Friday

I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from Lions for Lambs, and I'm not entirely sure what I got. On first hearing of the film I thought, 'directed by Robert Redford, this will be a left-wing movie condemning the war', but with all the Oscar buzz and the big name actors, I for some reason began to think 'this must be a pro-war film'. After watching it last night, I still don't know which one it is. You may know that I've been wanting to see more films produced that deal with the Iraq war, and this wish is slowly coming true. It may be that this is the best of them. I was impressed by the format. The film takes place almost in real time over about an hour, dealing with three scenarios: a journalist interviewing a pro-war senator, a professor meeting with one of his students, and two soldiers stranded in Afghanistan. The limited scale and scope of the movie almost makes it seem like a play. I'd have to say, however, that the dialogue just isn't quite there. I am in some ways glad, though, that this film isn't clearly pro- or anti-war. It condemns the reasons for going to war, but then hesitates - what do we do now? This film seems to be a question rather than an answer. The war on terror cannot be won, and in a similar way this film doesn't conclude. I suppose I have to say I liked it. It wasn't as patriotic as I thought it might be, nor as left-wing as I feared it could be. As a 'movie' movie, if you know what I mean, it probably fails, but it's an interesting work of art tackling contemporary issues. If it has a message, it's 'do something with your abilities, make a difference', and that doesn't appear to have any political bias.

Thursday

I may have mentioned it here before that I like buddy cop movies - such as Stakeout and 48 Hours (although I've never got along that well with Lethal Weapon). Anyway, last night I saw Murder at 1600: Wesley Snipes is a loose cannon detective assigned to solve a murder at the White House. I was expecting terrible, but was mildly surprised by some elements here. Yes, the film was awful, but the plot was a lot more complex and interesting than it should have been. There was potential here, at least, for an interesting drama. The problem was that they went down the buddy cop route, which didn't really suit the material. Of course, another problem was that Snipes doesn't actually have a partner. His fellow detective makes only sporadic appearances, and the Secret Service female agent he's assigned has a bizarre only half-romantic relationship with him. The character Snipes has to play is odd too. He's a loose cannon, as mentioned, never doing things by the book, but he's also sensitive: he's being evicted from the house he lives in, and he makes model replicas of Civil War battles and the early landscape of Washington DC. Yes, you read that right. Bizarre, isn't it? So, something went fundamentally wrong here, that perhaps could have been interesting.

Tuesday

Unfortunately, I watched How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days last night. This is a terrible film. I don't think there was a moment that I enjoyed. The characters are unlikable, and the plot farcical and implausible. Somehow it reminded me of Down With Love, although it lacked that film's irony, and self-knowing ridiculousness. The actors were entirely miscast and lacking in chemistry. Matthew McConaughey is a character actor, really, although I thought he did just about work in Failure to Launch. Kate Hudson was awful. So, there is very little else to say about this movie. It should never have been made.

In other news, how many films has Kenneth Branagh made recently? Shakespeare's As You Like It, Sleuth, and now The Magic Flute. Odd.

Sunday

I watched Zodiac again last night. It still remains a very good film. Unfortunately the two of us watching it were tired and slightly drunk, so we kept falling asleep. This, however, just points to type of film it is, or isn't. It's not a thrilling horror film, or exciting detective movie. It's long, and complicated. The shifts in pace are subtle and nuanced. You have to concentrate, and you'll be rewarded. It doesn't assume anything, or force anything upon the audience. The performances from Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo are excellent. I was still as interested in it as I was the first time I saw it, which much say something for it's quality. David Fincher is an interesting director (Alien 3, Se7en, The Game, Fight Club and Panic Room), I wouldn't say one of my favourites, but I have seen all his films, and make a point of seeing new ones when they come out.

Wednesday

I'm not a particular fan of superhero movies, but last night I watched Elektra. I haven't seen Daredevil, where her character apparently also has a role (and from which this film was spawned), so perhaps I'm missing elements that might have made me enjoy this more. Because for me the main problems were that we don't see her development from 'real' person to 'superhero': this is done later, and only partially, in flashbacks, which doesn't work, or doesn't have the same effect as a straight narrative. We begin the film with her already being a hero. Thus we don't feel grounded, don't get to know her and go through the process with her. Consequently, our sympathy isn't there for her when it should be. She isn't a classically tormented hero(ine), and doesn't particularly have any interesting powers. Overall, the rules of her world are never fully explained. They only get close with vague terms and ideas which seem weak. I didn't ever really know who the enemy was or what they were doing. Thus the conclusion is not exactly satisfactory. Critics are swayed by the attractiveness of Jennifer Garner, but I don't subscribe to this. The director, Rob Bowman, has been almost exclusively a director for television so far, and it is perhaps unfair, but accurate, to say that he hasn't made the step up with this film. The fight scenes just aren't interesting enough to keep you watching when, as it happens here, the characters and plot are this mediocre.

Tuesday

I rented Hero two weeks ago but didn't manage to watch it. I'd never seen any of Yimou Zhang's films. I once watched Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (not the same director, but a similar style) but I wasn't really paying attention. Last night, however, I saw House of Flying Daggers. I thought it was fairly incredible. In general, however, it received poorer reviews than Hero, so perhaps what I appreciated could just be elements copied from that film. I don't know. It was mainly the effects, the stylistics, that I was impressed by. The sound, too, was astonishing - both in the sword fights, and in the love scenes when intimacy is conveyed through the breathing alone. The battle scene in the bamboo forest (if that's what it's called) was breath-taking at times. The problem came in the plot itself, which was compelling to begin with but undermined itself with a twist towards the end. And then it kind of faded away. Nothing is actually resolved, it becomes almost ridiculous. Although I felt there was less of the 'flying' that there is in Crouching Tiger, which I find a bit annoying. Overall, what I admire is that they're not afraid of making serious, epic films. Anyway, I eagerly await seeing Hero.

P.S. Yes, yesterday I did indeed post a short story (or short something, prose poem?). I hope you enjoyed it. I don't know yet if will become a regular feature or not.

The Grilse

I’m going home. Tell her I’m going home. Tell her it was nothing she said or didn't say. Tell her I will come back, but I will not come back for her. Nothing has changed, tell her that. She remains what she always was. But I am going home. I feel the same, I am the same person, but it is only as a stranger to myself that I exist. I haven’t changed, but I’m going home in the hope that I will change. I don’t know if this is possible. Stories are always about change, and my story so far has been about me not changing. I don’t know if life can become a book. But I’m going home, and I hope to change. There’s nothing I want there, except what isn't here. Tell her that. Tell her you love her, and admit to yourself that you do.

Saturday

Unable to sleep one night earlier this week, I turned on the television at about 3am and found a programme called Dinner for Five on ITV4. Jon Favreau hosts a dinner with four Hollywood friends (you may remember the format from the shows Ruby Wax used to do, although I don't know who came first). With him were Peter Berg (director of The Kingdom), Paul Rudd (Friends, Anchorman), Judd Apatow (director of Knocked Up), and Famke Janssen (X-Men). As you can imagine, this was a pretty interesting discussion - especially as it was recorded before the two directors had really achieved the fame they have now. I don't know if this show is still running, but apparently it started in 2001. The guests have been pretty interesting: guests. If only they'd put it on at a reasonable time!

Friday

Do you remember the other double-bill that came out recently? It was Clint Eastwood's two films on the Battle of Iwo Jima. I had seen one of them, Letters from Iwo Jima, and last night managed to watch the other, Flags of Our Fathers. I hesitate to say which one was better, probably the first. It might be unfair to compare them, though. They show two different sides to the same story, in a way. But the perspectives are not complete. We don't see exactly the same events each time. In fact, I don't think there is much crossover at all. This 'American' version is good with the actual narration of the battle, the problem for me was the inter-cutting with the aftermath when the heroes are back home, and then the present day when they are all old men. It seemed unnecessarily confusing. They should have focused on one time period, and probably one soldier, alone. As it was, the ending went on for far too long as they tried to tell everything that happened in their lives afterwards. The voice-over became irritating, and suddenly patriotic, when it seemed the rest of the movie had been about the pointlessness of patriotism. So, it was good in parts, but contradicted itself in the end. Nonetheless, these two films together are fascinating to watch, and it may have helped if I'd seen them closer together.

Wednesday

I assume Planet Terror, like its Grindhouse counter-part Death Proof, has been extended from its original edit, but I don't know. It did feel a little bit too long. However, it has been getting better reviews than Death Proof, although I suspect this may be due to some critics being bored by the Tarantino fanfare that accompanies his releases. As you'd guess, this film is not as self-referential, or post-modern, as Death Proof. It is, more or less, just a good fun zombie movie. The quality throughout is scratchy, and there is a humorous 'missing reel', but otherwise you might not notice the in-jokes (including a part for Tarantino himself). I really would love to see these two movies together, in one night, whilst drinking beer and eating popcorn. That's what they're intended for, and I'm sure it would be great. However, to judge this film on its own, it is good fun. The suspense builds suitably, although I didn't get the big ending I was hoping for. The eventual conclusion, however, was funny enough to have most people leave the cinema smiling. As the second part of one of modern cinema's more exciting experiments, I'd see this if I were you.

Thursday

I hadn't heard anything about The Lookout until I saw it in the cinema listings. I think you'll only find it at two cinemas in London. It's the directorial debut of the writer Scott Frank (Get Shorty, Out of Sight, Minority Report, The Interpreter), starring Jeff Daniels and the excellent Joseph Gordon-Levitt (star of Brick). Gordon-Levitt is a promising young man whose life falls apart after a car crash - he suffers frontal lobe damage and can no longer function properly. Most significantly, he cannot sequence events. As you can already tell, this film is like a cross between Brick and Memento. He starts to work nights in a bank and soon becomes involved in a plot to rob it. This is, like Memento and Brick, modern, intelligent film noir. The performances are all excellent. It is a little slow in the middle, but picks up brilliantly towards the end. Like Fargo, but without so much of the black humour. It's astonishing this movie hasn't had more publicity. It's much better than, say, Eastern Promises, and a lot of other films out at the moment. Of course, this sort of and greater injustices are happening everyday in the film industry, and I can't do much about it, but at least I can try.

Friday

I've never been entirely certain about the movies of David Cronenberg. Of course I haven't seen them all. I think I've seen some of his early films Shiver and Rabid, as well as the more recent eXisteZ and A History of Violence (and a few in-between). People believe they can easily label him. A friend told me Cronenberg's films were all about the body. Perhaps. But A History of Violence and the current Eastern Promises are a slight change in direction. I don't think I'd say I liked it. It was good, but there was something not quite polished enough about it. It felt amateurish, in a way. The dialogue was stilted and artificial, there wasn't a natural flow to the plot, or the character's interactions. The Russians weren't as threatening as they should've felt. Perhaps because they were mostly played by non-Russian actors. It was intriguing, and better than most of the films you will see in the cinema at the moment, but not great. Overall, I felt that we were only given hints at the depth of the characters. The complexity of Viggo Mortensen's role was just briefly suggested. It seems like there was more here, more potential, than was actually expressed.