Charlie Wilson's War

There is one essential flaw in this film: the balance between comedy and drama is skewed. The poignant moments (pointing towards the current war in Afghanistan) lose their power because of the comedy before and after them. Likewise, the comedy loses its value because we are constantly reminded of the seriousness of what is happening. It is a dilemma that I'm not proposing I could solve. Charlie Wilson was a congressman in the 1980s who fought for heavier involvement by the CIA in Russia's conflict with Afghanistan. Russia, as the cold war enemy of the US, couldn't be fought openly, but the CIA could train and arm the Afghans to fight for them. Perhaps much of my enjoyment with this film came from learning about a period in history which I knew almost nothing. This would be hard on both Tom Hanks (who plays Wilson) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as his contact in the CIA), as they are brilliant here. Hoffman in particular is exceptional. The humour comes from the incompetency in the system, and the ability of these two characters to manipulate it. The early exchanges between the two of them are unforgettable. The film moves along quickly, but perhaps the end is a little rushed. Julia Roberts' character feels like an unnecessary addition. It's undoubtedly great fun, but I returned again and again to my first fear: the balance between comedy and drama is wrong.

The Beat That My Heart Skipped

Instead of finishing one of the six or seven drafts of posts I've written, I'm going to review this film that I saw last night. Since it came out I have wanted to see it, and I realise now that such expectations are more than likely to be disappointed. The film is good, certainly - intelligent, thought-provoking, and brilliantly acted - but it is not great. It follows Thomas Seyr, played by Romain Duris, an estate agent/rent enforcer not afraid to use violence, who rediscovers his love of the piano (his mother was a concert pianist), and trains for an audition which might get him out of his situation. Various things, as you might expect, contrive to bring him back to it. This set-up is compelling, but it is the film's finale which lets it down. I don't think I am giving away too much when I say that most of the action takes place over a few days, perhaps a week, but then all of the tension that is built up over this short timespan is dissipated when we suddenly jump forward several years. Many of the issues that we've become involved with, including relationships, are forgotten. All hope of a climax is thrown aside. The opening monologue, which had seemed as if it was important, turns out to be neither predictive or profound. Moreover, what is the beat that his heart skipped? This film has all the elements to be great, but somehow fails to put them together in the right order.

Old Boy

I watched this film on the same day that I saw Alice in Wonderland, which may explain my negative approach to that movie. The two films couldn't be further apart. I suggest watching it without any information, but otherwise carry on. Old Boy, by the Korean director Chan-wook Park, is about a man who is privately imprisoned for fifteen years. When he is mysteriously released, he sets out for vengeance against whoever put him there, unaware that that person is still watching him, and waiting. As you can tell, this dilemma is intriguing and pulls you along easily. Min-sik Choi, who plays the main character, is very likeable and makes a brilliant transformation from ordinary man to crazed killer. This isn't, however, a film based round violence, or for which violence is the main attraction (as I had thought). Instead, it is the psychological consequences of the actions which are emphasised, and are far more compelling. This is a modern day Greek tragedy, but I wondered as I watched it whether it really successfully works for a Westerner. It was hard for me to be as strongly convinced as the characters seemed to be by what had happened. Their notion of shame, guilt, and confidence differs from mine and the conclusion of the film felt over-dramatic and strained. I didn't believe in what was happening, couldn't sympathise with the characters any more. I don't think I can blame Chan-wook Park for this. He's created a brilliantly sinister film that you can't afford not to have seen.

Alice In Wonderland

I was surprised by how quickly I became complacent of the 3D IMAX experience whilst I was watching this film. At first, it was once again astonishing (as it had been for Avatar), but you begin to forget it, or take it for granted. you live inside the film, as it were, as if it was a play or real life. You see the full dimensions of characters interacting with their scenery, but because this is what you do everyday, you quickly begin to overlook it. I wonder if the really astonishing thing is actually 2D, and the effort it takes to make us think that's real. Anyway, aside from the interest in the technology, I have to hesitate before saying whether the film is any good or not. You may have heard that it is not a retelling of Lewis Carroll's book. It inhabits that world, but is more of a continuation rather than an adaptation. It also includes elements from his other books. The main problem I had with the film is that it makes sense. This may be a strange complaint, but the essence of Carroll's world was that it was absurd. There was no over-arching plot to be followed, merely incidental ones. Tim Burton gives the film a narrative, which I'm sure Carroll would have detested. There is a quest feel to the movie, and a conventional battle scene at the end. So, I can't say that I like or what see the film again, but what was Burton's aim with the movie? He appropriates the iconic moments of the books, and then deploys them in his own narrative. Characters are given motives and back-stories, essentially contradicting the original intention of Carroll. Of course the film is enjoyable (I don't know what children would make of it), and we shouldn't get hung up on whether or not it does justice to its original, but there's something perfunctory and empty about the experience, which left me relatively unchanged when I exited the cinema.

The Break-Up

I think I've reviewed this film at least twice already, so I'm not going to do it again. Instead, I want to remark on something new that occurred to me as I was watching it recently. If you haven't seen it, I'm going to talk about the ending, which may ruin the whole thing for you. In my previous reviews I pointed out that I particularly liked the finish, avoiding the typical Hollywood ending. The main characters accidentally meet up again (perhaps six months or a year later), are happy to see each other, exchange pleasantries and then move on. Everything points towards this being a kind of closure to the relationship. They can finally see past all the anger and unpleasantness, and feel that that chapter of their life is closed. This is what I thought, and I liked it. However, looking more closely at that scene, perhaps I'm completely wrong? Are they going to get back together? The conversation is short and they don't make any plans, but they exchange compliments and both suggest catching up again. He invites her to come on his tour and she says she will. They're both extremely happy to see each other, and both (as far as we know) single. Throughout the film you are made to feel that they could resolve their differences if only they would stop being so stubborn, or explain their situation properly to each other. There is still obviously love there. I know this isn't exactly the riddle that is Michael Haneke's Hidden, but The Break-Up is a better than average film, and I think it deserves some consideration.

10 Things I Hate About You

This film is much older than I thought it was (it came out in 1999). Notable is how young Heath Ledger - he was twenty at the time - and Joseph Gordon-Levitt look (star of the brilliant Brick). It's ostensibly based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, and is probably part of the spate of teen comedies derived from classic works (like She's All That and Get Over It) that I think was started by Clueless. On the surface you have to say that it's fairly awful. Gordon-Levitt falls in love with one sister, who isn't allowed to date until her older sister does. Now here's the twist: her older sister hates everyone. Enter Heath Ledger, who is willing to be paid to date the older sister, so that the younger is freed up. There's a few more twists and turns, but you get the idea and can probably guess what's going to happen. Nonetheless, this is a bit more refreshing and original than most teen comedies, but perhaps this is like being the best car in the scrapheap. Their teacher and the sisters' father are both enjoyable characters, but aside from them no one but Ledger is very interesting. The typical high school jock/jerk is just so obvious it's almost painful to watch (compare Ferris Bueller's Day Off). Overall I think it sits awkwardly with the original material, and doesn't have the post-modern irony and sharp wit that Clueless had. The school the film was shot in does give it an impressive background and feel, though.

Varsity Blues

I remember this film receiving reasonable reviews when it came out in 1999. It stars James van der Beek (at the height of his Dawson's Creek fame) as the reserve quarterback for a high school American football team, that is being ruthlessly driven towards success by their coach, played by Jon Voight. I have thought that this might be a better film if it was focussed on Voight's character alone. He certainly gives the best performance in the movie, probably the best I've ever seen of him. His breakdown at the end is particularly impressive. As it is, however, the film is about van der Beek. As the reserve to a star quarterback, he hasn't played a game in a long time, and is disillusioned about the team and the lifestyle, eagerly waiting for it all to be over so he can go to university. The movie gods, as you can guess, aren't going to let him get away with this. The star quarterback is injured and he has to play the final crucial games of the season, bringing him into conflict not only with the obsessive coach, but also his family, friends, and own ideas about what he wants from life. As you might be able to tell, I think this is a pretty good premise, the problem is that the film feels confused about what it is. It blends comedy with drama, when I think it should've just been a drama. Van der Beek also isn't quite good enough for this role. It needed to be a dark, oppressive film, but instead doesn't achieve what it could've been. Good elements interchange with some fairly average, if not awful, ones. There's a pretty good soundtrack, but perhaps too any slow-motion footage of players being tackled. Most teenage dramas that start with the main character as an outsider hating everyone else, end up with him/her being accepted, and this film sort of concedes to that formula, but I'm not sure if it does completely. Does the main character submit to the idea of success that coach wanted from him? No, but it still feels like he has conceded in some way. I'm aware of the book, film and television series Friday Night Lights, which has been highly recommended to me, and focuses on a high school football team as well. Perhaps it is the fulfilment of what Varsity Blues should've been.