Change Your Image
mustapha_wank
Reviews
Tigerland (2000)
Mainstream rubbish masquerading as indie realism
I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.
The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.
I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.
In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch.
Riders (2002)
great stunts, shame about the film
I just caught this rubbish on BBC1, and it was titled Steal. The plot concerns a group of hip young dudes who embark on a bank robbing spree to fund their early retirement (sounds like a good plan.) The first heist goes a little too well and soon they have problems with the cops and some annoyed gangsters all looking to get in on the action. This is all utterly predictable, and we can see the inevitable double crosses coming a mile away. Rest assured if you haven't seen a hundred films with the same plot, the makers of the film certainly did. The characters' are never really fleshed out, so we don't really care what happens to them or particularly want them to come out on top in the end. Along the way, our main dude Dorff gets it on with (it's your turn to be)Natasha Hestridge(tonight) playing a cardboard feisty police detective, which provides the only real volatility in the story. It's one of those films where the actors are more or less just doing impersonations of characters from similar, but much cooler films.
The whole thing is shot with a weird sepia filter that made me want adjust the hue on my projector all the time, and a lot of the actors seemed to have re-dubbed their dialogue to sound more menacing (tho unfortunately not Berkoff, who's southern state American accent is a bit of a joke.) That said the music score was pretty cool.
But never mind all this, the only reason to watch is the car chases and big bangs. I think the whole thing was edited by the stunt drivers union, with a lot of holes in the plot, scenes too short to maintain any tension, and probably more chases than were absolutely necessary...possibly the studio wanted Taxi 2 from the director, but this ain't it.
Tape (2001)
Ambiguous with a capital A
Very interesting film. If you are the sort of person who, while watching the film, thinks "whats going on, why is he doing that, you wouldn't ever do that in real life" etc, i would steer clear, although people like that would more likely be put off by the film's set up/plot (three characters in one room shot with camcorders) than a review from me. There seemed to me to be a lot of devices to make sure the right characters were in the room at any given time, with people starting to leave the room, then not, just so they could hear the end of a sentence, change their mind and sit down again. The film is basically a situation drama, where the situation isn't very confining...the characters could have left the room any time they wanted. i think i probably would have. At times the rapid camera pans and occasional skewing effects felt a bit gimmicky, but i guess you've got to try these things. maybe this was to indicate how mixed up the characters were in themselves, but it can be distracting after being so sucked in by the whole film. yes sucked in is the phrase. the way the film is made makes you feel like you are part of it, at any given time one of the three characters (not necessarily the one with the dialogue either.) the plot takes several seemingly straight forward, if surprising, turns, eg, the way the eponymous tape is introduced. you follow the changes in motivations of each character, you are persuaded to their way of seeing things while you are watching it. i think you need to just go with it and analyse later. The film's roots as a stage play are very obvious, though the style of the shooting makes it feel almost more live and in your face. The action, what there is of it, is almost besides the point. i think the film would have worked as well if the 3 characters had been sitting round a table the whole time (sort of like The Designated Mourner.) the plot is there, but it is never full resolved. Not in a bad way, but more to ask the audience a question, or more like several questions. Its more about why people do things than what they actually do, and the difference between the two. Its about what it means to grow up, if we ever do, responsibility, how people perceive the same thing in different ways, friendship and how it changes and disappears, love, betrayal and well life in general. in the end its an ambiguous film about ambiguous people who you are made to care about by the quality of the whole production. you will probably watch the film from the point of view you identify with most, but, as i imagine the characters did, change your mind a lot afterwards. One to watch when you already know you're going to up all night thinking, not one for the beer and pizza party. cheers