen's most critically acclaimed film, considered by many to be his 'magnus opus', that won four out of the five Oscars it was nominated for (Best Picture, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Director and Best Writing) as well as scooping a Golden Globe and a BAFTA.

Out of curiosity alone I was eager to view it, eager to see if I agreed with the masses. It isn't often I feel the wow factor when viewing a comedy but this particular rom-com is often cited as one of the best around. However, on my first viewing I struggled. I laughed occasionally but wasn't particularly impressed. Allen certainly had written some great one liners into the script but around the 45 minute mark I was struggling and in the end, perhaps partly due to tiredness, I didn't view it in it's entirety.

So, refreshed, I gave it another go: Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is a neurotic stand up comedian who regularly oozes witticism but constantly worries about Anti-Semitism amongst other things. Using the non-linear style of storytelling the film is an account of Alvy's life and ultimately his relationship with his very pretty, yet extremely ditsy girlfriend Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). Both the high and low points of their relationship are shown until ultimately the low points become too much for the pair and, realising that they are completely different from one another, agree to split up. Annie moves to California leaving Alvy back in New York and they both move on with their lives both acquiring new partners. The two are eventually reunited when Annie returns to New York and they begin speaking again albeit only as friends.

Able on my second run through to watch it in its entirety I developed mixed feelings towards the film on the whole. On a positive note it is the way that Allen tells the story with such intelligence, employing such unique and quirky techniques unseen in modern day storytelling, that I enjoyed the most in Annie Hall. From split-screen gags (the one where both Alvy and Annie are being asked the same questions by two different shrinks and both giving the same answers but interpreting them different is genuinely hilarious) to the use of subtitles aiming to show us what people are 'really' thinking, from direct to camera narration to animation to the involvement in the story of random passers by make this a highly original piece of work.



Woody Allen's delivery of his numerous and hilarious one liners is amongst the best I've seen. Additionally, he and Keaton, as is well known, have great chemistry together and this, in a film that is packed with dialogue, a film where all Alvy and Annie do is talk and interact with one another, no matter what situation they are in, is obviously a great asset.

I also noticed something that Ebert refers to in his review of the film when he speaks of the anti-modern-day-Hollywood technique that Allen uses that we simply wouldn't find in any film released today. In the scene where Alvy and Annie are in the queue at the cinema and Alvy becomes increasingly angered at the man behind him expressing his opinions about film director Federico Fellini Ebert notes that a scene like this simply would not be found in a 2009 release due to censorship of any material to which would not be recognised and therefore understood by numerous, in fact the majority, of casual film goers. But no such censorship occurred in the 1970's and the result allows for the occurrence of dialogue between our two main characters to feel real and off the cuff instead of forced.

But Annie Hall, despite these positives, is not a film I fell in love with and I think the reason that I will eternally fail to love it yet still give it the highest of respect for it's technical achievements, excellent script and originality is because as a story it flits around way too much. I have no problem with non-linear story lines or flashbacks but for me Allen just over did it slightly, it flowed too quickly for my liking, going back and forth at rapid speed, meaning that I was never totally engrossed in Alvy and Annie's relationship. And that is where my criticism stops. It seems I can only muster up four and a half lines of negativity about this film before my mind becomes blank of criticisms yet these four lines affected my enjoyment of Annie Hall significantly.

If I had to rate a film solely on the techniques used to tell its story Annie Hall would firmly be in my top 10 but I don't and sadly my lack of care for the rise and demise of Alvy and Annie's relationship lets down what is otherwise a very funny picture. Annie Hall is a film I so want to love but for some reason I only have a respectful liking towards it. It certainly isn't a bad film and most will love it and it certainly hasn't put me off Woody Allen as a director, in fact it has made me even more interested in pursuing his work and I look forward to Manhattan, the film of his I intend to view next.

Rating: 7/10 - recommended

Tuesday, 4 August 2009

The Italian Job (1969)


"Hang on a minute lads, I've got a great idea!"


Fish and chips, cups of tea, rainy summers, moaning about rainy summers, Her Majesty The Queen and...The Italian Job.

Struggling to see the link? Well, the above are things that I would put pretty high up on a list if someone were to ask me of things that I consider to represent Britain and the British way of life. The fact that The Italian Job features so highly is down to the impact it had on the British people and this is a true credit to the film. Considered only a cult film across the pond in the U.S.A. I would struggle to find many people in the U.K. who have not heard of this fantastic film. It is surprising to hear that in a recent poll by Total Film Magazine The Italian Job came out at a surprisingly low 26
th in a poll aiming to find the best British film of all time. In the top ten of this poll were films such as Naked and Kind Hearts and Coronets two films which I am sure are much lesser known to the British people than Peter Collinson's 1969 classic. So what is it that makes it so well known and iconic film even to the casual movie watcher in the U.K?


For me the answer to that question is that it really does appeal to absolutely anyone. From children to adults, men to women, from the hardcore film fanatic to the casual movie goer, The Italian Job can be enjoyed by all. It is also helped by the fact that at now fourty years old the film hasn't aged in the slightest making it still easily accessible to the younger generations. The 2003 remake, however ghastly it may be, and the potential sequel to the remake, also help to draw attention to the original but the remake casts no shadow over the original allowing for Michael Caine's starring role to continue to be passed down through British folklore.

So what is it all about? Charlie Croker (Caine), a likeable Cockney geezer has just been released from prison but is immediately eager to get back into a life of crime and is told about a daring plan to rob four million dollars worth of gold from Turin. Croker agrees to the idea and the plan is set in motion. He assembles a team, including Professor Peach (Benny Hill), the computer expert with an interest in the bigger lady. Peach's job is to send the traffic system in the centre of Turin into absolute chaos allowing for the gang to escape with a decreased chance of getting caught. The escape cars will be three Mini Coopers, one red, one white and one blue to represent the British flag and the escape route out of the city makes for one of the films brilliant scenes as they squerm through upmarket shopping centres and Turin's sewage pipes which whilst being hilarious throughout never abandons it's intention of being a tense action car chase. The destination? The Swiss border. A coachload of British criminals busy revelling in their success as we are subjected to the unforgettable sound of 'The Self-Preservation Society', a tune that simply refuses to get out of your head and remains as one the films most iconic features to date. Everything is set up for one of the most audacious, hilarious, climatic and original final scenes in film history...




The ending on reflection shouldn't come as a surprise. Despite pulling off the audacious crime, it certainly wasn't without it's struggles and the ending sums up the idea that we really shouldn't display an overconfidence until it really is all done and dusted with. The group didn't appear to be the smartest bunch despite some displaying impressive fields of expertise yet they managed to successfully steal four million dollars worth of gold. But despite this, when it came to simply driving away towards the safety of Switzerland they simply couldn't do it but Croker, whose performance by Caine is the best of his career, remains upbeat in a film that ends with the quote that begins my review. A brilliant send off!

If it hasn't become clear as of yet, The Italian Job is firmly within my top ten films of all time. It is an excellent example of how to perfect story telling on the big screen. It simply has it all. It is disappointing that it's director Peter Collinson died only eleven years after its release as he wouldn't get the chance to see its rise to it's current status as a British classic, a label that it fully deserves.

Rating: 10/10 - a must see.

Monday, 3 August 2009

Destination Moon (1950)


"I know one thing: unless these pills work, space travel isn't going to be popular."


Nineteen years before man would eventually step foot on the moon producer George Pal and director Irving
Pichel created a film precisely about such a thing. Destination Moon is one of the earliest attempts at showing space travel in such detail and at such a high level of technicality.

The plot is quite basic; the United States of America wish to build a rocket ship that will send them to the moon in order to gain the upper hand in space strategy (which seems to clearly preempt the Space Race which began in 1957.) Despite getting some things just plain wrong (such as the failure to realise that it would take weeks and not hours to get the moon) the film depicts quite well the build up leading up to sending a rocket ship in to space.

The highlight of the film is without doubt the short animated cartoon featuring Woody Woodpecker who acts as the pessimist, arguing that the moon cannot be reached, whilst constantly being told the contrary by the unseen teacher figure that believes it can, providing reasons for his belief which slowly convert Woody into changing his mind.



In an attempt to make the film have a more engaging plot other than simply a straightforward trip to the moon and back, upon landing on the moon the crew discover that they have used up too much fuel on the outbound journey and must lighten the load in order to make it back. To the modern day viewer it is all a bit cliched but it does add a little bit of substance to an otherwise thin plot.

As a film it felt like a lesson. It felt like I was being taught at. Trouble is, the basic things I was being taught (which would have been unknown to the 1950s viewer) are, in 2009, fairly common knowledge. It is a film in which the idea is terribly dated but this was also going to be the case, it was, in a sense, unavoidable. When you are the first film makers to attempt to show what space travel is like, you will always be outdone in future years. As a science fiction film it is weak purely because so much more has been done since 1950. Even producer George Pal has outdone himself with The War of the Worlds which he produced only three years later.

However, I want to avoid being too downhearted. The film is a landmark in cinema, should be viewed purely for it's place in history and will appeal tenfold to the most die-hard of science fiction fans. It won an Oscar for Visual Effects and this is no surprise at all. Considering they are now 59 years old they still look quite good even if they do not accurately depict what the surface of the moon does actually look like. I only wish that I could have been around to see this as a 1950's, "surely we cannot get man to the moon!?" viewer, a time when even the simple idea of space travel was still supremely novel. I am sure back then I would have been in awe. But there have been so many better, more accurate, more engaging space travel science fiction movies that Destination Moon has simply being surpassed and in many respects forgotten.

Rating: 6/10 - maybe you will, maybe you won't


From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)


"Where are you taking us?"
"Mexico."
"What's in Mexico?"
"Mexicans."


What a crazy film we have here! Directed by hit or miss film maker Robert Rodriguez (you know, the guy that brought us the atrocious Spy Kids films!?) and written by (and starring) the great Quentin Tarantino From Dusk Till Dawn is an unique blend of one half action and one half horror.

The story starts out with two men introduced to us as the Gecko brothers Seth and Richie (Tarantino and George Clooney). Seth is a nerdy rapist whose erratic behaviour has left a trail of blood closely behind the pair. Richie is the cooler of the two constantly having to watch out for his brother's behaviour making sure he doesn't get them caught. On this occasion they have just robbed a bank and are on the run from police, heading for the safety of the Mexican border, destination The Titty Twister, a strip club open from dusk till dawn. After holding up a store, killing two men in the process, they stop at a motel and, in order to raise their chances of crossing the border successfully, kidnap a father (Harvey Keitel) and his son and daughter (Juliette Lewis) who were holidaying in their motor home.

Upon arriving at and entering The Titty Twister things quickly take a turn for the absurd as it becomes apparent that the club is populated by vampires. A camp, B-movie-esque, over the top splatter fest then ensues and the brothers and the kidnapped family attempt to exit the club without being bitten by the blood thirsty vampires. Quite a change in genre don't you think?


I guess the main question that can be asked of such a drastic change in genre is 'Does it work?' to which I would answer a firm 'Yes!' From Dusk Till Dawn was never advertised as a pure action film with a hidden twist. It was advertise as the crazy picture that it is so I suppose that most viewers are aware of the vampires prior to watching it. Those that are not aware of the twist and are expecting a pure Tarantino-esque film will be surprised and most likely disappointed and perhaps even angered at such a twist but personally I think there is more than room in the film industry for such a unique film like From Dusk Till Dawn. Many people do level this criticism at the film but personally I feel we have plenty of films that go along in their entirety like From Dusk Till Dawn's first half and not enough genre breaking films such as this when viewed as a whole and for this bravery I really do applaud it.


On a performance level I think Tarantino and especially Clooney both put in great performances. Tarantino was perfect for his nerdy role, his voice and his manner fitting the bill perfectly. As for Clooney's character we both sympathise with him for both the situation the pair find themselves in and for his own personal situation of having to deal with his brother but we gasp at his lethal ruthlessness, yet he still seems a totally likeable and believable character. Tarantino and Clooney bounce off each other very well, displaying some great chemistry together. In fact one of the more negative aspects of the film would be that these performances are clouded over somewhat once the vampire nonsense kicks in but this is not too much of a loss as the introduction of vampires makes for real enjoyment at the performances of actors expense. Furthermore, Keitel's character as the priest does seem somewhat underdeveloped.

Finally, the script displays some excellent witty and highly quotable dark humour that had me laughing out loud on several occasions. Many people will dislike this film but those people are viewing it in the completely wrong fashion. If you are expecting something serious or something displaying great technical prowess then From Dusk Till Dawn really is not for you but if you do not mind extremely violent content and want a good laugh and to enjoy a really fun, easy to watch, well made picture with aspects of many genres then you, like me, will thoroughly enjoy it. Rodriguez' best effort to date.

Rating: 8/10 - Recommended

Looking for Eric (2009)


"I am not a man, I am Cantona"


I first heard about Looking For Eric from a couple of die-hard Manchester United fans who were, as you would expect, rather excited about the prospect of a film dedicated to the United legend that is Eric Cantona. Still knowing little about the film I heard that the basic plot was that Cantona appears from a poster in a fellow die-hard United fan's room and helps him cope with the struggles in his life. Interesting.

As a football and a film fan I agreed to make a rare appearance at the cinema and go see it but before that time came I did a little research and it was then that I discovered that, the director of the 1970 British classic Kes (which also boasted a rather unique and unusual plot) Ken Loach, was at the helm of Looking for Eric. My interest in the film doubled.


The plot is pretty simple. Eric (played by former The Fall bassist Steve Evets) is a single middle aged dad who is truly depressed, often contemplates suicide and gets shown absolutely no respect or love from his two step-sons. His house is a mess, as his is appearance, and his job as a postman appears to be tedious and boring. His fellow work mates try to cheer him up by telling him jokes but his misery refuses to let up even slightly. His only source of comfort appears to be his giant Eric Cantona poster that in amongst a house that looks completely dreary really stood out thus helping to alleviate it's importance in Eric's life. One night after his workmate Meatballs (the fantastic John Henshaw) says, upon reading Paul McKenna's self-help book, that Eric and his friends should turn to their idols for enlightenment Eric Cantona, the famous number 7, appears in Eric's bedroom. This moment is the catalyst that instigates a huge improvement on Eric's life which allows for plenty of heartfelt moments along the way.

A potentially gimmicky idea is completely gimmick-free as Cantona becomes the ideal candidate to help Eric in dealing with the bad times in life and in instructing him to make the most of the positives in his life. The two embark on some rather unusual adventures, including spliff smoking, jogging, trumpet playing (well attempting to) which culminates in a completly bizarre moment in which hundred of rubber masked Cantona's descend on the film's 'villian'. There is even time to get the viewing Manchester United fan's juices really flowing as the two Eric's look back at Cantona's United career and we get to see a montage of his most famous goals and passes.

The film's most positive aspect is the sparkling chemistry that the two Eric's have as a newly formed friendship. It is one that is both touching and amusing as Cantona provides us with some excellent philosophical one liners. Evets is fantastic as Eric, in a quite demanding role for someone with little big screen experience. Cantona, who is equally great in his 'as himself' role, also forces through the second of the great relationships in the film as he suggests Eric doesn't avoid seeing his ex-wife, somebody he hasn't seen for over twenty years. He and Lily end up looking back at their time together and talking about where it all went wrong when initially they were only going to meet up out of necessity.



Many films are guilty of setting up completely unecessary relationships within them but the two here in Looking For Eric feel completely necessary for the story that unfolds. It seems that they really are the platform for Eric getting his life back on track once again and for that complete credit has to be given to Loach.

I have already mentioned the bizarre ending involving the rubbed masked Cantona's, however, it is in this scene where it feels like the fun, happy times of which Cantona is telling Eric to seek finally oust the misery and negative aspects of his life. It is here where the metaphor of Eric for the whole of man as a whole really comes to light as we see man striving to overcome the failings in their lives and replace them with, well, quite simply....fun.


All in all Looking For Eric is quite simply an unexpectedly refreshing film that Loach and Britain as a nation should be completely proud of. Yes, the film as a template does seem quite familiar but this simply doesn't matter as it's huge message and charming relationships completely outweigh any criticisms that could be aimed at it of which they are so, so few.

Rating: 8.5/10 - highly recommended