Home Games Technology Movies Retro
Showing posts with label Brit Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brit Report. Show all posts

Saturday, February 20, 2010

The Brit Report: Mini reviews galore!

The Road: John Hillcoat's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic best-seller is a brave and inspired, even if slightly pedestrian, effort. Hillcoat follows very closely the novel in its slightly episodic but nevertheless endlessly repeating pattern, with very few actual modifications (some exposition in the form of Charlize Theron as the Mother). The movie is superbly acted by Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the Father and Boy, respectively, and several big-name actors pop-in in small appearances throughout the movie, with the best cameo being attributed to the great Robert Duvall in an earth-shattering 4-minute turn. However, the movie's (as well as the novel's) lack of plot evolution, along with any lack of characterization or solid ideology, makes the movie effective while it lasts, but ultimately forgettable. Still, it's a worthy addition to the genre with a most naturalistic depiction of what life would be in a post-apocalyptic situation. 7/10



The Wolfman: Yet another Universal horror movie remake, The Wolfman was a troubled production from the start, which is 100% evident in the final product. Part B-movie, part Victorian drama, the movie is unsure which direction to follow. This is not helped by the fact that there is absolutely no chemistry between the four leading actors whatsoever; Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins especially seem to be playing in totally different movies. The editors are also partly to blame for this, with an introduction that seems like a trailer from a proper movie, ultimately getting rid of all characterizations and racing for the monster's intro. The replacement director, Joe Johnston, is more a visual entertainer than a proper filmmaker and couldn't have been a worse choice for the subject. Still, it's a most enjoyable disaster (even for the wrong reasons) that will perhaps satisfy horror enthusiasts. 6/10



The Lovely Bones: Another troubled production, this movie ultimately is a glorious error made by a director who has absolute creative control, but also no sense of subtlety. The movie starts very strongly, with believable characterizations and situations, but once the famed killing takes place, the script comes to an abrupt halt. In come Peter Jackson's CGI manifestations of an in-between "haven", which seem wrong in visual terms (although some are obviously impressive). Since the main heroine is also in this so-called afterlife, her character development is nonexistent, which makes the movie suffer in its second act. Thankfully, things pick up in the third act, with a brave and ultimately chilling resolution to the killing. The performances are a bit hit-and-miss: Saorise Ronan is superb as the leading character, but unfortunately Mark Wahlberg makes me still wonder why he is picked up by first-class directors. Rachel Weisz fares better given the limited material she has to work with, and Susan Saradon gives an enjoyable turn as the alcoholic grandma. The main problem of the movie though is Stanley Tucci's turn as the killer - it makes me wonder why this (very efficient otherwise) actor was nominated for a Golden Globe and an Oscar for this role. His turn is overly simplistic, full with the necessary receding hairline and big spectacles that all Hollywood-appearing child killers seem to sport. In the case of the Lovely Bones, it seems that less is actually more, and unfortunately PJ opted for much more. 6/10

Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Brit Report: A Serious Man

Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
- Rashi



Thus begins the new Coen brothers movie. The most mature movie the groundbreaking duet have ever made. For me, it is obvious they're going through a dark phase: after the so-so Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers, they're really dived into darkness, with each new film more misanthropic than the earliest.

A Serious Man is also the most personal movie the brothers have ever made, taking place in 1967 among a suburban Midwestern Jewish community, reminiscent of their childhoods. The titular character is a somewhat respectable physics professor whose life begins to crumble, much like Job himself. He is of course surrounded by idiots (it's a Coen movie after all) and he slowly takes that downward turn into stupidity. The film - much like A Man Who wasn't There - is of course not for everyone, but it's practically perfect. The camera placement is expertly calculated (courtesy of DP demigod Roger Deakins), the music is haunting (by permanent collaborator Carter Burwell) and every single performance is pitch perfect.

Unlike other movies of the duet, this one feels like a riddle I was unable to solve. What did it mean? The religious references were obscure to say the least (reading a bit of the Old Testament certainly helps), but is this the point? (9/10)


- We can't know everything.
- It sounds like you don't know anything.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Brit Report: Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

First, we need to set some things straight. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (terrible title) has no relation whatsoever with Ferrara's masterpiece, apart from the central thing of a junkie, violent, gambler cop. It's a much lighter piece, with lots of sarcasm in its core. It's also a great ride.

Werner Herzog, a really bizarre directing choice, brings out the best in Nicolas Cage, in a performance reminding of the good-old days of Wild at Heart, Raising Arizona, and Red Rock West. He's completely over the top as the titular character, but also manages to be believable and makes the audience root for him. There are several set pieces (a 2.5min music video with Cage's character staring at two iguanas, a funny-as-hell confrontation with two old ladies) that will serve as points of reference for Cage from now on. He also gets excellent support from Eva Mendes as his prostitute/girlfriend, Val Kilmer as an even more psychotic cop, and Brad Dourif as his suffering bookie. Herzog directs full of confidence, despite being at a strange territory for him, and still manages to deliver some typical Herzogian shots (a handheld sequence with an alligator near a motorway really stands out). All in all, the movie got a great response from the audience, and comes highly recommended.
8/10


Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Brit Report: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus



The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a must-see movie in every sense. Is it great? Not really, but like most Gilliam movies, it's an experience. And a profoundly personal experience this time, because Parnassus is actually an autobiographical tale.

The plot is quite convoluted, so I will not attempt to make any coherent summarization. Let's just say that Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is actually Terry Gilliam, who is trying to tell tales of imagination, but nobody really cares anymore. Also starring is Heath Ledger as Tony in his last role, who actually isn't the lead, in a role inspired by Tony Blair himself. Great support comes from Tom Waitts as the Devil, as well as Lilly Cole as Parnassus' daughter. The three actors replacing Ledger posthumously (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farell) all do a terrific job at portraying different aspects of Tony's character, with Johny Depp delivering a terrific speech written about Ledger's passing, and Farell shining as the darkest aspect of Tony's character. Personally I think the inclusion of the three actors has really improved the movie's thematic core.

With this film, we see Gilliam completely unrestrained, but unlike Tideland, this time he has a modest budget that allows him to present a fully realized vision of decaying modern London and the utter craziness of the Imaginarium (a special mention has to go to a certain Pythonesque chorus line with transvestite policemen!). But like Gilliams' latest work, it's overly chaotic, with a fragmented narrative that seems to neglect its audience, thus losing momentum at times. The first 30 minutes suffer the most, with the actors almost muttering their lines and some weird filming angles, but fortunately the movie gradually picks up. In the end, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a fitting farewell to Ledger and a wonderfully imaginative and original tale, at times where originality has ceased to exist...
7/10


Sunday, September 20, 2009

The Brit Report: Moon

And thus this review concludes the exclusive trilogy of must-see-now-or-die-in-agonizing-pain movies. I think I'll have to take it easier from now on... Thanks to Hotshuk, I watched this movie only for 6 pounds instead of 10! Hurrah for that!





MOON
(by Duncan Jones)



Moon is a movie that nobody saw. It made $6M worldwide. My prediction is that in 10-15 years, it will be on most top sci-fi movie lists. Destined to become a cult phenomenon and to be rediscovered later on, Moon is reminiscent of the great sci-fi movies of the '70s and '80s: THX 1138, Solaris, Blade Runner, Alien. What these movies have in common besides offering bleak visions of the future is that they use the science fiction backdrop to tell character-based stories, not offering some eye candy just for the sake of it.

It it impossible to form a synopsis of the movie without falling into spoiler territory, so I'll just say that the movie involves a certain worker (Sam Rockwell), stranded all alone on the surface of the moon for a 3-year contract for a mining company. His only colleague is the base computer, GERTY (Kevin Spacey's voice). Towards the end of his contract, bad things start happening. Sam Rockwell gives a career-best performance, carrying the movie throughout. His choice was inspired, injecting healthy doses of sarcasm and humor in an utterly dramatic role. Duncan Jones' (son of David Bowie, no less) direction is superb. The sets are impeccable, reminding a bit of 2001 and Alien, and although the movie was shot with a $5M budget, it never feels cheap - quite the contrary. Spacey's role is superb: his chilling and sleazy voice is exactly right for the HAL-like computer, but never being a cliche. Bottom line: if you can catch it at a cinema, go see it.
9/10


Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Brit Report: District 9

You have to face it: this year I'm going to produce quite a lot of exclusives, so be patient: all will come eventually! Thankfully this time the ticket was only 4 pounds, albeit at the glorious Whitechapel district, which made the movie feel more realistic... A final word of warning: for heaven's sake, peace my brothers! Do not fight over a lost battlefield, the Jaunty Jackalope will come crashing through the windows and eat all the apples!


DISTRICT 9
(by Neill Blomkamp)



I'll try to keep this one short and spoiler-free: District 9 was a sleeper hit. Made just for $30M (1/10 of Avatar's budget), it has already made 4 times its money worldwide, and it still hasn't opened in a lot of territories. The first geek reviews that came out were ecstatic, so my expectations penetrated the stratosphere. Finally though, I think that I raised the bar a little too much.

Not to be snobbish though: the direction is excellent, with extreme attention to detail, the action scenes are suspenseful, and the CGI are really top-notch. The script has a few twists and turns that generate some excitement, but the movie dosen't delve a lot more than the initial premise. While watching I kept being reminded of these terrific Galactica episodes (ie. Exodus), that really knew how to create sci-fi allegories. The acual problem? "It's the characters, stupid", as Ron Moore had said. While the main lead tries very hard (and succeds) at being likeable even if he's an irritating racist, other basic players feel like cardboard cutouts: the evil plotting businessman, the evil macho mercenary, the sobbing wife... But the movie is owned by a CG: the prawn Christopher - amazing performance. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it. Every geek should see this movie - It's almost a miracle that this one came out. Don't mind my blabbering! Go see it!
7,5/10

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Brit Report: Antichrist

Ahoy there fellow Brits! 'Twas a lovely day today in London -no rain and all- and I'm here for a jolly good review. Put the kettle on then, and don't forget yer tea towel or yer'll get all burned and everything! The movie I'll talk about was shown in the oh-lovely Odeon scene at Panton road, right next to Picadilly! Nice price too: I got a movie for a tenpound and a bottle o' good-old Thames water for just a twopound and a fivepence! Isn't that a bargain? But enough chitchat luvs. Let me start me fable:


ANTICHRIST
(by Lars von Trier)



Having seen quite a few movies in the short span of my life, it is safe to say that I cannot be easily impressed or shocked. It is also safe to say that Trier's new movie achieved both - maybe less the former and more the latter, anyway. Much as Dogville, the movie is divided into 4 chapters, with an accompanying prologue and epilogue. Right from the very start, Trier sets the movie rolling: beautifully shot, with an excellent soundtrack, and overly misogynistic. It is not strange that Trier received from the Cannes film festival a special anti-award for the movie's misogynistic views. He's practically screaming to the audience: "Women are evil! Sex is evil! Nature is evil!", and so on.

I won't spoil the surprises the unaware audience member is about to discover, but brace yourselves. This movie is not for the faint of heart- I personally tried very hard not to look away during certain scenes. Performance-wise, the film is of course a winner: Dafoe reigns the movie utterly, while Gainsbourg puts tremendous effort in her role, which mostly comprises of screaming, fucking, and mutilating. One special note has to be given to Trier's camera work - he's far from his Dogma 95 rules, creating some breathtakingly beautiful shots (and some breathtakingly gruesome shots as well). But apart from the technical details, the movie really feels like Trier's psychotherapy project. His views on women, motherhood, and nature are frankly, laughable. So, the movie practically boils down to arthouse torture porn. If you're the type of person that can appreciate the sight of Dafoe's penis cumming blood in a close-up, this is your movie. Everyone else, avoid. There's really no in-between...




P.S. The movie is dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky. I can picture his rotten corpse, somewhere on the Russian cemetery of Paris, trying to escape from his grave so that he could mutilate von Trier. Alas, he cannot.