synecdoche, new york (2008)

i have been sitting on my review of synecdoche, new york for a good few days now. while im making an effort to remove any overtly foul language from my blog at the moment (a new title is en route folks) this film is the new benchmark when it comes to that most beloved of cinematic event, the mindfuck. move over inland empire there's an heir to thy throne, in the shape of charlie kaufman's directorial debut. kaufman is best known as writer of the likes of spike jonze's being john malkovich and adaptation as well as eternal sunshine of the spotless mind from michel gondry.

synecdoche, new york is a hard film to summise, but basically it tells the story of caden cotard, a theatre director whom suffers a breakdown of sorts. we follow caden throughout the course of his breakdown; during which he attempts to stage a production based on his own life (and the lives of his family and friends), within a large warehouse in new york. within the warehouse he rebuilds the settings and scenarios of the outside world, building effectively a life size model of new york within it. all this without a mention of the smoking house, the tattooed ten year old child, miniature artwork and a bizarre obsession with tootbrushes, time (and the subsequent timekeeping) and hairstyles. its all very odd, but wonderfully realised.

i thought of the film as a comment on many aspects of film and art, with particular note made on the role of the actor within the picture. there's a great scene whereby one of the actors is attempting to perfect he way his character walks. considering the genuinely epic scope that this film exhibits, to make note of such a trivial moment may seem odd, but i found the moment strangely telling of the true nature of the piece.

philip seymour hoffman continues his recent good run (following doubt) with perhaps his most interesting role to date. there is great support from the triptych of women in coden's life.

it goes without saying that synecdoche, new york will have many a different interpretation, but that eally is the joy of this kind of cinema. the discussion factor is endless, with the film already proving incredibly devisive amongst those that have seen it.

watchmen (2009)

when it comes to comic books and superheroes my knowledge and attention is fairly lacking. i have a historical love affair with captain america and a bunch of other marvel superheroes, and have a good grasp of the universe they exist in and the industry they are a part of. i am not an unreasonable man. i understand the technicalities that come with any adaptation, be it comic strip, tv show or prose novel, therefore i have never been one to bemoan the changing of aspects of a particular piece of source material to suit its newfound cinematic audience. with the unveiling of watchmen though, for the first time in my life, i found myself in the rather worrying predicament of acting a bit like a fanboy. i felt as though i had a god-given right to act as if the source material mattered enough to me so much that i had an opinion. ''this isnt like iron man, or batman" i thought, those films can exploit 50 plus years of history to their benefit, origins can be manipulated, scenarios can be changed, they do it in the comics so feel free to do it within the realms of film. with 'watchmen' though it was different, very different. the puzzle like nature of the book dictates that if a single ingredient is missing then a disaster could be afoot.

first of all changes to the ending were announced. many exclaimed blasphemy, whereas i wasnt hugely fussed. as long as they kept the message, the subtext if you will, then i will be happy. the second major negative mark against the films production was the employment of my chemical romance, pop-punk emo-supremo's to provide the films "theme-tune". not only that but it was a cover of one of my most beloved of songs, bob dylan's ''desolation row". "desolation row" provides what i feel to be one of the key inspiration points for the original ''watchmen'' book, in the shape of the line "now at midnight all the agents/and the superhuman crew/come out and round up everyone/that knows more than they do''. indeed the song is credited in the book, and the line is used to bookend one of the issues of the original comic that was collated to make up the now famous graphic novel. now my big problem doesnt lie in the fact that the song is one of my favourites, nor does it lie within the fact that my chemical romance are a terrible band (following record label ethics that surely contradict the message within 'watchmen'?), my problem lies in the very fact that zack snyder chose this band and this version of the song for his film. in his artistic opinion, this was the best he could come up with? really? the third and final negative pre-release woe came in the shape of the 30 second clips that were unleashed upon the internet just a few weeks ago. knowing full well that i would be seeing the film i didnt particularly want to check out the clips, for fear of spoiling the one aspect of the film that i didnt already know, but in the case of one scene i buckled. it was the scene involving nite owl 2 and the comedian on "crowd control" duty. in less than 30 seconds of footage i learnt 3 things. well i say i learnt 3 things, only 2 of those were new, whereas 1 was a confirmation of an earlier worry. the first piece of information was the confirmation that snyder really cant choose music. the scene in question, in which civil disruption turns into carnage at the hands of the comedian, features a riot, and is set in the 1970's. now whatever gave snyder the impression that 'im your boogie man' by k.c and the sunshine band was the soundtrack of choice for the keen rioter in the late 1970's i do not know, but it was a ridiculous decision, and indictive of his other musical choices, of which i will get to later. secondly, for all his good intentions, snyder just didnt get the look of this scene right. there was an ominous red glow involved in the original composition, and one which i always took to be a parallel with the scenes on mars. alas it wasnt replicated here. finally, thirdly, and perhaps most obviously was the apparent overuse of slow motion. in this one 30 second segment there were two uses of the damn technique. now im not exactly against the use of slow motion, but if ever there was a technique that required it be used in moderation then this is it.

so the run up to 'watchmen' wasnt particularly positive.

having seen the film this afternoon im actually confused as to how i felt about it. there were some great moments, and the film has a lot going for it, but i cant help but be ultimately disappointed by it.

as a literal translation of the comic strip-based action of the book then it worked fine. i was particularly impressed with jeffrey dean morgan as the comedian, and didnt find any of the performances especially lacking. the sidelining of 'moloch the mystic' and 'hollis mason', the first nite-owl was particularly annoying, being that they represent an area of the graphic novel that i found to be particularly of interest; the roots of the demistification of the superhero if you will. the pacing, obviously a victim through circumstance more than anything, really didnt work. the film didnt feel epic, as much has been made of it on various reviews, it felt slow, and lacking any kind of real heart. the all important subtext, without the contextual background provided within the book, didnt really exist. sure there was a mythology in place, plenty of opportunity for those who would like to seek out more to seek something out, but the subtext and message that were inherent throughout the source material is all but missing. a point that really got to me was the fact that the key point within the book that spells out the comedian and ozymandias' fate isnt in the film. there's a scene in the book whereby the comedian gives the young ozmandias. its a fleeting moment, but the nature of the assault mirrors the image of the opening section of the film perfectly; the roles are reversed and there was something rather poetic about the whole encounter. quite why the comedian fights back is again, beyond my comprehension. he has already accepted his fate by the time his killer strikes. for him to fight back (in the film) reaks of the filmmakers attempt at shoehorning action in. the fact that we lose the wonderful little bit of mirroring with the earlier (in the time frame of the narrative) event just adds salt to the wound.

the music, both score and found was awful, with particular woe being aimed at the use of leonard cohen's 'hallelujah' throughout the most embaressing sex scene i have seen in quite some time. seriously its just incredibly lazy filmmaking when you rely on such well known songs to project a feeling upon the audience. add in the use of 'the sound of silence' during the funeral march and you have something that i would expect from a student film.

one last negative - richard nixon? what on earth went wrong there?

as i mentioned above, the film translates the literal image of the book onto the screen in a very faithful manner. at times it genuinely does feel like the book has come to life, yet at others it feels like a shoddy rip off of the product it claims to be. the overuse of slow motion does wear at first, but after a while it blends into the edit and isnt especially noticeable. it would be nice to see snyder lay off on the slo-mo a bit tho, the final fight in particular would have benefitted from a bit of speed and realism, especially considering the nature of the participants attire. and while its the negatives that stand out the most, the overall experience was fine, just not necessarily alan moore's 'watchmen'; it wasnt great, but it wasnt awful either. it was just "ok", which is probably the most disappointing thing of all.

gran torino (2009)

part two in my current series of academy award "upsets"....

i kid of course, its just a funny coincidence that i saw "i've loved you so long" and "gran torino" back to back, but quite why clint eastwood was all but missing from this years oscars seems a tad odd to me, especially if you take into account the fact that this may well be the last time we see him up on the silver screen. let's just ponder that thought for a moment; clint eastwood, american icon, hell, american IDOL, may well have performed his final performance. its the end of an era, of that of the great american motion picture. a symbol of the old hollywood that no longer exists. what with newman passing last year, eastwood is one of the few familiar strands from yesterday.

"gran torino" originally existed as the final chapter in eastwood's "dirty harry" series, yet prior to hiiting the screen the character has seemingly become an amalgamation of several of eastwood's key roles. we see the obvious, be it harry callahan or ben shockley (courtesy of "the gauntlet"), and the not so obvious in the shape bronco billy (providing the light humour over the dark themes). the role certainly seems to be a celebration of eastwood's career, and the fact that the film exists in such a workmanlike and unglamourous fashion is a testament to eastwood's no-nonsense attitude. if "gran torino" does prove to be eastwood's final role then it will mark an outstanding era of american cinema in a suitably just fashion, although personally i dont see him quitting just yet...

the international (2009)

an action film with a topical beating heart, "the international", from director tom twyker of "run lola, run" fame stars clive owen in full-on james bond mode as a british policeman involved in an international case involving illicit bank dealings. naomi watts stars as his new york-based associate, with able support from a cast selected from around the world, the most impressive of all being 'brian f. o'byrne' as the impressively titled 'the consultant'.

"the international" opens with a great scenario, involving one of owen's colleagues, poison and a car wing mirror. from then on we are led through a gripping journey across the globe as we follow owen's 'louis salinger's' attempt to indict a high profile bank. there's an over the top, yet scarily real shoot out at the guggenheim, which is one of the most impressively realised action scenes iv seen in some time, managing to outdo not only its closest comparrison in the shape of the bond flicks, but also the bourne films too.

while it wont change the world, "the international" proved to be an impressive piece of mid-afternoon entertainment.

the young victoria (2009)

emily blunt stars as queen victoria in this martin scorsese produced pseudo-biopic. french filmmaker jean-marc vallée helms a competent enough picture, that is pleasingly enough while it lasts, but leaves little in the way of after effect. emily blunt and paul bettany both provide great performances, with rupert friend as prince albert being the key performance. he brings genuine sense of emotion towards the relationship between albert and victoria, with the final moments proving incredibly touching.

doubt (2009)

ever the fan of philip seymour hoffman, its great to see him back in the sort of role that he would have produced prior to his breakthrough success in capote, and exactly the sort of role i have been eager to see him in for what seems like quite a while. the uneasy nature of our relationship as a viewer with the character of 'father flynn' is left in a similiar position to that of the way in which we relate to hoffman's 'scotty j.' in paul thomas anderson's ''boogie nights''. part of us pities the man, yet part of us cant help but be disturbed by him (well maybe thats going a bit too far for poor 'scotty j.'). regardless of this, hoffman is electric in the role.

enough of the philip seymour hoffman love-in, there is no mistaking that ''doubt'' is very much meryl streep's film. empire magazine recently declaired that her entrance as 'sister aloysius beauvier' was the most iconic since that of darth vader's, and while i may not agree with that point entirely, its still pretty great and sums up the mood of the picture from the out. as a former catholic schoolboy myself, albeit in the later days of the sort of school on display in ''doubt'', i can wholeheartedly relate to the sense of fear, ambiguity and sheer menace that 'sister beauvier' projects. similiarly i can relate to the way in which 'father flynn' comes across as a comfortable figure, and the naivety and frailty in which amy adams' 'sister james' signifies.

the film is beautifully shot by roger deakins, the british cinematographer behind the dark hues of andrew dominik's ''the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford'' and ''no country for old men''. the film looks as good as one would expect from deakins, and is especially surprising considering the restrictions imposed by the fairly limited number of locations. despite this deakins manages to craft a film as cinematic as anything else i have seen all year.

the films core theme, of one dealing with their own faith leaves us with a rather ambiguous ending. the core story is largely tied up, with the eleventh hour revelation from 'sister beauvier' all but confirming 'father flynns' guilt, but the larger question is to what her tears concern. is it because she has reached a crisis of faith herself? despite what she projects on the outside, did she secretly doubt her own concerns internally? as a fan of ambiguity in cinema i was pleased with such a conclusion, and while i hold my own beliefs as to what the tears signify, im sure that there will be many that beg to differ.

JCVD (2009)

i mentioned in my previous post on bolt 3D that disney's "the aristocats" was the first film i saw at the cinema. well, funnily enough jcvd marks a landmark of sorts in my viewing history too. the first film i ever went to see alone, without the aid of parentage was "street fighter", the film based on the video game, and starring jcvd himself; jean claude van damme. at the time it was the greatest film in the world, i remember the monday morning at school after the saturday viewing, the playing fields of st georges seemed alive....


hindsight of course, is a great thing. the fact that "street fighter" could be seen as a high point in his career surely suggests the dire quality of the sort of film van damme made afterwards. but jcvd, adored in france and beloved of the art house circuit aims to change that, and it suceeds incredibly well. im not sure if it will give van damme's career the kick start it needs (i have a feeling it wont), but as a piece of film its genuinely great fun, with heart to boot. a lot has been made of the fact that this film exhibits to the world the fact that jean claude van damme can act, which i think is a moot point, but less has been made of the humour. obviously the fact that the film exists suggests an amount of good nature on its stars behalf, but im talking about the more subtle attempts in the project, the humour that is actually on the screen. ''jcvd'' is very, very funny. the "roundhouse-kick" conversation is a highlight, as is the banter between the store clerks that meet van damme at the start of the picture, and its the sort of huour that isnt crass or cheap or easy or lazy, it has heart. all of which leads to the way in which we as the viewer sympathise with van damme. he doesnt plea for our empathy, in fact at times he actually seems to discourage it. he knows hes done wrong and that seems to be the station hes happiest in, emphasised by a downbeat ending that is happier than any we could have actually imagined without going too overboard.

the basic premise of the film plays out like a post-post-modern take on sidney lumet's "dog day afternoon", with our anti-hero caught up in a bank robbery for which he has been mistaken for the purpetrator. through the course of this situation it is revealed how van damme came into being into there, which is a metaphor for his entire career, easily laid out over the course of 90 minutes. a great monologue to the camera, beautiful sypia-based photography and a great supporting cast add up to create a very entertaining and interesting film.

as a sidenote, i would just like to quickly point out the hideous nature of the dvd artwork, which seemingly goes against everything that the film is criticising. there arent even any explosions in the film! oh well...

revolutionary road (2009)

kate winslett and leonardo dicaprio are reunited 12 years after ''titanic'' in sam mendes' adaptation of richard yates' 1961 novel. i found it interesting to discover that the novel was written so closely to the time of the films setting (1955), as it genuinely felt like a post-modern take on the subject matter, akin highly to "mad men". alas when taking into account the authenticity that the date of the publication of the source then an even higher level of praise is pushed onto the project.

in short, i loved ''revolutionary road", which came as quite the surprise to me. i actually enjoyed it much more than the other high profile releases of the awards season (excpet for maybe ''the wrestler"). im not sure why exactly, maybe it was that the themes spoke to me in a fairly direct manner, that whole thing about the hope of fruitility and of leading an extraordianary life struck me as quite real and rather timely. the performances were very strong too, with dicaprio once again proving why he is one of the best actors of his generation and winslett in the role that she should have received the oscar nomination for.

the film is beautifully shot by roger deakins, the man whom i consider to be the best cinematographer in the world. if anyone has been snubbed at this years oscars it is deakins, but saying that he should have won last year for "the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford" too, but didnt. sam mendes direction is perfect for the source material; the nature of the raw emotion of the story doesnt require fast editing or over the top visuals. thats not to say that the film doesnt feature striking direction, it does, its just different to that of some of the other work in this vein. the soundtrack, courtesy of thomas newman compliments the tone of the film perfectly. the use of period jazz songs works well too.

the curious case of benjamin button (2009)

at first glance, "the curious case of benjamin button" may seem like an odd direction for the director of "fight club" "se7en" to go in, but rest assured that "the curious case of benjamin button" is very much a david fincher film.

the bittersweet story of a man who ages backwards, whom falls in love with a woman aging in the opposite direction at roughly the same time is told with a beautiful conviction that keeps a film that may usually head into "forrest gump"-territory feeling fresh and inventive. brad pitt is on top form as benjamin, providing much more than simply the award-fodder performance that the role requires. cate blanchett in a role much more forthright than expected is also outstanding. the real star of the film (and not one that usually interests me) is the special effects. the aging technique used on benjamin (in reverse) and daisy (traditionally) is awe-inspiring. i genuinely havent been so impressed with a special effect since first seeing gollum in 2002. the obvious benchmarks for the techniques are when the characters are aged to their most extreme, i.e infant and elderly, but for me the effects that stood out the most were those of the characters in their late teens and early 20's. to see cate blanchett with the body of a 17 year old girl ballet dancing truly is an incredible sight, as are the scenes of benjamin travelling throughout india. with brad pitt in the public eye for much of his twenties we are only too familiar with how he looked, and for this reason alone i think that many will not give these scenes credit enough. its a shame because they do look genuinely great, at one point i couldve sworn that brad pitt circa-"meet joe black" was actually on screen!

while a long film at 2 hours and 40 minutes, the film doesnt ever seem to not work, which is a testament to fincher. the opening tale of gateau the blind clockmaker sets the audience into the required pace at hand, and the film doesnt ever get too sentimental. in fact i was reminded of the work of powell and pressburger in many ways. they too dealt with situations that could easily have come across as too emphatic or overdone, yet manage a control that keeps everything in check. this is the closest we will ever see fincher come to doing a "disney" film, and a chance that one should savour.

frost/nixon (2009)

as someone who is a bit of an obsessive with this political era in general i entered 'frost/nixon' with may doubts. ron howard is perhaps the epitome of ''safe'' filmmaking, hes hardly known for his visual flare or even his political gravitas (although the recent 'happy days'-themed obama campaign video he did with henry winkler suggests there is a heavy political awareness in the man if not his work) so with this in mind i was of the staunch opinion that he was the wrong man for this film, and that someone more obvious should have been in his position, say george clooney, aparently attached to the project post-''good night, and good luck''. alas i was wrong. howard pulled off the film with an unfamiliar strong kick. his work in the past has shown a tendency to lean towards the over-emotional, yet the extent to which it was used in "frost/nixon'' actually worked.

much has been made of the projects theatrical origins. many have said (presumably those who havent actually had the pleasure of seeing it) that the film didnt need to be a film, and that at best it would lend itself to a tv movie of sorts. i couldnt disagree more, ''frost/nixon'' is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen. the whole 'theme', for want of a better word throughout of ''the power of the close-up'' is a unique and hugely strong point that exhibits itself throughout the film, and is one of the best uses of the technique that this viewer has ever seen. the cut of the film is very cinematic too, and while the scenes of the now-older participants commenting on the importance of what was happening jars and distracts a little, ultimately its a much more cinematic and powerful experience than maybe one would have anticipated.

while the fancy shooting and cutting may impress, ultimately it comes down to the performances in such an intimate project. having never been terribly impressed with michael sheen's turns as tony blair (iv often considered him to be a poor mans david tennant) i have to admit that i was sold on his david frost. frank langella as richard nixon is a powerhouse of a performance. he owns the screen, and while compared to the actual frost interviews his performance may be slightly bombast, its still a great perfomance that lends an emotional side to nixon that i had never considered prior to this. the best actor contest at this years oscars truly is a thing of great deliberation, what with langella being nominated alongside sean penn in milk and mickey rourke in the wrestler, both of which i have enjoyed hugely. as of the moment my money is going on langella, maybe not for the right reasons (i see it as a career oscar) but still justly deserved.

valkyrie (2009)

a lot of criticism has been levelled at the use of the respective actors own accent in bryan singer's "valkyrie", yet i feel this is a fairly trivial criticism. if anything the dropping of german accents actively helps the performances, pushing the accessibility whilst dropping any form of distraction. i think a lot of people are forgetting that, at heart at least, this is a popcorn adventure film, and nothing more (despite the best intensions of the filmmakers.

the film tells the story of colonel claus von stauffenberg, a key player in a plot to assassinate adolf hitler. obviously hisory dictates that he wasnt successful in his endevear, yet the suspense of the film still flows.

this is tom cruise's film, something that will be blazingly obvious to anyone who has seen the films marketing campaign or indeed any tom cruise film this decade. i once wrote an essay on how cruise is perhaps unique in the sense that he is the only actor who could be considered an auteur, in the respect that he makes the majority of the creative decisions on a film project, akin to how a director would usually. thats not to say that the rest of the performances in''valkyrie'' are invisible. kenneth branagh, terrence stamp and thomas kretschmann (the actor originally set to play von stauffenberg, prior to cruise's involvement) are all great, although bill nighy annoys (as usual).

stylistically the film isnt the usual thing that one would expect from bryan singer, its far too pedestrian. alas it does what it intends to do, and for a couple of hours at least, is an entertaining saturday night film.

the wrestler (2009)

i honestly believe that darren aronofsky is one of the most interesting people working in cinema today. i was one of the few that wholeheartedly adored (and still adore) "the fountain", seeing it at its very first screening when it was released a few years ago. to this day i still defend it online, an act i have become accustomed with from the very first evening after seeing it. i just dont understand what the big problem with that film is, i dont understand why people hate it so vehemently. anyway, regardless of my feeling on that film im pleased to see that aronofsky is back in the loving arms of the film press at large.

my one worry over "the wrestler" was that aronofsky may dilute his style too much, that he may have been worried about over stylising his film after the complaints of his previous effort. alas i had little to worry about, there are plenty of indications that this is a film by a bona-fide auteur, working at the (current) height of his craft. the fractured narrative in the telling of randy's (mickey rourke) near-fatal wrestling match shows traits of aronofsky's past, with the most telling sign being the abrupt ending. i cant explain how pleased i was to see that the ending of the film wasnt a cop out, with the usual hollywood ending tact on. it wouldnt have made sense for randy to be happy anywhere other than on the top turnbuckle of a wrestling ring, and im glad to see that that is where we leave him. randy is a fuck up, he cant do anything right outside of the ring yet inside of it he is transformed into a king.

mickey rourke is the obvious standout of the picture, as shown from the huge reception that he has received for the role. he is wonderful as randy "the ram", but as to whether the role will kickstart his career or not, im not too sure it will. perhaps rourke is too much like the character, and is always destined to mess things up regardless of the chances he is given. based on previous for it would suggest the latter, but im hoping not. marisa tomei is great in support, as the stripper with a heart. what with this and "before the devil knows youre dead" she too is on a bit of a career resurgence.

"the wrestler" is the one hundredth film on the hopeandbullshitlist. i cant think of a better film to take that honor.

my bloody valentine 3D (2009)

this was showing in my local cinema in new fangled 3D, the type that james cameron is using for avatar. it was for this reason and this reason alone that i decided to check it out on my day off.

the film was terrible, just genuinely awful. the opening credits were amazing tho, in which the backstory of a disaster in a mine shaft was recapped using newspaper headlines. oddly enough, the standout had to be the lionsgate logo. i know that may sound a tad ridiculous, but the clockwork nature of the logo made me realise just how cool 3D could work in the hands of proper a filmmaker who can handle visuals well, someone like guilermo del toro. the trailer for coraline was ten times as impressive as anything in my bloody valentine, which was just beyond predictable and ludicrous (at one point a woman hits the "killer", who wears a helmet, on the head with a frying pan). worth seeing if you can get to it in 3D, but as an actual film its little beyond the usual rubbish you would expect on a late night horror channel.

oh, and the overuse of torches as a 3D device was beyond tired after the first five minutes. you know its a bad sign when the director seems to think that a police officer needs a torch in a fully lit house.

the reader (2009)

empire magazine referred to "the reader" as "the epitome of middle-brow ‘quality’ drama", which sums up stephen daldry's film perfectly. while it wasnt particular bad, it wasnt anything great either. the lack of kate winslett surprised me greatly, and the higher than expected amount of ralph fiennes was appreciated, yet the film seemed to lack a powerful enough hook to really make it stick in the mind. the final years of hannah (winslett) and michael's (fiennes) friendship was incredibly touching, the sight of michael beginning his cycle of recordings especially, but beyond that the film was just average.

milk (2009)

i was lucky enough to go to a preview screening of milk tonight. to be honest it was the one film of the oscar season that i was least looking forward to seeing; im a big fan of penn but from the publicity material milk looked to be the sort of film i would have usually expected to see the likes of tom hanks in, it just screamed "give me an oscar"! add to this the fact that im hardly a fan of gus van sant and i entered the film with trepidation.

alas i was wrong. milk proved to be a beautiful and stirring piece of cinema. it satisfied in just about every way, be it in the emotions of the characters or the thrills one wouldnt usually associate with this sort of story. sean penn puts in a great performance, which is fairly important considering hes in practically every scene. josh brolin leads a strong support cast, with great turns from emille hirsh, diega luna (nice to see him post-y tu mama tambien) and especially james franco (who proves to be a complete and utter revelation.

for me the oscar race has heated up. i didnt really consider milk to be much of a contender, but after tonight i find it difficult to believe that there has been a better performance this year than that of sean penn as harvey milk.

slumdog millionaire (2009)

danny boyle is a filmmaker i have never really been able to let myself get to excited about. dont get me wrong, i think hes made some genuine modern classics, with "trainspotting" an obvious gem (and a milestone in british cinema), "28 days later" the reinvigoration that its particular genre definately needed, and my personal favourite, his most recent film "sunshine". the quality of his work isnt the reason that he fails to excite me, its the lack of a distinctive style to his work that maintains that i cant follow him closely enough to be a fan. for example, i know what to expect with a filmmaker like martin scorsese, who has prevailing themes and an incredibly personal look throughout all of his work, meaning that films as diverse as "the last temptation of cgrist" and "raging bull" are both obviously the work of the same artiste, whereas with boyle i dont.

in spite of this i had slowly been garnering excitement with regards to "slumdog millionaire". the press have praised the film en masse, and the general consensus claiming it worthy of this years best picture oscar, so obviously my interest was there. im happy to report that i enjoyed the film immensely. it flowed perfectly throughout its two hour run time, the film looked incredible, with mumbai making for one of the most interesting location "characters" in recent memory, and the cast all put in amazing performances, with special note being made of the younger children (made all the more impressive after learning that only two of the performances are by actual professionals). the one thing that impressed beyond all else was the joyful nature of the film, which is especially striking when the dark tone of the material is taken into account; rape, prostitution, murder, infant coercion and more are explored, yet still the end result is that of overwhelming joy.

i have decided to edit this entry in the knowledge that "slumdog millionaire" last night won the golden globe for best picture, best directo, best score and best adapted screenplay. i was watching the ceremony live, and cant think of a more apt winner. everyone seemed so overwhelmingly happy about winning, and excited just to be there. i cant help but think that the scenes referred to in india, where everybody involved in the film was apparently gathered watching, would have been similiar to the scenes at the end of the film. a deserved winner.

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.

the brothers bloom (2008)

it has been said that rian johnson's ''the brothers bloom'' his follow up to 2006's ''outstanding debut ''brick'' represents a genre that is largely ignored in this day and age, in the shape of the con-artist expose, and i would largely be inclined to agree, although i would possibly argue that this film is more reminiscent of the sort of deceit seen in a more emotional form in a film like wes anderson's ''the life aquatic'' (2005) than in something like ''the sting'' (1973). of course the plot conceit is that of one of the literal sort of cons and the accompanying storytelling, but a big part of me left the film under the impression that the central line of the con was intended more as an emotional or pure target, explored blatantly throughout in the relationship of the central characters (the brothers bloom of the title).

visually the film was pitch perfect. it comes across as a more developed and cinematic version of that of wes anderson, and very similiar to that of hal ashby. the use of slow motion was surprisingly refreshing, an age old technique that felt modern and interesting.

the whole way through the film the truth was kept one step ahead of the audience, quite a feat considering the savvy of modern viewers. this structure meant for a tense journey throughout the film, as we didnt know what to believe at any one point. the ending of the picture was genuinely moving, again reminiscent of the work of wes anderson. its worth pointing out that the comparisons to anderson are in no way derogatory, nor do i want them to be considered lazy. as a huge admirer of anderson i have long found it difficult to enjoy the slew of post-anderson pseudo-quirky american dramadies, films such as the dreaded napoleon dynamite or little miss sunshine, so for me to actively enjoy the brothers bloom is something of a major seal of approval.

adrian brody, an actor whom i consider to be one of the most consistent performers working in cinema today is a true delight as the eponymous bloom, with mark ruffalo lending credible support. rachel weisz is outstanding as the ditzy millionairess, a genuine revelation and im surprised there hasnt been more awards talk. production wise the film is a strong evolution for johnson, apparently hes turning his hand to a studio-backed science fiction film next, which will be an interesting experiment if nothing. johnson was on hand for a question and answer section afterwards and proved to be a genuinely nice guy. he sheltered from the rain outside of the cinema just several feet away from myself afterwards too, my girlfriend wanting to pester the poor guy into explaining why tom cruise was thanked in the closing credits.

im not sure when the film is actually out in the uk, its probably sometime in the new year.