Change Your Image
oliraceking
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Lovely Bones (2009)
Lovely Bones is a challenging experimental film - remind yourself cinema is an ART form, not a McDonalds
I went to see The Lovely Bones intrigued by the anger and universal dismay towards this film. I did indeed leave the cinema angry and dismayed, but solely at the bigoted and the spoiled- brat critics who were vocally competing to see who hates it the most. I found the film interesting, arresting and daringly experimental. I haven't read the book, but just because I haven't doesn't mean my defense of this film is invalid. To me, the audience for this film is clearly 13 year old girls. It was told from the point of view and emotional spectrum that encapsulates pubescent girls, and it seemed very credible to me that shifts in tone would exist, such as the family drama dealing with loss; a soul entering a Technicolor fantasy world; the humour of a drunken grandmother taking control of the household.....
The crux of the problem to me is that audiences in general (and middle aged, middle class critics in particular) HATE films that don't conform to their notion of genre, convention or tone. As much as they berate films that fit the so-called McMovie mold (i.e. Chris Columbus films), they are in fact guilty of prejudice in berating films that don't fit within their own academic-brow window of film-making: they want their own kind of McMovie which fits within a McGenre, using McConventions with consistent McTone. If they are DARED to be served up something experimental in this Happy Meal, they throw a hissy fit and wail at top volume about how much they hate it (like Radio 5-Live's Boyd & Floyd recently).
I recently heard a recording of Alan Parker berating film critics, and for good reason. But in that same lecture he spoke of his dismay that at the time less than 1% of the population had watched a foreign, i.e. subtitled film. So, as he argued, audiences were only interested in seeing movies in their own language, about their own culture, and using techniques that were familiar. I equate the reaction to The Lovely Bones to this narrow minded, childish and self-satisfied approach. Decisions that Peter Jackson took in the adaptation were just that: DECISIONS. Rather than simply dismiss them as WRONG, why not challenge yourself to submit to his ideas, and take or leave what you want. Many criticise him for depicting the afterlife (crucually NOT Heaven) so clearly. Well, fine! That's HIS vision, HIS imagination, HIS choice. I found his choice totally befitting with what I imagine a 13 year old girl in the 70's could concoct. The evocative Brian Eno score, when juxtaposed to these images, did create a sense of the fantastical which completely offset the drama or the tragedy. And good for it. It's a stream of consciousness, it's not a McMovie with extra high brow.
People criticise Jackson for injecting fantasy elements into The Lovely Bones, clearly an influence from his LOTR experience. But no-one criticised him for including horror elements in LOTR, an influence from his first phase of work.... To me, the wonder of cinema is that CHALLENGES you, either emotionally or thematically - or, as in the case of The Lovely Bones, with style and juxtaposition. I am so grateful that Jackson, untrained in the academia of film school or film flatulence that most critics are, made a film that was so experimental; a film that had a 'Fountain' like stream of consciousness, a film where the inner soul of the character did exist throughout. Behind the mixture of styles and ideas was the aura of a 13 year old girl. Jackson was the best actor in this movie, he played the role of Susie Salmon as well as his lead actress!
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Good attempt at adapting the story, but Spielberg's the wrong director
I think that had David Lean gone ahead and directed this movie it could have been an all time great film. Instead, Spielberg brought his personal angle to it, which means it falls from greatness.
I think Spielberg wanted to bring an E.T. "Child-centric" theme to the film. Great, but the problem is that it means the other characters have to be neglected. Had Lean made this, he would have made the film an hour longer by including those other characters. I mean, Miranda Richardson gets second billing, yet she has about 4 lines of dialogue. I wanted to know more about her and the other supporting characters. Unfortunately they were sacrificed in the edit room, for time I presume.
You feel that Empire of the Sun has an hour of deleted scenes that, if put back in, could make it one of the best films of that decade. I wish he'd had the confidence to give us more characterisation than just Jim (played by a remarkable Christian Bale). Still, it's a strong film with great technical proficiency. It's definitely worth a viewing.
Poseidon (2006)
Awful remake. Don't reward this with your curiosity, let alone your attention
If you ever want to watch a movie that sums up the very worst of Hollywood, watch Poseidon. Right from the first shot of the film Wolfgang Peterson is merely showing off his CGI budget, and you know that the rest of it is going to stink. And he doesn't disappoint. The script is probably one of the worst ever written - it's clichéd, sexist, and the writer clearly never saw Airplane! Peterson hasn't a clue how to direct actors, or indeed anything else other than his beloved CGI water.
The acting is terrible: the only well delivered line is when Richard Dreyfuss is asked, "Is it bad?" and he replies with conviction, "IT'S VERY BAD!" The audience feels his pain. The film is littered with post 9/11 overtones, such as the boat being overturned by a "rogue" wave (what the hell is that?!) and Christian iconography is apparently useful to get you out of trouble - God is referenced to every other line. I think this was written by and for the paranoid bible belt.
And I hate the fact that they still assume that in disaster scenarios people will react by running around with their arms in the air, screaming and attacking each other. Look at 9/11, look at the London bombings - these things DON'T HAPPEN.
Crash (2004)
Good but not "The Best Motion Picture Of The Year"
I was as amazed as anyone that Crash beat Brokeback Mountain to the Oscar. I cannot believe that people were uppity about the so called 'gayness' of Brokeback when Crash showed up the mindless racism of LA - and they seemed to want to celebrate the fact. To me that's plain madness.
Crash is a good film in my opinion. The strong points: it's worthy, the story highlights issues and prejudices that shouldn't exist, and it shows some positive resolutions to those problems in a way that seems creditable. Also the acting is top class and the technical work + music (by Mark Isham) is very good.
But... the dialogue just feels so contrived and so unnatural. I didn't believe that these characters would talk like they did. It seemed to me that the writers tried to write passionate and thought provoking verbal arguments between characters, whilst making no effort to make them subtle. The archetypal poor, black man spoke exactly the same way as the archetypal rich, white man. The only thing that prevented the film from sliding into a bad one was the fact that there were many story lines that drew our attention away from the dodgy dialogue from the previous scene.
At the end of watching it I was left thinking, "noble effort, but not sensational." It will forever be infamous for 'that Oscar win' which will bring undue hostility toward a film that wasn't designed for it. Brokeback Mountain was the better all-round film, but Crash deserves some credit for being as brave in it's subject matter - even though it doesn't live up to the same overall standard.
Dances with Wolves (1990)
The Director's Cut is a great film
I didn't watch the theatrical version upon release, I was too young. I'd heard conflicting reviews that it was a) great and b) self indulgent and sluggish.
I rented the Director's Cut on DVD not expecting much. After 20 minutes I nearly switched it off - I thought it WAS very self indulgent, over slow and a huge ego trip for Kevin Costner. But I stayed on and about an hour in it suddenly took off and breathed a life (probably around the time the Costner character empties a lake of corpses). I realised that it took time to get into because the world it conveyed was merely being set up. Once into the thrust of the story I was emotionally involved and very impressed with the direction, locations and music. There are some moments of genuine tragedy and real bonding between the Costner character and the Indians. It isn't a documentary about the period, but it does give you a glimpse into that bleak time in American history.
Once the film ended I felt that I'd seen a truly epic piece of work. I couldn't imagine watching the theatrical version - goodness knows how you can take an hour off the movie (thank God for DVD). I watched it on a massive projected screen, and in DTS - so it was a truly cinematic experience.
Costner deserved his Oscars, but I think it was a one-hit wonder for him. I usually can't stand him but in this instance I take my hat off to you, sir.
Arena: Alec Guinness: A Secret Man (2003)
Appallingly Intrusive and the worst type of Tabloid TV
I usually love Arena bio-docs, but the Alec Guinness one was there to serve no greater purpose than to advertise somebody's gossipy and scandalous book. They even interviewed the author throughout where he gave us "amazing" revelations about how evil Guinness was and how dare we have the cosy reputation of him as a great actor in our memories without the necessary added details of the insecurity, bisexuality and lack of family spirit that this guy deemed as so essential for us to know. Some of it was clearly pure speculation, the rest agenda-led (for whatever reason). There was hardly any insight into Guinness's achievements as the thing we know him for - an actor.
GO AWAY PIERS PAUL READ. It's NONE of your business - or if it is, as you clearly think so, leave the exclusive revelations to the newspapers (oh, sorry, you did already - in which I read a ranting article, by you, about how he was "cruel and bullying" to his wife, Merula - and also where your book, which promises more exclusives, is available to buy). OK Guinness may not have been perfect but it's clear from conjecture he wasn't a wife beater. Read was basically claiming that Guinness lied about himself all the way through his life and "HOW DARE HE - why didn't he write loads of books about the bad things in his life...? Oh well, I might as well do it after his death - he won't mind, he's dead and cannot sue or be offended. That's how much my friendship with him meant to me, I'll make my buck off of it, at HIS expense." So he had a few deep routed frustrated feelings for the same sex - well mate, I'm amazed and delighted that you're so happy and content with your emotions, but the rest of us are not always so comfortable with our lives, or secure with our emotions (and who are you to brand Guinness's feelings as scandalous - on screen it's clear you're one screaming closeted queen). Are his personal demons any of our business? Clearly not, and it's totally disrespectful to yell them at top volume when it was clear that he was a very private man.
I feel very strongly about this - Arena should be about art and artists, not some promotional fluff of the pink variety. More Clint Eastwood style bio-docs, more Richard Attenborough style bio-docs, less bullsh*t.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Technically adequate but poor screenplay and direction
The first half hour of LW&W is great. They set up the four children and their relationship well, and we get to see their entrances into Narnia - and it feels really quite magical. However once all the children find their way into the wardrobe things go downhill, rapidly.
There are various things in the screenplay that aren't in the book. Usually this is understandable for the requirements of the medium, but in this case it is totally unnecessary, for example a melting ice river scene.
The screenwriters have added 21st century gags into a 1950s story. The gags work better than the story (well they did with the audience I was with).
Unfortunately the White Witch just isn't white enough for me. She could be described as pale. So she's not the pantomime baddie you expect her to look like, but her clothes and her Ice Palace are pretty cheap looking. Bad memories of Die Another Day and Batman & Robin came back - they look good but are totally unbelievable. And when a certain man in a beard turns up you either know it's Father Christmas (because you've read the book) or it's a random man in a beard - i.e. he looks nothing like an image of Father Christmas.
I am being hard with the film, but there are good points to raise. The effects are overall terrific, even if they do conjure up happier memories of a Peter Jackson blockbuster. Aslan does look real, and the beasts have been created with care. Harry Gregson-William's music is good when used in the right scene, but here again it's way too rhythmic and 21st century for the scenarios most of the time.
The acting is good, with Tilda Swinton providing a strong, though not menacing performance. Of the four children, I'd say Lucy was the strongest, though they all did above average work for a film like this.
My main problem with this film lies with director Andrew Adamson. He's a master of CGI work (a-la Shrek) and he deals with the fantasy world well...for a Shrek film, but in my book the vivid colours and style is more suited to a comedy, not a serious fantasy film. And Peter suddenly can wield a sword and ride horses, just like that. Of course everything has to be compared with Lord of the Rings, but in this case, it falls so far short it shouldn't be compared at all. Or maybe I'm being unfair and Narnia isn't supposed to be like Middle-Earth.
Adamson has had to work with a compromised script so that scenes we are meant to feel something in don't work because there's been no emotional build up to (Aslan's introduction is very under whelming, as is conveying his "Legend" status). Then there are the logical mistakes, such as screaming at the top of your voice about how to evade capture when you're only a few feet away from the enemy, or hearing a whisper half a mile away etc.
The allegorical argument is lost on me, I am a person who knows nothing about bible stories, but I think this is an easy recruiting film for the evangelicals in America (who part-financed the film anyway). However, for young children not of the Christian faith, this will simply be a good story.
Overall I give marks for technical prowess and the opening 30 minutes. However the rest of the film is lacklustre to me, a very cynical 22 year old, but I know younger children will enjoy this film a lot, and rightly so. I don't see this franchise living up to the Harry Potter status because, basically, the stories are really dated. LW&W was very faithful to the source novel, but subsequent stories with much less "money-shot action" will no doubt be altered beyond recognition for the lowest common denominator audience. Hopefully the series will be an allegory of Aslan - die soon, then resurrect for the force of good. The later stories deserve better than this.