Another film we saw at the French Film Festival, Daddy Cool (original title: Quinze ans et demi) is a slightly silly movie that tells the somewhat improbable tale of a French research scientist (Philippe, played by Daniel Auteil) who has spent most of his fifteen-year-old daughter Eglantine's life working in the USA, while she and her mother reside in France. Circumstances require that he returns to France to look after his daughter while her mother is otherwise occupied and since father and daughter aren't well-acquainted and father is unused to the habits of teenage girls the whole situation is problematic for both parties.
Daddy Cool is a comedy, and as you'd expect covers well-trodden ground like teenage moodiness, teenage tastes in music, teenage disinterest in breakfast, interest in the opposit sex and attachment to mobile phones and internet chat. It tries to be a bit quirky with Albert Einstein being Philippe's imaginary friend/mentor but I don't think it really succeeded.
There's a love interest for Philippe (a woman in the lab he's working in) and he manages to find a cure for her baldness along with achieving a meaningful relationship with his daughter in the time he has in France. Of course he decides to stay and they should all live happily ever after.
The best bits of this film for me were Eglantine's larger-than-life step-father who makes videos about being a good parent to teenagers, and getting a glimpse of texting in French - ki for qui, for example. Neither of which will compel you off your sofa and out to the movies, and justifiably so.
Anne's rating 2/5.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Shall we kiss?
A woman doesn't want to kiss at the end of a casual dinner with a complete stranger. So what?
In NZ that is probably considered quite normal, but in France it is something to make a film about. So Emilie spends an hour and half explaining the dangers of a kiss to Gabriel. Luckily for us she does it with an entertaining story about best friends and confidants: Judith and Nicolas. Emilie hastily explains that she is not Judith, just another friend of hers.Judith is happily married whereas Nicolas confesses that he feels starved of physical female affection since he and his previous girlfriend broke up. In response to Judith's initial suggestion he claims that he can't start a new relationship while in his current condition. To her more round about suggestion that he visit a prostitute, he confesses that he tried that earlier in the day but she didn't allow kissing. He wants the package deal: sex and kissing to cure him, so that he can go out and get a girlfriend. Finally he gets to the point: will Judith, as his best friend, help him out?
The scenes that follow are the comic high point of the film and reactions of the women in the audience at the Embassy show the director hit just the right note. I'm sure his directions to the actors were "forget you are French, pretend you are British".Of course the story of Judith and Nicolas couldn't end there. There has to be consequences. Which eventually brings Emilie to the point of her story.
The classic romance of the charming Emilie and suave Gabriel (who can ignore their absent partners for an evening) contrasts with the increasingly farcical story of Judith and Nicolas. The film cuts backwards and forwards between the romantic present and the farce of the inner story as if to emphasis the difference between perfection of romance and messiness of reality.
Writer and director Emmanuel Mouret plays the buttoned up, neurotic Nicolas in a role which is the corner stone performance in the film, against which Virginie Ledoyen plays the desirable but uptight best friend Judith with an admirably straight bat. The sound track includes some of the best known bits of Tchaikovsky's and Schubert's music. The way they have been selected to underlie the mood of each scene, fits well with this story within a story.
Emilie starts telling the story in the car park, ending it in her hotel room with Gabriel, where she still has to face the dilemma of a goodbye kiss. Was she really trying to convince him of the dangers of kissing or was it all foreplay to build the potential kiss into an event to remember?
Ian's rating 4/5
Anne's rating 3/5
Friday, February 13, 2009
Baby Love
No outings to the movies since Quantum of Solace and then two in an evening! The French Film Festival is on which is a good opportunity to get to see something at the Embassy and last night was a good opportunity to get out of the rain. The first of last night's offerings was Baby Love -a light-hearted look at gay adoption and surrogate motherhood. I hesitate to say its a comedy as the subject matter is pretty heavy but while it's probably partly intended to make you think its principal purpose is to entertain.
Baby love features Manu, a 42 year-old gay paediatrician (possessor of the most astonishing nose in France) who wants a baby and his partner Philippe (possessor of the second-most astonishing nose in France) who does not. The desire to breed precipitates the end of the relationship and elevates a chance encounter with an Argentinian overstayer into a marriage of convenience.
The ramifications of this scenario are explored in detail. How do you have a baby if you're gay and your sperm is defective? What do you do if your wife of convenience ends up fancying you? What do you do if she changes her mind about having a baby? What do you if having had sex with one woman, other women get ideas?
While this is mostly quite amusing it raises a lot of other questions, like is giving up a child for adoption almost bound to do the mother's head in and should any reasonable person ask that of her? Is the experience of witnessing a birth enough to convert the determined non-parent into enthusiastic parent in the space of hours?
I didn't think Baby Love fulfilled either of it's intentions well enough - it wasn't funny enough and not thought provoking enough to be particularly memorable.
Anne's rating 2.5/5 Ian's rating 2/5
Baby love features Manu, a 42 year-old gay paediatrician (possessor of the most astonishing nose in France) who wants a baby and his partner Philippe (possessor of the second-most astonishing nose in France) who does not. The desire to breed precipitates the end of the relationship and elevates a chance encounter with an Argentinian overstayer into a marriage of convenience.
The ramifications of this scenario are explored in detail. How do you have a baby if you're gay and your sperm is defective? What do you do if your wife of convenience ends up fancying you? What do you do if she changes her mind about having a baby? What do you if having had sex with one woman, other women get ideas?
While this is mostly quite amusing it raises a lot of other questions, like is giving up a child for adoption almost bound to do the mother's head in and should any reasonable person ask that of her? Is the experience of witnessing a birth enough to convert the determined non-parent into enthusiastic parent in the space of hours?
I didn't think Baby Love fulfilled either of it's intentions well enough - it wasn't funny enough and not thought provoking enough to be particularly memorable.
Anne's rating 2.5/5 Ian's rating 2/5
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Once
One of Ian's workmates loaned us this DVD and when he asked for it back we thought it was time to watch it. Once is a musical and a love story based around creating music.It's set in Ireland and the combination of these things give it a level of originality and contribute to its charm.
The principal characters (who are nameless) are an Irish vacuum-cleaner repairman and a Czech flower seller. He busks (singing and playing the guitar) in his spare time and they meet in the street when he's busking. She sings and plays the piano but kicks off their relationship by bringing her vacuum cleaner along to his next busking date. The two of them walking through Dublin with the vacuum cleaner trailing along behind is one of my favourite scenes.
Over the course of the film we find out that out he also writes music and he shares his tunes with her, and ends up asking her to write lyrics for them. Which of course she does, and once they've created some songs, they find a drummer and a bass player and hire a recording studio to make an album. So we get to watch the creative process, which is (I think) intrinsically romantic - working together on something that looks and sounds beautiful and having something to show for it afterwards.
What would appear to be a straightforward romance is complicated by the fact that she has a husband in the Czech Republic and a daughter and a mother here in Ireland, and he has an ex-girlfriend living in London that he's still pretty attached to. The end of the film is ambiguous in that the plan is that he goes to London and her husband arrives from the Republic but you can't be sure that's what actually happened.
Being a musical, you'd expect the soundtrack to be good and it is. It's got definite Dave Dobbyn overtones - ballads with guitar and piano accompaniment. "Falling Slowly" won an Oscar in 2008 for best original song and maybe I'm mad but the song it reminds me most of is Dobbyn's "Welcome Home". As a film, and even as a musical I thought it didn't need quite as many full-length songs as it had - the one in the pub, for example, could have easily been left out without the film losing anything.
For a twenty-first century romance there's a refreshing lack of sex and I recommend it if you're in the mood for a wistful musical love story.
Anne's rating 4/5
The principal characters (who are nameless) are an Irish vacuum-cleaner repairman and a Czech flower seller. He busks (singing and playing the guitar) in his spare time and they meet in the street when he's busking. She sings and plays the piano but kicks off their relationship by bringing her vacuum cleaner along to his next busking date. The two of them walking through Dublin with the vacuum cleaner trailing along behind is one of my favourite scenes.
Over the course of the film we find out that out he also writes music and he shares his tunes with her, and ends up asking her to write lyrics for them. Which of course she does, and once they've created some songs, they find a drummer and a bass player and hire a recording studio to make an album. So we get to watch the creative process, which is (I think) intrinsically romantic - working together on something that looks and sounds beautiful and having something to show for it afterwards.
What would appear to be a straightforward romance is complicated by the fact that she has a husband in the Czech Republic and a daughter and a mother here in Ireland, and he has an ex-girlfriend living in London that he's still pretty attached to. The end of the film is ambiguous in that the plan is that he goes to London and her husband arrives from the Republic but you can't be sure that's what actually happened.
Being a musical, you'd expect the soundtrack to be good and it is. It's got definite Dave Dobbyn overtones - ballads with guitar and piano accompaniment. "Falling Slowly" won an Oscar in 2008 for best original song and maybe I'm mad but the song it reminds me most of is Dobbyn's "Welcome Home". As a film, and even as a musical I thought it didn't need quite as many full-length songs as it had - the one in the pub, for example, could have easily been left out without the film losing anything.
For a twenty-first century romance there's a refreshing lack of sex and I recommend it if you're in the mood for a wistful musical love story.
Anne's rating 4/5
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sleeping Dogs
I first saw this film on TV in 1981 (during the divisive Springbok Rugby Tour of New Zealand). My main impression was that the police actions during the riot scenes in the film were mild by comparison real thing shown on the TV News at that time. I was also amazed by how much cooperation the film-makers must have had with the Air Force.
Sleeping Dogs is based on a C K Stead's novel Smith's Dream -- which I had read a year or two earlier. While I enjoyed the book, the film has stuck in my mind longer. The plot is pretty straightforward with Smith's marriage breaking up at about the time that a major economic crisis is leading to authoritarian government in New Zealand and an insurgency. Running away from his marriage he gets mistaken for an insurgent, and discovers it is hard to prove that one is not a terrorist.
As other people have noted Sleeping Dogs was first of the current crop of 35mm feature films made in NZ. Most of its notability is related to this fact and that it is a pseudo-political thriller set in NZ. Both of these aspects mean that Sleeping Dogs is of far more interest to Kiwis than people overseas. To an overseas audience it would look like a very low budget and laid back thriller with no particular message or other notable features. To us we get to see a successful piece of low budget film making, a very young looking Sam Neill (as Smith) and New Zealand more or less as it looked in the 1970s (the days when the RNZAF had fighter jets, Dougal Stevenson read the news and Prime Ministers seems all powerful).
Seeing the film a second time, 27 years later, I found the concept of the NZ government declaring a state of emergency more far fetched than it had in Muldoon's time, but I found the idea of the police breaking into houses to arrest 'enemies of the state' / terrorists to be quite believable (especially given the 'Terrorism' Raids of Oct 2007). The brittle relationship between the gung-ho world-wise American and the naive, easily upset, Smith was reminiscent of the relationships between Americans and Kiwis over the Nuclear Ships issue of the 1980s. I had forgotten the personal battle between Smith and Jesperson, head of the special police, which feels like men reliving a school boy battle -- this time with guns.
Sleeping Dogs is especially worth seeing if you are interested in New Zealand film making history and the DVD comes with an interesting documentary on the making of the film.
Watch the Sleeping Dogs trailer (3.3MB; 2.16 minutes) at the Film Archive.
Ian's rating 3/5
Sleeping Dogs is based on a C K Stead's novel Smith's Dream -- which I had read a year or two earlier. While I enjoyed the book, the film has stuck in my mind longer. The plot is pretty straightforward with Smith's marriage breaking up at about the time that a major economic crisis is leading to authoritarian government in New Zealand and an insurgency. Running away from his marriage he gets mistaken for an insurgent, and discovers it is hard to prove that one is not a terrorist.
As other people have noted Sleeping Dogs was first of the current crop of 35mm feature films made in NZ. Most of its notability is related to this fact and that it is a pseudo-political thriller set in NZ. Both of these aspects mean that Sleeping Dogs is of far more interest to Kiwis than people overseas. To an overseas audience it would look like a very low budget and laid back thriller with no particular message or other notable features. To us we get to see a successful piece of low budget film making, a very young looking Sam Neill (as Smith) and New Zealand more or less as it looked in the 1970s (the days when the RNZAF had fighter jets, Dougal Stevenson read the news and Prime Ministers seems all powerful).
Seeing the film a second time, 27 years later, I found the concept of the NZ government declaring a state of emergency more far fetched than it had in Muldoon's time, but I found the idea of the police breaking into houses to arrest 'enemies of the state' / terrorists to be quite believable (especially given the 'Terrorism' Raids of Oct 2007). The brittle relationship between the gung-ho world-wise American and the naive, easily upset, Smith was reminiscent of the relationships between Americans and Kiwis over the Nuclear Ships issue of the 1980s. I had forgotten the personal battle between Smith and Jesperson, head of the special police, which feels like men reliving a school boy battle -- this time with guns.
Sleeping Dogs is especially worth seeing if you are interested in New Zealand film making history and the DVD comes with an interesting documentary on the making of the film.
Watch the Sleeping Dogs trailer (3.3MB; 2.16 minutes) at the Film Archive.Ian's rating 3/5
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Quantum of Solace
Exotic locations, amazing gadgets, fast cars and pretty women are staples of James Bond films, but like Casino Royal before it, one of these things is missing from Quantum of Solace. Given the pace of the film you would be forgiven for not noticing the omission until afterwards.
As I have come to expect with Bond films, it kicks off with a chase scene in an exotic location as Bond brings in a man for "interrogation" by MI6. Many of the shots are in-your-face close-ups of Bond or from his point of view, which gives the sequence a claustrophobic feel. The shots are very short and choppy which gave me a feel for the instant, death defying decisions Bond is making. But the shots are also quite disjointed which just made me confused. The harbour chase scene later in the film is also shot in short disjointed takes which likewise left me confused as to the overall situation.
The mission for the film is summed up by M: "Who the hell is this organisation Bond? How can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them!" They turn out to be some politically well connected rich guys just wanting to get richer and for some reason Bond and rebel CIA agent Felix Leiter want to stop this! But don't look for rationality in a Bond plot, just go with the flow. You know the sort of thing, Bond follows a series of leads (which might be as tenuous as following a pretty woman) in an chain of events that leads him to foil the bad guys' plans usually in a series of explosions and dead bodies. The film alternates frantic chase scenes with slower development sequences, but even the slow sequences are quite short so that the overall pace is quick and relentless. One could quibble that the flight to Bolivia scene was probably superfluous and the final confrontation (which wraps up the Casino Royale plot) felt like an afterthought. This contrasts with Casino Royale with its multiple fake endings and twists in the tail that drag on and on.
While I found some of the dialogue and acting in Casino Royale quite stiff, I thought Quantum of Solace was a significant improvement. Daniel Craig in particular was more relaxed and natural when delivering his lines, but he has a long way to go to reach the panache and humour of say Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. Also, there are fewer of the drawn out strangling scenes that I thought detracted from Casino Royale (perhaps I am unrealistic and sentimental but I thought Bond preferred quick kills). Perhaps because Judi Dench (M) is a draw card in her own right (and probably a better actor than Daniel Craig) she gets many of the best lines and unrealistically gets out "in the field". In the scenes they play together Bond comes across as a petulant school boy -- something he is aware of (Camille: "Your mother?" Bond: "She likes to think so.")
There are two Bond Girls: Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) on her own mission of revenge who teams up with Bond for much of the film to their mutual advantage and Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) from the British Consulate in La Plaz who will be remembered for her 1960s cream coat and banter at the airport but unfortunately gets too close to Bond.
What's missing? Well it seems that Q and his gadgets have been replaced by a swag of product placements.
Overall this is an improvement on Casino Royale but unlike some previous Bond films I can't think of anything here that is particularly memorable.
Ian's rating 3.5/5 Anne's rating 3/5
As I have come to expect with Bond films, it kicks off with a chase scene in an exotic location as Bond brings in a man for "interrogation" by MI6. Many of the shots are in-your-face close-ups of Bond or from his point of view, which gives the sequence a claustrophobic feel. The shots are very short and choppy which gave me a feel for the instant, death defying decisions Bond is making. But the shots are also quite disjointed which just made me confused. The harbour chase scene later in the film is also shot in short disjointed takes which likewise left me confused as to the overall situation.
The mission for the film is summed up by M: "Who the hell is this organisation Bond? How can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them!" They turn out to be some politically well connected rich guys just wanting to get richer and for some reason Bond and rebel CIA agent Felix Leiter want to stop this! But don't look for rationality in a Bond plot, just go with the flow. You know the sort of thing, Bond follows a series of leads (which might be as tenuous as following a pretty woman) in an chain of events that leads him to foil the bad guys' plans usually in a series of explosions and dead bodies. The film alternates frantic chase scenes with slower development sequences, but even the slow sequences are quite short so that the overall pace is quick and relentless. One could quibble that the flight to Bolivia scene was probably superfluous and the final confrontation (which wraps up the Casino Royale plot) felt like an afterthought. This contrasts with Casino Royale with its multiple fake endings and twists in the tail that drag on and on.
While I found some of the dialogue and acting in Casino Royale quite stiff, I thought Quantum of Solace was a significant improvement. Daniel Craig in particular was more relaxed and natural when delivering his lines, but he has a long way to go to reach the panache and humour of say Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. Also, there are fewer of the drawn out strangling scenes that I thought detracted from Casino Royale (perhaps I am unrealistic and sentimental but I thought Bond preferred quick kills). Perhaps because Judi Dench (M) is a draw card in her own right (and probably a better actor than Daniel Craig) she gets many of the best lines and unrealistically gets out "in the field". In the scenes they play together Bond comes across as a petulant school boy -- something he is aware of (Camille: "Your mother?" Bond: "She likes to think so.")
There are two Bond Girls: Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) on her own mission of revenge who teams up with Bond for much of the film to their mutual advantage and Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) from the British Consulate in La Plaz who will be remembered for her 1960s cream coat and banter at the airport but unfortunately gets too close to Bond.
What's missing? Well it seems that Q and his gadgets have been replaced by a swag of product placements.
Overall this is an improvement on Casino Royale but unlike some previous Bond films I can't think of anything here that is particularly memorable.
Ian's rating 3.5/5 Anne's rating 3/5
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Casino Royale
One of Ian's workmates gave him some free tickets for Sky City Cinemas which had to be used by Dec 31st. The best of the films on offer seemed to be Quantum of Solace but as everyone knows this is a sequel and we hadn't seen the original yet. So the best thing to do seemed to be to watch a DVD of Casino Royale on Monday and go to Quantum of Solace at Lower Hutt on Tuesday.
In case you're the only person on the planet who didn't know, Casino Royale is a James Bond film with Daniel Craig starring as Bond for the first time. I found the plot a little hard to follow but Wikipedia has a thorough description here.
There are classic Bond-Story elements like gorgeous women, fast cars, shootouts and exotic locations. There are departures from Classic Bond - there is no Q, no gadgets and Bond sometimes uses strangling rather shooting as his method of killing his enemies. (I didn't feel this last was a good thing - some have described it as gritty and adding a dose of realism but for me Bond films are all about escapism and I don't like to be made to dwell on his victims' suffering). Another departure is Bond falling in love (he even says "I love you" before she does) and wanting to leave the service although I suspect this is an aberration allowed because this film takes place so early in his career.
Casino Royale is good entertainment and the stunts are superb. I loved the early stunt sequence on a building site in Madagascar which involved two cranes and had Bond and his target running along steel girders and leaping improbably from crane to crane employing pulleys and swinging on loads of building materials for extra excitement. The second major sequence at Miami Airport was enormous fun, particularly because of the vehicles used - whizzing around in petrol tankers and plane pushers isn't everyday movie material.The palazzo crumbling into the canal in Venice was also impressive but too recognisably CGI for my liking......I like things to look real even if I know they aren't. I enjoyed the scenery and the casino sequences in Montenegro, and of course the moment where Daniel Craig pops out of the sea in the Bahamas clad only in his swimming trunks. Judi Dench as M was good fun....she is very good at telling people off and she had plenty of opportunity in this film with her newest and most inexperienced agent.
Casino Royale is slightly too hard to follow, slightly too disjointed and slightly too gruesome to be my ideal escapist movie but its worth a trip.
Anne's rating 3.5/5
Ian's rating 3/5
In case you're the only person on the planet who didn't know, Casino Royale is a James Bond film with Daniel Craig starring as Bond for the first time. I found the plot a little hard to follow but Wikipedia has a thorough description here.
There are classic Bond-Story elements like gorgeous women, fast cars, shootouts and exotic locations. There are departures from Classic Bond - there is no Q, no gadgets and Bond sometimes uses strangling rather shooting as his method of killing his enemies. (I didn't feel this last was a good thing - some have described it as gritty and adding a dose of realism but for me Bond films are all about escapism and I don't like to be made to dwell on his victims' suffering). Another departure is Bond falling in love (he even says "I love you" before she does) and wanting to leave the service although I suspect this is an aberration allowed because this film takes place so early in his career.
Casino Royale is good entertainment and the stunts are superb. I loved the early stunt sequence on a building site in Madagascar which involved two cranes and had Bond and his target running along steel girders and leaping improbably from crane to crane employing pulleys and swinging on loads of building materials for extra excitement. The second major sequence at Miami Airport was enormous fun, particularly because of the vehicles used - whizzing around in petrol tankers and plane pushers isn't everyday movie material.The palazzo crumbling into the canal in Venice was also impressive but too recognisably CGI for my liking......I like things to look real even if I know they aren't. I enjoyed the scenery and the casino sequences in Montenegro, and of course the moment where Daniel Craig pops out of the sea in the Bahamas clad only in his swimming trunks. Judi Dench as M was good fun....she is very good at telling people off and she had plenty of opportunity in this film with her newest and most inexperienced agent.
Casino Royale is slightly too hard to follow, slightly too disjointed and slightly too gruesome to be my ideal escapist movie but its worth a trip.
Anne's rating 3.5/5
Ian's rating 3/5
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The Dark Knight
NANA-nana-NANA-nana-NANA-nana Batmaaaan! is not the theme tune to The Dark Knight. In fact I can't remember what the theme tune was. I think that long term my memories of The Dark Knight will not be the dialogue or the music but the special effects and the general film noir look of the movie. The film opens with the status quo of Batman hunting down Gotham's criminals from the shadows under threat from three directions. A fan club of Batman look-alike vigilantes trying to get in on the act, a new district attorney who doesn't approve of vigilantes including Batman and most dangerous of all the Joker. The first two threats are quickly dealt with: the fan club evaporates and the new D.A. morphs into a love competitor, but the third threat drives the film.
The central character of The Dark Knight is not Batman but Heath Ledger's Joker. Unlike the other criminals of Gotham, the Joker doesn't commit crime for money or revenge (though he gets plenty of both), he is not insane (though he pretends to be). He is an equal opportunities bad guy. His victims are across the board: ordinary civilians, the authorities, Batman, other criminals -- everybody. His lack of motive plus his meticulous planning make him a formidable opponent for everyone, including Batman. He is the ultimate parody of both the all powerful/scheming solo super-villain and the unfathomable born baddie (the genetically disposed criminal or terrorist). Sending up two stereotypes that are the stock-in-trade of Hollywood (and G. W. Bush's view of the rest of the world). The Joker is not a likeable character. This anti-hero is also neither funny nor scary, or even someone to be feared or pitied. It is just that when he is in a scene he dominates it and when he isn't there, he is the main topic of dialogue.
The Dark Knight is a long (150 minutes) visual feast of a film about the collision between the vigilante super-hero and the all powerful super-villain, with child-like shorthand of beauty and ugly standing in for good and bad, and a veneer of film noire. I enjoyed being there but found this review hard to write, as once you start to think about it you start seeing the holes!
The love triangle between Batman, Harvey Dent and Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal with the sex appeal turned down a bit from Sherrybaby) and how Harvey Dent becomes "Two Face" are almost irrelevant to the main story and the question "is Batman still relevant in the 'modern' world?" is not conclusively answered either.
Ian's rating 3/5
The central character of The Dark Knight is not Batman but Heath Ledger's Joker. Unlike the other criminals of Gotham, the Joker doesn't commit crime for money or revenge (though he gets plenty of both), he is not insane (though he pretends to be). He is an equal opportunities bad guy. His victims are across the board: ordinary civilians, the authorities, Batman, other criminals -- everybody. His lack of motive plus his meticulous planning make him a formidable opponent for everyone, including Batman. He is the ultimate parody of both the all powerful/scheming solo super-villain and the unfathomable born baddie (the genetically disposed criminal or terrorist). Sending up two stereotypes that are the stock-in-trade of Hollywood (and G. W. Bush's view of the rest of the world). The Joker is not a likeable character. This anti-hero is also neither funny nor scary, or even someone to be feared or pitied. It is just that when he is in a scene he dominates it and when he isn't there, he is the main topic of dialogue.
The Dark Knight is a long (150 minutes) visual feast of a film about the collision between the vigilante super-hero and the all powerful super-villain, with child-like shorthand of beauty and ugly standing in for good and bad, and a veneer of film noire. I enjoyed being there but found this review hard to write, as once you start to think about it you start seeing the holes!
The love triangle between Batman, Harvey Dent and Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal with the sex appeal turned down a bit from Sherrybaby) and how Harvey Dent becomes "Two Face" are almost irrelevant to the main story and the question "is Batman still relevant in the 'modern' world?" is not conclusively answered either.
Ian's rating 3/5
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Award Ceremony 37th Wellington Film Festival
I did a summary last year and as people keep asking which was the best film I'm doing it again. While Anne and I have only seen one film each that we classified as "must see" there are many films we would recommend.
Last year I noticed a theme of family problems. This year the theme was rain. I have never been so cold and wet, I almost wore my raincoat out and probably ended up smelling of oilskins. It wasn't until half way through the second week that I started to notice a theme of bullying, particularly in: Ben X, CJ7 and Let the Right One In. Since the festival finished I have noticed another theme of illegal immigration with: Lorna's Silence, It's a Free World and The Visitor.
Best Documentary
Nominations:
- Waltz with Bashir - remembering Israel's 1982 attack on Lebanon
- Standard Operating Procedure - what happened at Abu Ghraib?
- Terror's Advocate - who defends the undefendable?
- Trouble Is My Business - student management in Papatoetoe
- Donkey in Lahore - an Australian / Pakistani romance
- Taxi to the Dark Side - before Abu Ghraib there was Bagram
- Night - Australia at night
Best Comedy
We enjoy comedies, the best of this year's bunch are:
- Empties - old man behaving badly in Prague
- Welcome to the Sticks - this year's French farce
- In Bruges - gangsters behaving badly in Belgium
- Married Life - keeping up appearances
- CJ7 - get in touch with your inner child
Best Drama
The best dramas this festival include:
- The Counterfeiters - do you help your enemy in order to live longer?
- Ben X - the world from an autistic point of view
- Lorna's Silence - her dreams or her conscience?
- I Just Didn't Do It - don't get arrested in Japan
- It's a Free World - Angie's dreams or her conscience?
- The Visitor - safety first or care a little?
Political Dramas
The best to worst of this sub-category:
Strangest Film
Well not really, rather the best of the Incredibly Strange section:
- Cargo 200 - The Good, the Bad and Ugly back in the USSR
- King of the Hill - Last one standing in the Spanish countryside
- Teeth - Sex with a bite
- Frontier(s) - French splatter, keep away from those creepy motels
Best Short
Nominations (all NZ films):
- Take 3 - "Can you be a bit more Asian?"
- Noise Control - Rooster shooting at Raumati
- Cargo - People trafficking in Eastern Europe
Most Disappointing
Nominations:
- The Duchess of Langeais - drawn out sado-masochistic courtship
- Be Kind Rewind - an overdose of Jack Black
- The Wave - not plausible enough to be as chilling
- The Band's Visit - too many missed opportunities
Best Actor / Actress
Nominations:
- Chris Cooper playing Harry in Married Life
- Colin Farrell playing Ray in In Bruges
- Brendan Gleeson playing Ken in In Bruges
- Greg Timmermans playing Ben in Ben X
- Arta Dobroshi playing Lorna in Lorna's Silence
- Xu Jiao playing Dicky in CJ7
- Scott Wills playing Barry in Apron Strings
- Kierston Wareing playing Angie in It's a Free World
- Richard Jenkins playing Walter Vale in The Visitor
Runners Up: Scott Wills and Kierston Wareing
Best Eye Candy
Unrealistic or unjustified use of a sexy actress (think of typical US sitcom slobby husband with impossibly pretty wife).
Nominations:
- Like the Americans, the French like to partner up average guys with gorgeous chicks - twice in Welcome to the Sticks
- Boys would never leave primary school if their primary school teachers looked liked the three in CJ7
- Even Harry's best friend can't believe the perfect Kay belongs with boring Harry in Married Life
- Beautiful women visit beauty parlours but I'm still going to classify the repeat customer in Caramel as eye candy
Winner: Rachel McAdams as Kay in Married Life
Best Energizer Bunny
Where a woman spends the whole film running around trying to achieve something (think Run Lola Run).
Nominations:
- Lorna fights for her dreams and her conscience in Lorna's Silence
- Angie fights to make it in a dodgy business in It's a Free World
- Aicha fights her heritage to learn kung fu in Fighter
Grossest Moment
Nominations:
- Eye ball eating in Jar City.
- There are times when you don't want to let the dog into your bedroom in Teeth.
- Meat hooks, circular saws and steam rooms and other messy ways to die in Frontier(s).
- Sharing a bed with too many dead bodies in Cargo 200.
Special Mentions
- Impeccable cross gender acting - Xu Jiao playing Dicky in CJ7
- Best Bang for Buck - the remarkably restrained and lo-tech Teeth
- Only arty film I saw - Ashes of Time Redux
- The R16 kids film - Let the Right One In
- Worst seats - Paramount H22 & H23
Each year I try to predict which films will come back on general release. Here are my guesses for this year.
No Brainers
In Bruges, Apron Strings, The Counterfeiters
Art House
Empties, Married Life, Welcome to the Sticks, Ben X, Lorna's Silence, The Visitor, The Wave
Might come back
Teeth, Be Kind Rewind, The Band's Visit
Would come back if I had my way
Let the Right One In, Noise Control, Waltz with Bashir, Terror's Advocate, Taxi to the Dark Side
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Waltz with Bashir
10-20 years ago documentaries were programs we watched on TV, but things changed and documentaries became gradually rarer on TV and people wrung their hands. But unpredicted documentaries reappeared, this time at the cinema, even occasionally at cinemas run by Hoyts and Reading. Not only have they reappeared but they have become more innovative and even been imitated as mockumentaries (Forgotten Silver, Dark Side of the Moon, Strictly Ballroom and Razzle Dazzle). Using reconstruction is relatively common in documentaries but Waltz with Bashir takes this further by using animation for its reconstructed scenes (including people's dreams and memories) and also for its interviews (Noise Control turns this approach into a mockumentary).
Director Ali Folman (who co-directed the X-files like comedy Saint Clara) served in the Israel Army during the Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (at age 19) and had trouble remembering some parts of what happened. After being rung by a friend who was troubled by nightmares of being chased by 26 dogs, he hunts down former army colleagues in an effort to fill in the gaps. This film documents that process.
Some of the men have more accurate memories and some have less . More interesting than the filling in the gaps is the general impression one is left with of how the Israel Army conducted its operations and apparently how little the average Israeli soldier understood of where they were and what they were doing there. Also some of the surreal experiences, such as walking through the terminal at Beirut airport.
The film climaxes with the infamous massacre at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp. The film steers clear of the controversy over how many Palestinians were killed (700-3500) but comes down with a clear statement of who was responsible. Namely Israel's allies, the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, who, angry after the assassination of their leader Bashir Gemayel, were sent into the camps with the cooperation of the Israelis and did the killing, until stopped by an Israeli general (the film suggests that the order to stop came the next day, Wikipedia states that the massacre and body disposal took 2½ days). It exonerates the Israeli soldiers but implicates their commanders all the way up to Minister of Defence Arial Sharon, in knowing that the massacre was under way and doing nothing to stop it, while continuing to provide military support to the Phalangist militia during the massacre.
The angular style of animation, with bold, red/orange, colours and black shadows are very effective for a war movie. The moment at which the film breaks out of animation into "live action" footage was very well chosen.
Ian's rating 4/5
Anne's rating 4/5
Director Ali Folman (who co-directed the X-files like comedy Saint Clara) served in the Israel Army during the Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (at age 19) and had trouble remembering some parts of what happened. After being rung by a friend who was troubled by nightmares of being chased by 26 dogs, he hunts down former army colleagues in an effort to fill in the gaps. This film documents that process.
Some of the men have more accurate memories and some have less . More interesting than the filling in the gaps is the general impression one is left with of how the Israel Army conducted its operations and apparently how little the average Israeli soldier understood of where they were and what they were doing there. Also some of the surreal experiences, such as walking through the terminal at Beirut airport.
The film climaxes with the infamous massacre at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp. The film steers clear of the controversy over how many Palestinians were killed (700-3500) but comes down with a clear statement of who was responsible. Namely Israel's allies, the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, who, angry after the assassination of their leader Bashir Gemayel, were sent into the camps with the cooperation of the Israelis and did the killing, until stopped by an Israeli general (the film suggests that the order to stop came the next day, Wikipedia states that the massacre and body disposal took 2½ days). It exonerates the Israeli soldiers but implicates their commanders all the way up to Minister of Defence Arial Sharon, in knowing that the massacre was under way and doing nothing to stop it, while continuing to provide military support to the Phalangist militia during the massacre.
The angular style of animation, with bold, red/orange, colours and black shadows are very effective for a war movie. The moment at which the film breaks out of animation into "live action" footage was very well chosen.
Ian's rating 4/5
Anne's rating 4/5
Standard Operating Procedure
The infamous photos of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib is focus of this second documentary on America's "War on Terror" (the first was "Taxi to the Dark Side" and unfortunately I failed to see the third one "No End in Sight"). It is a mixture of reconstruction, the original photos (and videos) and "talking heads". The pictures are so well known they have lost their shock value, its interviewees that are the star attraction of this documentary. The interviewees include Lynndie England and others prosecuted for the things depicted in the photos, Janis Karpinski the general in charge of running Abu Ghraib and many other prisons in Iraq, a civilian contract interrogator who worked at Abu Ghraib and an investigator who used the photos to build the cases against those prosecuted. For some reason no Iraqis are interviewed.
This is not a hysterical Mike Moore style documentary but a smooth measured one which doesn't tell you what or how to think, but gives you various peoples views on a very limited series of events. The interviewees talk about serving at Abu Ghraib (those prosecuted repeatedly mention the frustration they felt at being shelled by insurgents). They talk about where the prisoners came from (often army patrols would detain all men they came across) and policy of not releasing them even if there was no reason to hold them and the prisons were becoming overcrowded. They talk about:
While it was very interesting to hear directly from the people involved rather than from: politicians, top brass, PR / spin doctors and journalists; but ultimately there was nothing surprising here.
Ian's rating 3/5
This is not a hysterical Mike Moore style documentary but a smooth measured one which doesn't tell you what or how to think, but gives you various peoples views on a very limited series of events. The interviewees talk about serving at Abu Ghraib (those prosecuted repeatedly mention the frustration they felt at being shelled by insurgents). They talk about where the prisoners came from (often army patrols would detain all men they came across) and policy of not releasing them even if there was no reason to hold them and the prisons were becoming overcrowded. They talk about:
- the interrogation techniques by various agencies,
- the different classes of prisoner (including those who were being hidden from the Red Cross),
- how they worked out how to treat the prisoners and apparent lack of supervision by officers
- we did what the interrogators wanted us to do,
- we felt frustrated by the shelling,
- the interrogators did far worse
While it was very interesting to hear directly from the people involved rather than from: politicians, top brass, PR / spin doctors and journalists; but ultimately there was nothing surprising here.
Ian's rating 3/5
Terror's Advocate
Before seeing this film I was vaguely aware of a French lawyer who defended people that no-one else would. So I was interested in seeing this film about Jacques Vergès. I was interested in why someone would do this and how would you mount a defence when the evidence is so damning and often the justice system trying the person is not seen as impartial.
The film starts in Algeria (well I think it does as I missed the first couple of minutes because I was caught up in a bus load of grey haired folk queuing to buy coffees, ice creams and tickets to go and see 'Sex in the City') with scenes from The Battle of Algiers. Jacques Vergès was one many French lawyers who arrived in Algiers for the terrorism trials as the French troops caught suspects. The right-wing lawyers came to work for the prosecution and the left-wing ones to work for the defence (Algerian lawyers were jailed by the French). Jacques Vergès defended Djamila Bouhired and his strategy differed from many of his fellow defence lawyers by challenging the court and its assumptions at every opportunity and accusing the court, prosecution or state of equivalent or worse evil than the accused are being prosecuted for. A strategy he calls the 'rupture defence'. Djamila was sentenced to be guillotined, but an international campaign for her release, inspired by Jacques Vergès's defence, got her (and others) reprieved.
Jacques Vergès was born in Thailand and brought up on the island of Réunion, son of a French diplomat and a Vietnamese mother. His background explains his strong anti-colonialist stance. He became enamoured of Djamila Bouhired, converted to Islam and eventually settled in Algeria, married her and they had 2 children. But in 1970 he abandoned them and disappeared, reappearing without explanation in Paris in 1978. Even now he refuses to say what he was doing during those years (I suspect he likes the sense of mystery).
He then moved on to the Palestinian cause, in particular defending associates of "Carlos the Jackel" including Magdalena Kopp, with whom he became infatuated. But most famously he defended Klaus Barbie; arguing in 'rupture defence' fashion that the French State was being inconsistent with who they were trying for crimes against humanity.
Jacques Vergès has had a busy life and I've only described a fraction of the film and judging from what I've read elsewhere since, the film only covers a fraction of his life. This anti-establishment figure who is also very at home in the luxuries of Paris life serves a useful purpose of shining a light on some of the hypocrisies of "The West" in general and France in particular as well as the more practical purpose of defending those who might not get an effective defence elsewhere.
Ian's rating 4/5
The film starts in Algeria (well I think it does as I missed the first couple of minutes because I was caught up in a bus load of grey haired folk queuing to buy coffees, ice creams and tickets to go and see 'Sex in the City') with scenes from The Battle of Algiers. Jacques Vergès was one many French lawyers who arrived in Algiers for the terrorism trials as the French troops caught suspects. The right-wing lawyers came to work for the prosecution and the left-wing ones to work for the defence (Algerian lawyers were jailed by the French). Jacques Vergès defended Djamila Bouhired and his strategy differed from many of his fellow defence lawyers by challenging the court and its assumptions at every opportunity and accusing the court, prosecution or state of equivalent or worse evil than the accused are being prosecuted for. A strategy he calls the 'rupture defence'. Djamila was sentenced to be guillotined, but an international campaign for her release, inspired by Jacques Vergès's defence, got her (and others) reprieved.
Jacques Vergès was born in Thailand and brought up on the island of Réunion, son of a French diplomat and a Vietnamese mother. His background explains his strong anti-colonialist stance. He became enamoured of Djamila Bouhired, converted to Islam and eventually settled in Algeria, married her and they had 2 children. But in 1970 he abandoned them and disappeared, reappearing without explanation in Paris in 1978. Even now he refuses to say what he was doing during those years (I suspect he likes the sense of mystery).
He then moved on to the Palestinian cause, in particular defending associates of "Carlos the Jackel" including Magdalena Kopp, with whom he became infatuated. But most famously he defended Klaus Barbie; arguing in 'rupture defence' fashion that the French State was being inconsistent with who they were trying for crimes against humanity.
Jacques Vergès has had a busy life and I've only described a fraction of the film and judging from what I've read elsewhere since, the film only covers a fraction of his life. This anti-establishment figure who is also very at home in the luxuries of Paris life serves a useful purpose of shining a light on some of the hypocrisies of "The West" in general and France in particular as well as the more practical purpose of defending those who might not get an effective defence elsewhere.
Ian's rating 4/5
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The Savages
The Savages was billed as a black comedy, but I'd describe it more as a low-key drama with humour. The Savages of the title are a brother and sister (Wendy and Jon, played by Laura Linney and Philip Seymour-Hoffman) and their elderly father (Lenny) - a small but not close-knit family who are forced into reunion by the death of their Father's companion. As Lenny is suffering from dementia, he needs full-time care and its up to Wendy and Jon to organise it and the film tells the story of this process.
This may not sound that scintillating but its well done and not at all sentimental. The focus is probably more on the relationship between the siblings than on their relationship with their father - probably because the latter was neither warm nor close. And neither was the former, at least until their father needed help. Wendy and Jon are dysfunctional enough to make them easy to watch and not too hard to identify or sympathise with. What will become of our parents is a pretty universal potential problem and The Savages lets us think about that while suggesting that it could be a positive experience. The actors do a great job - I thought Laura Linney did neurotic rather too well for comfortable viewing in Jindabyne and Love Actually but she struck the right note of understandable human frailty here.
Anne's rating 3.5/5, Ian's rating 2.5/5
This may not sound that scintillating but its well done and not at all sentimental. The focus is probably more on the relationship between the siblings than on their relationship with their father - probably because the latter was neither warm nor close. And neither was the former, at least until their father needed help. Wendy and Jon are dysfunctional enough to make them easy to watch and not too hard to identify or sympathise with. What will become of our parents is a pretty universal potential problem and The Savages lets us think about that while suggesting that it could be a positive experience. The actors do a great job - I thought Laura Linney did neurotic rather too well for comfortable viewing in Jindabyne and Love Actually but she struck the right note of understandable human frailty here.
Anne's rating 3.5/5, Ian's rating 2.5/5
Monday, August 04, 2008
The Visitor
Walter, a lonely, stick-in-the-mud, college professor at a Connecticut university returns to his New York apartment after a long absence to find a couple of illegal immigrants in residence: Tarek, an outgoing Syrian drummer and his prickly Senegalese girl friend, Zainab. The easy way out would be to kick out the squatters and get on with his life, but Walter, who up to now has been taking the easy way out, allows compassion to override the sensible/easy decision.
The two parties share the apartment and maintain a polite distance until Walter takes an interest in Tarek's drumming. This precipitates a chain of events leading to Tarek's arrest and film moves into a different gear as everyone is now caught up in the meat grinder of American immigration detention centres. Tarek's mum is now pulled into the picture and relationships change again, with Walter now the middle between girlfriend, mother and detained son.
Tom McCarthy (the writer/director) uses the same technique as in the earlier Station Agent -- characters (including a loner) who wouldn't normally meet are thrown together by circumstances and find themselves out of their comfort zone. The Visitor has the same message as About a Boy, and I think does it more convincingly, namely life is more interesting (if less comfortable) if you get involved in other people's problems.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
The two parties share the apartment and maintain a polite distance until Walter takes an interest in Tarek's drumming. This precipitates a chain of events leading to Tarek's arrest and film moves into a different gear as everyone is now caught up in the meat grinder of American immigration detention centres. Tarek's mum is now pulled into the picture and relationships change again, with Walter now the middle between girlfriend, mother and detained son.
Tom McCarthy (the writer/director) uses the same technique as in the earlier Station Agent -- characters (including a loner) who wouldn't normally meet are thrown together by circumstances and find themselves out of their comfort zone. The Visitor has the same message as About a Boy, and I think does it more convincingly, namely life is more interesting (if less comfortable) if you get involved in other people's problems.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
Caramel
Had your legs carameled lately?
This movie is set around a beauty parlour - in a very different Beirut to any ever shown in the news or typical documentary programs - at least any that I have seen, where normal people are pursuing their normal fleshy desires in apparently normal lives. And in this beauty parlour, fresh chewy caramel is wax!
Caramel is a warm depiction of the manageress of this parlour, her two assistants, the seamstress across the way, her dotty sister or aunt or mum or similar, a local traffic cop and a customer or two as they pursue and interact in their diverse and troubled love lives.
I don't seem to have a lot more to add about this, although I did enjoy it and would recommend it to mature people especially any who like arty movies. 3.5/5
Anne's rating 3/5
Ian's rating 3/5
This movie is set around a beauty parlour - in a very different Beirut to any ever shown in the news or typical documentary programs - at least any that I have seen, where normal people are pursuing their normal fleshy desires in apparently normal lives. And in this beauty parlour, fresh chewy caramel is wax!
Caramel is a warm depiction of the manageress of this parlour, her two assistants, the seamstress across the way, her dotty sister or aunt or mum or similar, a local traffic cop and a customer or two as they pursue and interact in their diverse and troubled love lives.
I don't seem to have a lot more to add about this, although I did enjoy it and would recommend it to mature people especially any who like arty movies. 3.5/5
Anne's rating 3/5
Ian's rating 3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
