the usual suspects (1994)

and now, ladies and gentlemen, a confession. despite my keen interest in all things cinerama i have never, until now that is, seen bryan singer's seminal ''the usual suspects''. i have no excuses, this situation came down to nothing but a lapse in my studies, its no one else's fault, only my own. i take that responsibility.

"the usual suspects" is similiar to "se7en", in the sense that both feel like perfectly formed pieces of cinema. the way the plot falls together, the way that the performences meld and the way that the film pleases the eye is incredibly satisfying. the film has aged incredibly well, and despite the fact that i knew the story's 'twist', it still felt incredibly fresh and dramatic.

kevin spacey is incredible as 'verbal kint', the new york cripple that is revealed to be crime mastermind 'keyser soze'. with this screening following the recent 'se7en' showing, whereby his trademark role of 'john doe' is experienced in its full glory it would have been rather less than difficult for this role to have underwhelmed, alas it is a testament to the actor when i say that his performance as 'verbal kint' was as revelatory as 'john doe' with both feeling completely seperate but incredibly close. of the rest of the performances gabriel byrne, an actor whom i usually jar with, was great, as was stephen baldwin, in his first genuinely interesting performance. pete poslethwaite was horrible tho, i dont know whether or not his ridiculous accent was intended as a way of confusing the audience, but i suspect not. on the other hand, benecio del toro's mumbles were more obscure than ever, proving one of the bizarre highlights of the picture.

one of the main things i took away from this screening, was the disappointed feeling that bryan singer hasnt gone back to the type of film that made his mark. having seen "valkyrie" earlier this week (see below) and been ever so slightly disappointed by just how pedestrien it was, it genuinely feels disconcerting when watched in close proximaty to his debut work.

che - part one (2009) & che - part two (2009)

this afternoon i had the privilage of seeing steven soderbergh's epic biography of eduardo ''che'' guevara in one piece on the big screen. the entire film lasts just under 5 hours, and features a 15 minute scored intermission and credit booklet.

five hours for a single feature is a new record theatrically for myself, yet the hours flew by. in fact i would actually compare it favourably to the running time of "australia" in a way, as both are big screen epics that iv seen recently.

benicio del toro is amazing in the title role, to put it simply. he embodies the character, and indeed the figure in a way that i cant imagine anyone else doing so. why there hasnt been as much acclaim im not sure, its one of the strongest lead roles iv seen in a long time. in terms of differences in the character between the two films, che is much more prominent in the first part, whereas hes slightly more in the background in the second. i like to think of the first film as the introduction to the character, both literally and figuritively, whereas the second one explores the influence of the man, again both literally and figuritively. the supporting cast is as epic as the running time, with all proving worthy counterparts to del toro, with santiago cabrera proving a bit of a stand out as one of che's cuban comrades. an appearance from matt damon as a middle aged german preacher proved popular too.

"che" is soderbergh's return to form, after a pretty poor 8 year run (his last truly great film being 2000's "traffic", incidently del toro's finest role to date). drawing comparisons to pontecorvo's "the battle of algiers", alongside the work of terrence malick, the film (s) proves a real joy, is genuinely exhilerating and the first of what is looking to be a great first month of 2009.