Wednesday

How good is Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai? Well, I used to think it was a very good film when I was younger. I saw a few clips* of it yesterday, and I believe it remains so. Although the readings from Samurai texts are perhaps a little pretentious (the quotes of the movie on IMDb are almost exclusively from them), the whole feel of the film is highly original. Two bits about it always annoyed me: the mafia boss doing rap, and the line that goes something like 'this is high noon, like in the movies'. Those two things always snapped me out of the mood of the film. Aside from that, there are so many great moments, attitudes, atmospheres and settings. That Forest Whitaker's best friend doesn't understand anything he says is great. The girl is perhaps a little annoying. Overall, it doesn't force anything upon you, but draws you along slowly. I can understand how many people might not like this at all. But I do. What else has Jarmusch done? Broken Flowers, Dead Man, and Coffee and Cigarettes. I think overrated by people who like them, and underrated by people who don't.

*Due to no more film viewing being possible this week, I'm afraid you'll once more have to put with me talking about bits of movies.

Tuesday

There was a strange audience in the cinema to see The Good German. I'm not sure how to explain or understand that, but it perturbed me greatly. Who goes to see this film? It doesn't fit into many categories clearly. Anyway, I advise those with sensitive dispositions to look away now. I won't reveal any important details, but I think just talking about this movie might ruin it for you. So don't read any more of this post if you intend to see it, at any point.

Ok, so Steven Soderbergh decided to make a film in a 40s/50s style. I won't try to understand why, but I was intrigued enough to go see it. Overall, it's very disappointing. Two points annoyed me: he didn't commit fully enough to the style, but he was caught up so much in style he forgot character and plot. Apart from a few admittedly very good moments (when she pulls a gun on him, the boy with the boat, the revelations etc) I was utterly bored by the storyline. The characters weren't at all interesting and, apart from Cate Blanchet, they were terribly cast and acted. Then, on the other hand, I wasn't convinced by the look. The film was too clear and too crisp, the shades between black and white too clearly defined. It was very obviously a modern movie. The music was good, but the sound design was bad. The whole thing was amateurish: the mish-mash of old stock footage with new, the in-car dialogues. He should've fully committed to the era - instead we had strangely out of place scenes: swear words, and mildly-explicit sex. The setting was very promising - Berlin just after the war - but it wasn't fully taken advantage of. As I said, this is disappointing. It had certain scenes that were excellent (the murder in the crowd), but there were too many moments when I was bored or confused. Perhaps the audience's first reaction to the out-of-date titles, although harsh, was the most revealing: they laughed.

Monday

Because Films Inspire... name changes, the NFT will now be known as the BFI Southbank. As a primarily repertory theatre I had left it out of my attempt to visit every cinema in central London, but I'm sure I'll visit it now in its new guise. Only, what is the point of this new guise? Was the NFT losing money, or prestige? I don't know, but it's happened, or rather it will happen on Wednesday.

Have I mentioned here before my like of Ryan Reynolds? Some consider him just a mediocre comedy actor. But I think he's much more than that. Watch his reactions off dialogue in Van Wilder. This guy should be the next Chevy Chase. He just needs good writers and directors supporting him. Plus he's got the whole alliteration thing going for him. In Smokin' Aces he proved, to me at least, that he can also act straight roles impressively. A good line, brilliantly performed, from Van Wilder: 'Her name's Naomi. That's "I moan" backwards. I put in a good word for you'.

Sunday

I have recently completed a secret mission which I had not told you about. This mission, which I chose to accept, was to see a film at every cinema in central London. It may not seem like a big task to you, but I did not try to force it. I went to see films I wanted to see, when I wanted to see them. This, perhaps, is why it has taken so long. But it is done. I've been to them all*. What's my favourite? And what's my worst? Who gives the best customer service? Who makes the best popcorn? Whose seats are the comfiest? Well, you'll just have to tune in later this week to find out.

I realised today that my televisual viewing is dire. I watch a lot of science fiction: Supernatural, Primeval, Ghost Whisperer. Then there's House, Prison Break, and the new Ray Liotta show Smith. Add into that CSI: Miami, Friends, Futurama, Family Guy and American Dad and you've got a pretty odd mix. But let's not forget My Name is Earl. And to think two years ago I promised myself I'd never watch TV again...

*I excluded the Odeon Bayswater from my mission. I don't think it's in central London. Also, the Rex Cinema is really a private nightclub, not a public theatre, and therefore doesn't count.

Saturday

The quote above by Tarantino is fairly self-explanatory: if you want to make movies, make movies. It hints, however, towards what most people see as the main obstacle to making films: compromise. Film, perhaps more than any other medium, is a co-operative art form. You cannot make one on your own (or you can, but it will be a rare exception). You can write a novel, and no one can touch it. But to get a film made you need actors, you need to buy the equipment, you need technical help for sound, photography, editing, production and then promoting. You have to compromise with what other people want, notably producers. In a way, Tarantino's quote is a fallacy. You can't just make a film because you want to. You need the help of other people. However, what he points to is a sheer determinism and enthusiasm that can force a film to be made, whatever the circumstances. This is the key.

Friday

A slight delay in stranded postings this weekend due to the combined factors of working and not watching movies. So, whilst I try to catch up, I'm afraid you'll have to put up with me pontificating* about abstract principles of film-making, and presuming things about movies which I've only watched snippets of, rather than reviewing them fully. I saw a bit of I Still Know What You Did Last Summer the other night. I'm fairly sure I've watched it all the way through before, but I'd never noticed, or realised, that Jack Black was in it. How is this possible? Perhaps it was before he was famous, or before I knew he was famous. What I'm really trying to get at here, though, is that Jack Black is a very interesting actor who combines the absurd (Nacho Libre) with the serious (King Kong). He does bring a bit of comedy to all his serious roles, but I think it is quite an achievement to combine the two so successfully. You are really convinced of him in every role - I think mainly because of his enormous sense of commitment to each moment. I wish he'd do more serious roles, though, and less frat boy farces.

*Where does 'pontificating' come from? Well, quite simply from acting like a pontiff. First recorded in about 1825.

Thursday

I'm not entirely sure how to review Climates, or whether it was good or not. Certainly it was interesting, and compelling, but would I ever need to watch it again? The first five minutes immediately impose upon you the pace of the movie - a shot of a woman's face. There is one line of dialogue, then we remain with the woman, her hair blowing in the wind, as she gradually starts crying. You have to slow down your heart-rate and prepare yourself for what's going to be an hour and a half of people sitting in rooms and not saying anything to each other. You might get very irritated otherwise. There are shocks, however, that startle you out of your sedative state. These I enjoyed the most, and was half-thrilled, half-annoyed by some of the camera perspective tricks. At times the film is painfully sensitive, and perhaps too real to bear (I believe they are actually husband and wife), but it is always brilliantly handled - such as the constant interruptions in the van. Two things that stuck out as unnecessary: turning the music off with the radio (it's been done a thousand times before), and the fade out at the end. Otherwise, I would thoroughly recommend you see this as something totally different from normal film viewing.