Friday

I was quite surprised by Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It seemed like just another silly, romantic comedy. The title, to begin with, isn't promising. But there is a light touch to this film that makes it enjoyable. The lead actor, who is also the script-writer, is likable and flawed (perhaps too flawed). The star of a famous television crime drama breaks up with him, and he decides to take a holiday to Hawaii to forget her, only to find out that she is there with her new boyfriend. The plot does read a bit like a male fantasy: her new boyfriend (Russell Brand) is successful and attractive. However, the main character decides he doesn't want her anymore and falls for a beautiful local girl. The fantasy notion of this is only compounded when you find out that the writer/actor based this on his real life split with someone from ER. Regardless of this it is enjoyable and entertaining, funny and a little bit weird. There's nothing to stop you watching it, but then again there might be plenty of more worthwhile films for you to watch.

Thursday

Role Models is, thankfully, at least slightly different to the comedies we have been bombarded with over the last few years. It is fresh and original and funny without being obscene or silly. It stars the great Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott as two salesmen who face the choice of going to jail or doing community service. They choose the service and are assigned to 'Sturdy Wings', a company which pairs problem children with adults to mentor and care for them. As you can guess, they are terrible at this, and the children are weird and annoying. This is the one running joke throughout, and a lot of the laughs rely on the kids saying crude things, or the adults saying crude things to kids. Nonetheless, this comedy is better than a lot that you'll see, and it does care about its characters (perhaps because it wasn't initially written as a comedy). So it was good, but I did keep waiting for the killer line which never came. I suggest seeing it slightly drunk in a cinema full of other slightly drunk people, and you'll love it.

Tuesday

One of my favourite things about The Ring is that it is anti-psychological. I don't know if this is deliberate or not. The psychological film is extremely popular in Hollywood. It's rare to find one that avoids this scheme. The detective/journalist is the perfect character that drives these movies. He or she comes across a problem and searches for answers. He goes back to the origins of the problem to find out what is really causing it. Only he knows what the problem really is, whereas everyone else is only looking at the surface. Eventually he solves the problem, and along the way normally cures his own psychological problems too, as well as falling in love. What happens, however, in The Ring? Well, the main character is still a journalist, and she searches for the origins of the problem. She finds the well in which the girl has died and goes down into it in order to somehow release her and free everyone from the curse. However - and I'm going to ruin the ending here for those of you who haven't seen it - she fails. The psychological approach that she has adopted has no effect whatsoever. Instead, it is because she copied the tape that she survives. The curse continues, and (at least in the first film) it cannot be stopped. It goes round and round, like a ring. There is no way of digging out the problem and by uncovering it solving it. This is what I love about The Ring, and it is this approach that I'd love to see more of in Hollywood.

Monday

I had thought I was going to watch a Japanese film last night, instead it was an American remake of a Japanese film that I saw. In English it is One Missed Call, in Japanese Chakushin ari (which I believe means the same thing). The Japanese version was directed by Takashi Miike (who also did Audition), and it was probably a lot better. Nonetheless, the storyline is extremely similar to The Ring, and I don't think this is something the Americans added. People receive a phone call from themselves in the future, from the moment before they die. Normally they have about two days to live, although towards the end this is sped up to hurry the film along. If you've seen The Ring you'll already be thinking of parallels. It gets worse, though, and the similarities go right through to the structure of the conclusion of the movie, which made it all a bit predictable. Yes, it was frightening, but not truly frightening in the way The Ring was, or The Exorcist is. There are big shock moments that you know are coming, and there are frightening apparitions that become normal after a while. Things also happen far too quickly. A good horror film, like Alien, builds up tension for a long time before showing you anything. I'm sure the Japanese version is better, but even then its plot must struggle to avoid ground that's already been covered.

Friday

I half-watched the film Tightrope last night, starring Clint Eastwood. I found it quite strange, and then fell asleep before it ended. I thought I'd share with you some of the dialogue. It was said with very long, seductive pauses between each line. I can't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this. Clint, whose character is called Wes Block, starts talking to a girl in a tattoo parlour:

Girl: You're hanging round with the wrong people.
Wes Block: Oh, yeah.
Girl: You should hang out with people more up your alley.
Wes Block: Like who?
Girl: Like me.
Wes Block: Maybe I'll take you up on that offer.
Girl: And do what?
Wes Block: Maybe take you out and go bowling.
Girl: I don't like bowling.
Wes Block: Neither do I.

[End Scene.]

Tuesday

In a discussion with Alex, the subject of the new Star Trek film was brought up. Alex's thoughts were that Star Trek worked well as a television series but never really as a movie, to which I immediately agreed. Coincidentally, I had been thinking only a few days earlier about the idea of changing a TV series into a movie. The series I had in mind was Friends. Could it be done? It seems unlikely. The concept of the show just can't be adapted to fit the narrative of a film, and as Alex pointed out, it has too many characters. A film, traditionally, needs one main focus. If you type 'Friends movie' into Google, you'll find that there are rumours about such a thing. Let's hope it never happens. The Friends model fits almost every other TV series. You can't adapt 30 minute episodes into 2 hours of plot. The Simpsons Movie was a classic case of this. Whilst it was funny, it was essentially an over-long episode, and contained nothing new at all. If you make a film of the TV series it has to go so far beyond that it ceases to be anything like the original (much like my thoughts for adapting novels to film). The X-Files films showed us another example of such failure, and rumours of Lost or 24 movies once again seem doomed to mishandling. In fact, have there been any successes?

Monday

I'm not sure if the Bourne trilogy is great, or just good. There is something understated about it which I like. It has to be said that there are not many new developments in the second two films, they just continue the style of the first, but do so well. I'm worried that Matt Damon has apparently signed up for a fourth film. I'm not sure where they can go with it. Robert Ludlum only wrote three Bourne novels, although the second two films apparently weren't based on the books (except for the titles). Eric Van Lustbader (great name, whoever he is) has written four more Bourne novels, so there is material to work with. Surely, however, Bourne has solved all his issues now? They can always go back into his past to uncover more, or he can keep going on new assignments, eternally young like Bond, but I think that would be a bad thing. Bourne was good, and frightened the producers of Bond, because he was real and vulnerable and his character has a beginning and an end. I've set up a poll to see what you think. Should they stop, do one more, or keep going?