Saturday 30 June 2007

Saturday

I was going to say in my review of Exiled that it reminded me of Shakespeare. I stopped myself, obviously, because I thought it was a bit of a stupid comparison. But I don't think I was too far off. Shakespeare worked within a lot of conventions. In the sense of the plot, you pretty much know what's going to happen in a Shakespeare play. You watch it mainly because of the language. In that way, I think Johnnie To's films are similar. The Hong Kong gangster movie is prolific. They've been making them since the 80s, I think. There must be hundreds by now. So, Johnnie To is working within conventions and expectations. He's not trying to surprise you with his plot or his characters - they're all very familiar. His innovations are subtle. The emphasis is on skill, on hard work, on how well he applies the conventions, and when and where. The mere fact that his film is showing at the ICA gives you a hint that these aren't just violent movies. They're carefully crafted. PTU (somehow similar to City on Fire) had much more to say than Exiled, although I found myself thinking both were in many ways about the illusion of home: the exile whose last words were 'let's go home', and the PTU officers who just wanted their shift to end safely.

Friday 29 June 2007

Friday

Two Johnnie To films in one week? You might think I've gone Johnnie To crazy, but perhaps that's not such a bad thing. PTU was also a very good movie. I saw it reviewed as 'After Hours with guns', which meant I almost definitely had to see it. A cop loses his gun and spends the rest of the night, with the help of a group of PTU (Police Tactical Unit) officers, trying to get it back. We are submerged into the different levels of the Hong Kong police and the criminal underworld working for and against each other in various ways. The nighttime cityscape, backstreets and deserted alleyways are pretty eerie. This film is much more gritty compared to the highly stylised Exiled. Not to say this film doesn't have style, only it's much more brutal. It all builds brilliantly to a big, albeit meaningless, gunfight at the end. There is a sense of humour here, but it can be cruel. Strangely, it seemed like it was from the 1980s, rather than 2003. I definitely liked it, although my pleasure probably would've been doubled if it wasn't for the couple of annoying students sitting behind me constantly giggling through their noses. More thoughts on Johnnie To tomorrow.

Thursday 28 June 2007

Thursday

What did you think of Hollywood Homicide? I remember seeing the trailer and thinking 'well, that looks great'. It certainly has all the ingredients for a good fun buddy-cop comedy/drama: two brilliant actors (Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett) playing two interesting characters. They're both detectives trying to solve a case, whilst also trying to make some money on the side (Ford's character is a real-estate agent, Hartnett's is a yoga instructor and aspiring actor). What's not to like? Some of the banter between them is pretty good, and the annoying tone of Ford's constantly ringing phone is great. But, as far as I'm aware, this film sunk quicker than the Titanic (the boat, not the film, which obviously did very well). Perhaps the jokes just aren't good enough, or the chemistry not quite right. I also think the basic plot and crime they're trying to solve could've been more compelling. They're submerged in the world of gangster rap, but treat the scene almost offensively. I intend to watch it again to see closer what went wrong. I do like buddy-cop films. Overall, though, you have to say it's a movie with great unfulfilled potential.

Tuesday 26 June 2007

Wednesday

My first reaction to theguardian's 1000 films to see before you die (200 issued every day this week) was 'why?'. I mean, what are we supposed to do with this list? No explanation is given. Clearly it took a lot of effort, thought, and previous knowledge to put together. Was this only so they could sell more papers, as in my case they are? The only thing they seem to vaguely advocate is going to their website to discuss the list. Do they really care about our opinions that much? That seems a rather strange outcome. Perhaps we are expected to read the whole thing and make sure we've seen all of them, literally, before we die? More probable, of course, is that it was an exercise in attracting, and keeping, readers - in building an image of themselves as an artistic, left-wing newspaper. Personally, I'm going to collect them all and keep them on a bookshelf somewhere. Then, on a day when I feel like watching a film but can't decide what, I might look through it. Their list isn't necessary, there are other ways of doing this, and it's claim to be 'unique' is annoying, but it's good enough.

Tuesday

Another day, another great film. Last night it was the turn of Exiled, by Hong Kong's director Johnnie To. The London Paper says he is a source of fanboy love, which may give you a hint to the type of movie this is. It's basically a John Woo gangster film, but for our generation. The characters aren't quite so sentimental, and the fight scenes are a lot better. Perhaps you'll say, as The London Paper does, that it's thus not original, and not worth seeing. But I enjoyed it immensely. The plot is predictable, up to a point, but I think this is what's enjoyable about these films - you are satisfied by them, rather than surprised. It did lose direction two-thirds through, but gained it all again for a great finish. The fight scenes really were spectacular - especially through the hospital and down the staircase. It's worth the money just to see them, but there are jokes, and some really great moments in-between. Otherwise, the dialogue is pretty sparse, which is a good thing. And I don't think I'm alone in appreciating this movie. One of To's earlier films (which I hope to see on Thursday) is currently showing at the ICA.

Monday 25 June 2007

Monday

I found out two new things about the director Jean-Pierre Melville at the weekend. First, his real surname was actually Grumbach, but he changed it to Melville because he liked the American author. Second, he was perhaps instrumental in the development of the 'jump cut', and other aspects of French New Wave cinema, whilst not actually being considered part of the movement himself. I believe I've only seen one of his films Le Cercle Rouge (or, The Red Circle). It was such a brilliant film, however, that I really should've watched more of his work by now. Others include Un Flic, Bob le Flambeur, and Les Enfants Terribles. I think there's a season of his movies happening as I speak on FilmFour. Look out for them if you can. He's an underrated director.

In other news, theguardian this week are producing a list of 1000 films to see before you die. Quite excessive, as you can imagine, and I'll try to give my reaction to their selection in the days when I'm not reviewing films.

Sunday 24 June 2007

Sunday

I think a good question for a scriptwriter to ask themselves when they write a scene for a film is 'who are we?'. I'm not trying to identify the place of our species in the universe, or answer a question related to the existence of consciousness. Instead, I'm interested in who the audience is meant to sympathise with in any one instant. This question needs to be asked and answered every time you're writing. It helps focus the scene, and clarify the roles of your characters. In many cases, filmmakers have lost and confused audiences because they failed to ask this question. It's not always answerable. Sometimes we sympathise with several characters, and sometimes with none. But it's important to ask it because it relates to knowledge and narrative, and the basic structure of the film itself. We can't readily sympathise with a character who knows more than us but isn't saying so - or who we know more than. They become alienated from us. We can't relate to them. Of course we've come along way from having characters who were universally likable, but there has to be some sympathy even for the most evil, or at least some sympathy with the logic of their decisions. What do you think?

Saturday 23 June 2007

Saturday

There is a word in the movie industry that I've been hearing more and more of recently. I'm not sure if it's new or old, but it feels new, and I don't know where it came from. Perhaps you've heard it: 'fanboy'. I first read of it in a description of Quentin Tarantino, saying he made 'fanboy films'. Since then I've heard it used of other directors, such as Robert Rodriguez, and I think Craig Brewer (director of Black Snake Moan). It seems to refer to people who like old movies and make new ones in homage to them. Of course this has been happening for a long time, but perhaps the important missing adjective here is 'excessive'. They have an excessive like of, and excessively reference, previous films. Their movies become just a stream of allusion, indecipherable to the uninitiated. I wouldn't say this is true, but this is the perception. 'Fanboy' seems to refer to a movie without any serious sense, that is style alone, and the previous films these directors like are not necessarily classics, but more often pulp, exploitation, comic or violence. It is, of course, used as slightly derogatory, but I think it can easily be turned into a positive thing.

Friday 22 June 2007

Friday

The Lives of Others is an exceptional film. I'm not sure if my critical faculties are declining in contrast to the number of movies I see, since I seem to be liking everything at the moment, but this one definitely stands out. I might dare to say it's the best film I've seen this year, but then I have a very bad memory. For some reason I went into the cinema not wanting to like it. Due to its Oscar success it's been at theatres for a long time, and I've been delaying seeing it. I don't know why. Anyway, the plot is fairly simple, but it takes place in extraordinary circumstances (a bit like The Wind that Shakes the Barley): a bad man turns good. It's set during the last years of the socialist regime in East Germany and involves the State Security, or Stasi, and their surveillance of a playwright and his girlfriend. Very soon you realise the film also works as a commentary on us as audience, voyeurs ourselves. It gets even more interesting, then, when the man in charge of the surveillance starts interfering in their lives instead of just watching. The stylistics are limited, to my eye, but there was at least one brilliant camera movement that seemed to painfully drag you round a room as the words of one character sought out another. The music was good. And the ending was one of the most satisfying conclusions to a film I've ever seen. I thought the epilogue was at first unnecessary, but it has a remarkable turn to finish with. You'll either cry or cheer. Well, I did.

Thursday 21 June 2007

Thursday

I remember seeing the trailer for Tell No One a couple of months ago and thinking 'that looks great, and terrible'. There was something not quite right about it. I realised later that there was no dialogue - it was all narration. This was because the film itself is in French. Frequently you will see trailers of foreign films that deliberately don't include speech so as not to put off English audiences. I find it disconcerting. You are told about the movie by a narrator, and the characters never speak for themselves. It makes it seem like a bizarre dumb-show. The trailer for The Lives of Others (which I'm going to see tonight) does this too, and it goes on for several minutes. I remember watching it waiting for someone to speak, but they never did. Then, however, it seemed in a way appropriate to the material. I don't blame the filmmakers; it's English audiences that need to watch more foreign movies.

Anyway, there was something else that made Tell No One look terrible: an over-emphasis on the pulp novel (by Harlan Coben) that the film is adapted from. I'm guessing they were trying to get his millions of readers to see their movie. The problem, of course, is that Canet has adapted a pulp novel to make a more challenging work of art. The trailer invites viewers who probably won't like the film, and puts off those who will.

Wednesday 20 June 2007

Wednesday

If you looked at my upcoming attractions you may have thought I was suggesting you didn't tell anyone what film I was going to see on Tuesday. Quite the opposite, as the movie was in fact called Tell No One, and I suggest you tell everyone you know. It's brilliant. It's a modern Hitchcock-style thriller (reminiscent of Vertigo, Frantic, or L'Appartement) that slowly turns into an 'innocent man wronged' film: eight years after his wife is murdered a man receives an email from her. Perhaps the direction in places is conservative, and the choice of soundtrack a little dubious, but it also contains one of the best chase sequences I've ever seen, and in general the camera movement is fluid. It's written (albeit from a novel), directed by, and stars (in a minor role) Guillame Canet. I can only suspect great things from this guy. The plot at times gets a little convoluted, the dialogue is sometimes terrible, and the tone slightly sentimental, but these elements are suddenly undermined by brilliant camera movements, edits, or whole sequences that are refreshing and exciting. The old detective was excellent, and the assassins hunting the main character down were terrifyingly remorseless. So, overall, thoroughly recommended.

Tuesday 19 June 2007

Tuesday

I've been wanting to watch The Wind that Shakes the Barley since it first came out, but have struggled to do so. As always, having now seen it, I regret this delay. It's a brilliant film, undoubtedly. The look alone sells it - the beautiful landscape, beautifully photographed, but also the men themselves, their dress, the language and the songs. Incredible stuff. When you get to analysing some of the details, however, it falls apart a little. The plot, for instance, is quite ordinary: an intelligent sensitive man tries to avoid fighting but eventually joins. He falls in love with a woman. Over time, his best friend becomes his enemy, and I won't ruin the ending for you. So, we've had this sort of thing many times before. What's different is that it's told without exaggeration or over-explanation. Even more, the story takes place in the context of exceptional circumstances. The brutality of both sides is astonishing, and becomes sickening when the Irish start fighting themselves. Although Cillian Murphy is an exceptional actor, I couldn't quite sympathise with his character. He seemed cold at points, and doesn't share everything with us, or explain his motives. I'm not sure who Ken Loach wants us to agree with. As you know, I don't particularly like 'political' films. I'm aware of Loach's sympathies, but I don't know. The English are fairly obviously evil; the Irish have sophisticated discussions on the nature of their responsibility; and the main character shows signs of a modern consciousness which is anachronistic. The film hints, however, towards an objectivity to the events which I think is good. I watched it wondering if my father - whose family comes from the area in which the events take place - would like this. I'm not sure, but I don't think he would. It balances unhappily along the line of popular/critical movie, and never settles on either.

Monday 18 June 2007

Monday

I saw The Breakfast Club on Friday night, and I'd never seen it before. It's quite hard to assess a movie so attached to a time, a place, and a style - especially one you're quite alienated from. You feel you can't be critical of it because it meant so much to so many when it came out. In spite of that, it isn't taken seriously as cinema anymore. I can see why - the outcome is predictable, the blaming of parents simplistic, and the drug-taking scene embarrassing. But I also can't deny that I enjoyed it. The characters come to life and you engage with them. The performances are good. The soundtrack is tacky, but that's the fun of it. They never really resolve what's going to happen on Monday, and they're not really a 'club' since they only ever met once, but I don't think it matters too much. This movie was part of a generation's 'brat pack' movement (not the original one, and not the last) comprising several films of which I haven't seen many. Ferris Bueller's Day Off (by the same director) is tagged on to this, but it's much more sophisticated and doesn't include the same actors. Anyway, it made me think of the high-school comedy/drama in general as a genre, and how it has undergone quite a complex development. Today's gross-out comedies can hardly be said to be the pinnacle, but we have made some good dramas. Although normally the genre aims at representing contemporary high-school, I think the films that look back a few years are the best (American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, etc). Their nostalgic appeal is hard to resist.

Sunday 17 June 2007

Sunday

Since we last spoke I've seen three films. The first was at the cinema, City of Violence, and I suggest you see it immediately. This is exciting contemporary film-making, stylish and exhilarating. To give you an idea, the director Seung-wan Ryoo (who also is one of the main characters) has been called the Korean Tarantino. Whilst this is clearly true, it's also a bit unfair - after all, one of the main inspirations for Tarantino was Asian cinema. There are some exceptional sequences in this film, played out to great music. The beginning alone, rushing you into the backstreets with a steadicam, is brilliant. The transitions, the cuts, the editing, are all great, the sense of humour refreshing. I felt that it lost something in the middle - the pace and style simply couldn't be kept up throughout - but then recovered for a brilliant finish. The fight sequences were stunning, and whilst very similar to Kill Bill, I think better. Watching the trailer will make you think it's just a copycat movie, but this isn't the case at all. This director is very good. I'd say he's still young, and this movie isn't perfect, but I can't wait for what's to come. Someone could sort out the subtitles because they were very hard to read, but that shouldn't spoil your experience. This film's power is mainly visual and aural.

Saturday 16 June 2007

Saturday

[The second part of this special feature written by our guest editor, Alex.]

...In that area you really feel that the title should tell you something about the movie you're going to see. So Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars and 12 Angry Men all tell you exactly what you're going to see.

So usually the one word title can handle ambiguity better than longer titles but that's not always true. The Silence of the Lambs is a great title and yet is five words long and ambiguous.

I think part of this is about how complicated the movie is to explain to your friends. It doesn't matter that the title of The Silence of the Lambs has an ambiguous title because this is the conversation you'd have:

A: What's it called?
B: The Silence of the Lambs
A: What the hell is that some kind of farming behavioural instructional video?
B: No it's about a serial killer who eats his victims. And the detective trying to catch him is a chick.
A: I'm so there.

Here's the same two guys with the title The Remains of the Day:

A: What's it called?
B: The Remains of the Day
A: Oooh sounds good? Do they only have the remaining hours of the day that they are in to save the world from almost certain destruction?
B: No it's about a butler
A: Like Batman?
B: No it's a butler who falls in love with some woman but he can't go out with her because he's British.
A: That sounds rubbish.
B: It's got Anthony Hopkins in it, he was awesome in The Silence of the Lambs.
A: Yeah The Silence of the Lambs was great, should we watch that?

So yes. That's the danger with ambiguous film titles. When I heard about The Remains of the Day I thought it was going to be like "24" but with butlers. Boy, was I disappointed.

Friday 15 June 2007

Friday

[In a sophisticated exchange programme, this post has been written by today's guest editor, Alex.]

I notice, as I write this, that Stranded Cinema doesn't have titles for its posts. Or rather it does of course but they are simply the days of the week. It suggests to me that I might talk about titles in my guest article here. "What makes a good title for a film" might be the title of this post if it had one. Of course if this was on Gamboling I would probably go for, "What's in a name?", "Naming Conventions" or "Titleation".

What makes a good title? One word titles can be fantastic and are probably best, Gladiator, Manhattan and Scream don't hang about. And you also have a number of hangers-on which are really one word titles with "the" tacked on the front. So we have, The Godfather, The Unforgiven. But is the "the" necessary?

Often it isn't. Certainly it's better as Gladiator not The Gladiator. The same is true the other way round for The Godfather. Gladiator is faster than Godfather and the title tells you that. In fact an even better comparison is with Goodfellas. The book on which Goodfellas is based was called Wise Guys but the name was changed. Presumably to make it faster like everything else in that amazing film. Keeping on this gangster theme I think we can see a mistake in "The Sopranos" which should have just been "Sopranos". In fact that's the way it's entered into parlance.

There are some terrible one word titles, Next having been rubbished on these very pages. But you're usually on safer ground. The most common place to find bad titles is at the very long end of the spectrum. Things like, Who Is Harry Kellerman and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me? are frankly ridiculous.

But in the middle. That two to five or six word title. That's the hard part to fathom...

[Tune in tomorrow for the concluding section to this special feature.]

Thursday 14 June 2007

Thursday

There has only been one film made about Formula 1, as far as I'm aware, and it's called Grand Prix (Driven was about CART, and was terrible). I believe I've seen most, if not all, of it. It appears to capture the spirit of the period, but I'm not sure how accurately it portrays the racing. I remember weird montages with split screens, double vision and dreamy music. The arrival of Lewis Hamilton this year has given us a real possibility of making a film about Formula 1 again. The story of his rise and rise is too good to be true (which leads me to think it may come to a sudden end). Script-writers couldn't come up with anything better. With this as a backdrop, and today's cameras and cgi-effects for detail, we could really accurately and effectively portray the sport in cinema. The problem is, of course, is why should we? I remember someone once said Formula 1 is the greatest sporting narrative. A season gives us all the highs and lows a film or a novel would, all the tension and all the excitement. It is itself a film, or perfect entertainment as it is, we don't need to make it into one. What do you think?

Wednesday 13 June 2007

Wednesday

If you were to ask me whether Ocean's Thirteen deserved 1 out of 10 or 9 out of 10, I'd have to lean more towards the 9 out of 10. It's great fun. The music, the camera movement and the laid-back style are all great. Perhaps you might say it brings nothing that we didn't see in Ocean's Eleven, but then that's not what this is about. Maybe they could've tried to keep (or paid more to retain) the love interests in the story, but Brad Pitt and George Clooney's chats about the dangers of relationships were great all the same. There is a problem with the tempo of the film: there are too many highs and lows so that it comes out seeming all one pace. We needed bigger and fewer high-points. As it is, the film is basically an hour and a half of exposition, and thirty minutes of action. But Soderbergh does exposition brilliantly. The dialogue is great, which is pretty good, but doesn't consistently go that extra notch towards 'classic'. I generally don't like the type of film whose plot relies on characters revealing some secret things to us, but deliberately keeping others. The whole tension revolves around them not telling us the full-extent of their plan, but at the same time having us believing and trusting that they have. I suppose the film is flawed in many ways (too much time spent on the hotel inspector, for instance), but I didn't really mind. It's about style, and this film has it.

Tuesday 12 June 2007

Tuesday

Starting this week on ITV 4 there is going to be a John Carpenter Season. This sounds much better than the Van Damme or Steven Seagal seasons that seem perpetually on Channel 5. I think Carpenter is one of the best directors in cinema history. A trifle bold, you might say. Admittedly his skill isn't in the intellectual film, but it's in the perfectly crafted movie-movie. In this area I think he's a genius. He writes, directs, edits and creates the music. Even his bad movies (They Live, Vampires, Ghosts of Mars) are great fun on one level. His best (Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween) are classics, endlessly reproduced. Although many people try, no one does action and suspense quite as well. The key is a kind of minimalism. Whenever he's reproduced or imitated, they go over the top, over-exaggerating the elements he portrays subtly. He does the 'group of strangers in trouble together' film better than anyone else.

In other news, I'm a little concerned about Ocean's 13 tonight. According to theguardian, it's received bizarrely mixed reviews. The Independent gave it 1 out of 10, whilst the Independent on Sunday gave it 9 out of 10. A similar reversal happened with the Times and the Sunday Times. So, we'll see.

Monday 11 June 2007

Monday

On Thursday I could've gone to a screening of The Pacific and Eddy where the director was answering questions from the audience after the film. I chose not to go. I don't really know what to ask people. This is perhaps why I'd never make a very good professional critic. I'm not that interested in talking to the people behind films, and certainly not the majority of actors. Or, I am interested, but perhaps not for the right reasons. The questions I'd ask them would be 'how long did that sequence take to shoot?', 'how'd you get that camera movement?', 'was that scene one cut?' etc. Technical questions whose answers would help me out in making a movie, but not interest a general reader, or the person I'm interviewing. It also seems as if almost every question you could want to ask has already been asked. People in movies are subjected to hundreds of interviews. I wouldn't want to add to their list. If I ever made a film I'd allow just one interview. All the press could get together and decide on the questions to ask, and then nominate one journalist to ask them. Obviously I'm insane, but you can't doubt its logicality.

Sunday 10 June 2007

Sunday

I am one of the many sufferers of what I call the discoverer-complex. What this means is that the movies I tend to like the most are those which I feel I've discovered. Of course I haven't really discovered them: it took hundreds of people to make them, and thousands have seen and liked it before me. But the important thing is that I'm the first who's heard of, watched it and liked it out of all the people I know, and any reviews I've read. It feels like I've discovered it. In many cases, I'll like a film simply because of these reasons, not actually because it's any good. As you can tell, this is a terrible condition, but admitting it is the first step towards recovery.

Incidentally, what I forgot to say yesterday was that Wedding Daze is an awful title, and The Pleasure of Your Company is ok - for a silly comedy - but why do we have one and not the other? Why does it fit Europe and not the US? Perhaps the movie hadn't been successful in America and they thought 'It's got to be because of the title'. Perhaps they thought it gave the wrong impression of the movie. Whatever the truth, Wedding Daze is awful.

Saturday 9 June 2007

Saturday

For some reason I've now mentioned the film Wedding Daze twice on Stranded Cinema, even though I have no intention of seeing it. I guess it's a good example of the kind of film I think should never be made. Although, I have to admit to being a little tempted (I'm a bit of a sucker for stupid comedies). Anyway, if you ever feel inclined to look it up on the IMDb, you won't find it. Or, you will, but under another name. It's real, US title is apparently The Pleasure of Your Company, but can also be called The Next Girl I See. I find this multi-naming of films interesting. Some of your favourite movies may have had a completely different title just weeks before their premiere. What you see could be named differently in Europe, in America and Asia. It's good business sense, but strange for art. I was always amused by how Friday the 13th was called Tuesday the 13th in the Spanish speaking world. The upcoming Die Hard sequel has apparently had numerous name changes: Die Hard 4, Die Hard 4.0, Die Hard: Reset, Die Hard: Tears of the Sun, Die Hard 4: Die Hardest, and now Live free or Die Hard. Then there's the famous change of Springtime for Hitler to The Producers. Know any more?

Friday 8 June 2007

Friday

Since no one thought it would be fun to humiliate me by sending me to Wedding Daze or Becoming Jane, yesterday I chose to see The Pacific and Eddy, part of the Declaration of Independence Film Festival. As the name suggests, this was an independent film from the USA. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. It looked and sounded great, but the acting was poor, the script bad, its dialogue stilted, and the overall meaning muddled. The main actor, playing Eddy, somehow reminded me of Keanu Reeves: photographs well, but is terrible at acting. Eddy drifts back into his hometown after a year away to find his friends moving on. He intrudes in their lives, causing old tensions to resurface, and eventually resettle. He's introduced to us as an unpleasant person, but I feel at the end we are supposed to feel sympathy for him because of an event in the past (the death of a friend) that has disjointed his life. That whole concept of something terrible having happened in the past is terribly overused in cinema (and literature in general). I thought they could've been more original here. They don't need to add anything like that. Instead, like the great Funny Ha Ha, it could've just been a film about Eddy drifting around. The character's interesting, the direction easy and fluid, and as I said the music and photography is good. As it was, the film became muddled. I think it tries at times to be more illusive than it needs to be. So, I'm not sure whether to say if it's a good movie or not. I enjoyed it, and it interested me, perhaps that's enough.

Thursday 7 June 2007

Thursday

As promised, some more thoughts on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Two things occurred to me as I began watching the movie. First of all, I realised how similar the plot was to Star Wars. At the end of the second movie (Empire Strikes Back/Dead Man's Chest) a key member of the group (Han Solo/Jack Sparrow) has gone missing and they set out to bring him back. At the beginning of the third movie (Return of the Jedi/At World's End) we join them in the middle of their rescue as they attempt to infiltrate an enemy base through various means and disguises. The similarities continue, but you get my point. Anyway, it made me think maybe the writers of Pirates had taken a few ideas from Star Wars in order to construct their trilogy. This then lead onto the second thing that occurred to me. Are the Pirates films the greatest original franchise we've had in recent years? You notice I use the word 'original'. I don't think Lord or the Rings, Harry Potter, X-Men, Spiderman, and Star Wars 1-3 count. Of course the creativity in those films is extraordinary, but something about them isn't the same. For me, the contenders are Pirates, The Matrix and Scream. None of the sequels for any of them, however, have been brilliant. They've been good, but not great. Maybe Hollywood is losing the knack? (I still have my fingers crossed for the Nightwatch trilogy, though.) Overall, I have to say I prefer Pirates. Read about the ten most powerful franchises here, or compare their takings here.

Wednesday 6 June 2007

Wednesday

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End does the job. It fits the bill. After reading a few reviews I was expecting this movie to be terrible, but I actually enjoyed it a lot. Its 2 hours 48 minutes flew by, relatively speaking. As they say, it's a roller coaster ride; it's popcorn munching fun. Big action sequences when you want them, and funny bits with Jack (and his dad) in-between. I didn't really expect much more. Yes, it takes itself a bit too seriously at times. Yes, the story becomes quite convoluted in its detail, with an innumerable amount of double-crossings, ideas proposed, agreed on, then dismissed, but the plot in the end is quite simple - which is how these things should be. The characters of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are almost entirely uninteresting now, but it doesn't seem to matter much. The jokes are good, some of the dialogue is great, if not perfect, and the music (although I'm sure some of it was stolen from a Sergio Leone film) and action is fun. I did, however, have a slight problem with the ending. Not wanting to give too much away I can say that it's entirely inconclusive and open-ended. Normally this is a good thing, and for half of the characters it is, but for the other half it isn't. I'm not sure how they got it right for one half and wrong for the other. It's not satisfying at all. It might be down to who signed up for another sequel and who didn't. I don't know. Overall, though, as long as you don't expect much more from it, this was good fun. Tune in tomorrow for a few extra thoughts on it.

Tuesday 5 June 2007

Tuesday

I forgot to mention a few weeks ago that whilst seeing Dans Paris I encountered the best ever usher. I don't like cinemas that allocate seating, unless they're very busy. Anyway, this isn't the usher's fault. Seats have been allocated, and it's their job to show you to them. Amazingly, this usher managed to show everyone to their seats. He was so quick, and so clear with his instructions. He knew where every seat was and how to get there in the shortest time. Best of all, however, was how he dealt with annoying people. Inevitably, after being shown to the seat they had chosen just five minutes earlier at the box office, some people would say 'I don't want to sit here, I want to sit there'. The usher's reply was polite and patient every time, 'You can do that, but I don't recommend it. If the person who booked that seat comes you will disrupt the movie for everyone else'. Again and again people wanted to change seats but he remained calm and unflustered, told them what to do, and quickly returned to the doors to greet the next group. One woman in front of me was particularly persistent about changing. In the end he relented, but, brilliantly, as the trailers were starting a couple came who had booked her seat and she had to move. I wonder if there is an award for 'best usher' at the Oscars? There should be, and he should win.

Monday 4 June 2007

Monday

What do you make of Brian De Palma? Brian who? He's one of those directors who's done more than you know. I knew he'd done a few, but looking him up on the IMDb there were a lot more than I'd realised. How many do you know? Carrie? The Untouchables, Mission: Impossible, The Black Dahlia, Scarface, Carlito's Way and The Bonfire of the Vanities? I think I liked him a long time ago, but for a while now I've been dismissing him out of hand. His films seem too obvious and plastic, he generally takes other people's material rather than writing his own, and appears the lesser director in comparison to his friends Spielberg, Coppola etc. This is a harsh verdict, and almost certainly unfair. Mission: Impossible is brilliant, and apparently The Black Dahlia was very good. But I've never noticed anything particular about his work, no style or message. Maybe it's not there, or maybe I haven't been paying attention? What disturbed me recently was I heard someone say De Palma values style over substance: something I actually think is a good thing. Whatever the truth, the 'done more than you know' category that he's in seems to work against him, where it mostly favours others.

Incidentally, you may have noticed I don't know what to watch on Thursday. Leave your suggestions here for what you'd like me to see! Note it has to be showing in central London and preferably around the 6pm time slot.

Sunday 3 June 2007

Sunday

I've been wanting to watch Y Tu Mamá También for a while. It's one of those films, however, that I find it hard to motivate myself to watch. I'm terrible like that. It often occurs with foreign movies, even though when I've actually seen them I frequently feel more rewarded. The final spur for me to buy and view the movie came after I saw Children of Men, and realised Alfonso Cuarón directed this too. I thought this must be his breakthrough movie, but strangely it's not. He made movies in Mexico, then went to Hollywood, then came back to Mexico to do this (read more about his moving and why on the IMDb). He seems to be one of those directors who is struggling very hard to make the movies he wants to make, under constant pressure to do what studios want from him. Anyway, is it a good film? Yes, definitely. I left it feeling 'I want to see that again, right now'. Which is always good. There are some strange juxtapositions, however, of which I was uncertain. The first was between my expectations and what the film actually was - I was half right and half wrong. So I was a little disconcerted. The second juxtaposition is the main style in which the movie transmits its meaning: the characters play out their life seemingly innocently and foolishly at times, but we the audience get voice-overs telling us consequences, or related serious real-life events. The whole film is coloured in this way when we get to the end - which is perhaps why it demands a second viewing. Everything we've seen needs to be reinterpreted. It's annoying, but it's also very interesting. What I like about this film, however, and Cuarón, is the fluidity and the freedom of the camerawork. It seems to me at least as if everything is very easy. He captures the life of Mexico in his style as well as his content. There's more to say, but perhaps I'll save that for tomorrow.

Saturday 2 June 2007

Saturday

I was asked by Adrian last week if I was more critical of movies when I watch them in the cinema or at home. I immediately said at home. I said that in the theatre you are seeing the film exactly how the director wanted you to see it - on a large screen, in darkness, in silence, with full surround sound. You become immersed much more quickly, and it is harder to pull yourself out to start analysing. Usually, I have sat through 30 to 40 minutes before I realise I'm supposed to write a critical review of what I'm watching. This happened especially with Zodiac on Thursday. At home, I said, criticising is much easier because you can step outside the film - you can pause and rewind, and turn the volume down. However, this was not the answer he was expecting, and since then I have begun to doubt if there really is a difference. He said at the cinema you've paid for what you're watching, and are thus much more invested in the worth of the film. You're also in the perfect environment for criticising and appreciating the film, rather than being at home and getting distracted from it. You can concentrate solely on the movie, it flaws and its successes etc. So I'm not sure. There are some people who think cinemas are pointless and that you might as well watch films at home. I don't agree. But I'm not sure which environment is more conducive to criticism. An extra question is: do I find myself liking movies I've seen in the cinema more than those I've seen at home? The answer has to be no, although I do remember with greater significance those I've seen in a theatre, because it was not just a time that I watched them, but a place, and a people.

Friday 1 June 2007

Friday

Zodiac is a great film. I'm not sure if there's much more to say than that. It's the mark of some of the best directors that you don't notice on a first viewing many techniques or stylistics in their movies; you become immediately immersed in the world of the story and never break out of it. I was engaged from beginning to end - and that's an amazing 2 hours 40 minutes (I doubt the same will happen with Pirates). I think this movie achieves its brilliance by being unassuming in this way. Characters drift in and out of importance without remark; nothing is overly signposted or obviously suggested. The events and dates are given to us cleanly and concisely: there is (seemingly) no exaggeration or exploitation of the facts. The performances are excellent, especially from Mark Ruffalo, but also Jake Gyllenhaal and Elias Koteas (much better than in his terrible performance for Shooter). Two slight queries, however: would this film be as interesting to someone who knows already the details of the case, as I didn't? Would it be interesting on a second viewing? And the importance of solving the case is never properly addressed: is this killer really worth pursuing when there's no definitive evidence? Why continue to give him the attention he wants? The film clearly suggests that the lack of a credible suspect was due to police incompetence rather than the killer's intelligence. However, it does hint towards who it thinks the murderer is, giving some kind of artistic closure to what there never was in real life. This interesting element, though, isn't dwelt on for very long. Overall, I loved it, and I don't think it falters in comparison to something like All The President's Men.

The Hateful Eight

Tarantino has said he'll only make ten films, and then retire. I don't know if he still stands by this statement, and if he does we ...