Friday 28 November 2008

Friday

On Wednesday I suggested that the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy owes something to Star Wars. I'm imagining someone else has already said this, but I thought I'd write out my ideas before looking at theirs. Although the concept of a trilogy can be traced back to ancient Greek tragedy, the three-film structure of Pirates undoubtedly draw its inspiration from Star Wars, rather than Aeschylus, Euripides or Sophocles. There are a lot more parallels, however: a young, innocent man in love with a girl, and an experienced worldly man; a lost father; two inferior characters (either the two pirates or the two English soldiers) through whom the audience can see the plot; the loss of a major character at the end of the second film and the search for him at the beginning of the third; an Empire; the illegal, beyond-the-law town and bar where the characters go to find help (Tortuga inn or the Tatooine cantina); and of course ships themselves. One might even go so far as to compare the Force with the Pirates' code, but that's a little tendentious. Of course, there are probably as many differences to match every similarity, but don't you feel the weight of these parallels merits some attention?

Wednesday 26 November 2008

Wednesday

I have a quibble with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. At the climax of the film, Jack Sparrow, played by Johnny Depp, takes a coin from the chest. The curse is thus placed upon him. Why, however, when he later steps into the moonlight does he appear as a skeleton, like the rest of the crew? We've been told earlier by Barbossa, played by Geoffrey Rush, that the moonlight shows them for who they truly are, but why does that apply to Sparrow? The crew of the Black Pearl have been under the curse for ten years, but Sparrow has only just taken it upon himself. Moreover, when two of them put on new women's clothes to fool the English, these clothes then appear rotten and decayed in the moonlight. Why is that? Of course, this is a Disney film adapted from a theme park ride, so I shouldn't look for too much sense, but I do think a movie should be consistent within itself, no matter how unreal its universe. Tomorrow, I might say a few words on how much the Pirates films owe to Star Wars.

Tuesday 25 November 2008

Tuesday

I'm finding it hard to decide whether I think The Orphanage is a good film or not. True, I was frightened, but was that the film's only aim? I don't think so. It's a Spanish film about a woman who returns to the orphanage where she grew up with her husband and young son. Soon, strange things start happening and the son claims he has some new friends who no one else can see. Very spooky. Without giving too much away, what annoys me (and what annoyed me about Pan's Labyrinth) is the catholic nature of this movie. I was irritated by the overall message of what happens, which has perhaps blinded me to the abilities of the film-maker. Undoubtedly the movie is very atmospheric, and frightening when it needs to be, without too many 'why are you doing that?' moments. Unlike The Sixth Sense, however, I don't feel a great need to watch the film again and unravel what happened. All its suspense is lost, not enriched, by the ending. It is a tight-knit, compact film, but I felt disappointed at the end, much as I did with Pan's Labyrinth. It's definitely a good film, but rises little above that.

Tuesday 18 November 2008

Tuesday

Gone Baby Gone is a quite incredible film. Directed by Ben Affleck and starring his younger brother Casey, it's about a private detective in Boston who is asked to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. The voice-over narrator gives away that this movie is adapted from a novel, and although it's hard for me to say, it did feel as if this film managed to keep the richness of the novel and maintain the drama needed in a movie. Casey Affleck is a very natural, relaxed actor. The direction seems promising too - understated and subtle. The plot unfolds brilliantly. Although the narrative relies on a few cliches, overall it feels fresh and exciting, set in what feels like the raw, real suburbs of Boston. It's a well-made, well-written, well-acted drama. There's really little reason not to see it.

Monday 17 November 2008

Monday

I realised yesterday that I never wrote a review here of Tropic Thunder. Aside from being quite busy at the moment, I think it might have been because I'm not sure what to say about it. Yes, it did have some very funny parts to it. It wasn't, however, consistently funny, and despite its original setting it didn't escape being formulaic, like most of Ben Stiller's comedies. Would I see it again and laugh again? Probably. This might be down to the brilliant performance of Robert Downey Jr as an Australian method actor playing a black man. He's funny throughout, for no obvious reason, even when he doesn't have any dialogue. The most mundane things that he says become hilarious because of the situation he decides to put himself in, again for no obvious reason. It is a likable comedy because it at least tries something completely different, even if it does end up relying on some conventional jokes, and you might begin to find Stiller's style of acting tiring. Now that it's out of the cinema, I'd say it's definitely worth renting.

Friday 14 November 2008

Friday

It would be hard, if not impossible, to make sense of Quantum of Solace without having first seen Casino Royale. I don't think this should prejudice you against it though. Most Bond films expect you to have some prior knowledge of who Bond is. This movie is, though, very closely tied in with the first and acts as a sequel rather than a separate film. Nonetheless, although I haven't seen Casino Royale recently, I'm going to venture to say this film was better. I always liked On Her Majesty's Secret Service, when most complain it is not a Bond film: he cares too much about one girl, which isn't like him at all. In the two Daniel Craig movies, however, we seem to have returned to that early conception of Bond that didn't work, but now does. There is one element of the film, however, that is worse than Casino Royale (if I remember it correctly) or merely the same (if I don't). Occasionally in Quantum of Solace we return to Bond as doing unbelievable stunts, where I thought the great revelation of Daniel Craig was that he only did 'very good' stunts. The difference is in whether you believe a man can actually do those things. For example, Bond runs across the roof tops of Siena, which is great, but then he jumps on to a moving bus, which is really a bit too much for me. Admittedly, this sort of stunt only happens a few times in Quantum of Solace, but I hope they eliminate it for the next film. In relation to this, there is also a bit too much killing of anonymous bad guys, which seems to return to the Pierce Brosnan days. There is a remote enemy compound, surrounded by men with guns, which I thought we'd got over by now, and there are a few too many big explosions. Nonetheless, this is a much better Bond film than what we're used to. The scene in the opera house, for instance, was incredible. Some might say it was over contrived, or not fitting a Bond film, but I loved it.

Thursday 13 November 2008

Thursday

Why doesn't wine taste of grapes?* Why do some people insist a wine can taste of coffee? When grapes are crushed, fermentation begins. This is a somewhat magical chemical transformation. In simple terms, the constitutive elements of the grape are rearranged. What makes coffee taste of coffee is merely a series elements arranged in certain groupings. Grapes contain the building blocks for these, and much else, and thus when they are broken down in the magic of fermentation, the resulting wine may very well taste of coffee, or liquorice, or cloves. The myriad differences between wines (why there are so many different flavours) depends upon various actions the winemaker can effect. They span from the treatment of the grapes in the vineyard, the land itself, the climate, when the harvest is picked, how long it is fermented for, how it is aged, and much more. No two wines are the same, nor will a wine from the same vineyard in different years be exactly alike. This is what makes wine such a fascinating, and frustrating, subject.

*There are some wines which may taste of grapes, which are an exception, notably those made from Muscat.

Wednesday 12 November 2008

Wednesday

When a television channel is going to show a new movie, why doesn't it use the original film trailer to advertise it? The simple answers might be that the studio doesn't let them, or that the channel wants to appear original, but when so much time, money and research has been spent on making the perfect advertisement for the film, why wouldn't the channel want to use it? Trailers are laboured over intensely, often begun before the movie is even finished. Some trailers are better, or suggest better, than the end result will actually be. I try to avoid trailers for comedies, because inevitably they give away many of the jokes. A good comedy will make that joke funnier when you see the full movie. Trailers are a condensation of what is great about films: photography, music, script. In the best trailers you'll see some great, atmospheric shots, listen to some good music, and hear a few good lines. Still, the most original trailers have to be those that completely avoid using any footage from the movie. I believe both Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock have done this, but there may be more.

Tuesday 11 November 2008

Tuesday

Not long into Silent Hill I thought to myself 'this seems like a video game'. The credits at the end revealed the film was adapted from a game, but this was hardly an expert analysis from myself. Apparently the director deliberately photographed scenes to remind viewers of the game. I did, however, think there was another element that gave this film away, and it exposes a fundamental difference between what a film goer and a game player expect: narrative consistency. I'm sure the director must have adapted the game somewhat, created extra characters and plot-lines, in order to try to drag the viewer along, but he just wasn't successful. Events happen, or the main character does things, that aren't explained. They seem deliberately done for style, or horror, rather than content. There is no reasonable, narrative consistency. Of course, I don't expect everything in a movie to always be explainable, but it must be consistent within the film, and a lot in Silent Hill wasn't. Is this then the reason that almost every adaptation from a video game has failed as a film? In all, twenty have been made. Did you like any of them?

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 ...