Boxing Day

Have you ever opened a novel half-way through and begun reading until the end? No? But perhaps, over this Christmas season, you switched on the television and watched a movie that's already started? Why is there a difference? There shouldn't be. The problem is that most books you read you will have paid for, whereas the television is free (relatively speaking). As another excuse, there is the semi-tragic sentiment 'there was nothing better on'. Also, unless you have Sky plus, you can't rewind films once they've started, where you can just turn back the pages of a book. You might also say that films take less effort, they aren't as serious a medium, and it is much easier to 'figure it out as it goes along'. These are weak excuses, but based on some reality: many more movies are light-entertainment than books, especially those you'll find on television. Its shorter history and method of distribution means it is a popular medium, where much of literature aims at high art. This difference explains why most of us have seen many films more than once, but hardly read any books twice. These comparison might be meaningless, or banal, but it is insightful sometimes to question our practices, before assuming them. Happy Christmas.

Sunday

You can sometimes guess how good a film will be by how much the studio publicises it. I heard very little about Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Of course, studio publicity and press coverage form a symbiotic cycle of sorts, but in this case the little advertising the movie received seemed to match the overall quality. I wanted to like it. After all, I loved Anchorman, and love Will Ferrell's performance in almost every other movie. Plus, this film had John C. Reilly and Sacha Baron Cohen. It's possible I wasn't in the right mood (I am a great believer in matching your mood to a movie). I have been quite ill recently. On the day in question, I struggled to eat a sandwich, ran out of breath, sweated, and eventually gave up. My eyes were watering almost constantly. So, not ideal conditions. But this film's problems go beyond my physical condition. At its heart was that Will Ferrell's character isn't very likable. You can't sympathise with him in the same way that you can in Anchorman. This is a great problem seeing as, despite the context, the plot is exactly the same. And, the context is a sporting movie, which are very hard to make interesting, set around motor racing, which is perhaps the hardest to pull off. So, we have to judge the film by the quality of the jokes. Yes, sometimes I did laugh out loud. But it wasn't enough, and it wasn't frequent. I read that Knocked-Up and Superbad with their sensitive humour have sidelined Will Ferrell, and that he may struggle to command such large budgets anymore. On the evidence of this, I wouldn't disagree.

Saturday

Renting videos has become quite difficult lately. I went in to my local store yesterday looking for a new release to watch, only to find that I'd seen virtually all of them already at the cinema. Those that I hadn't seen, I didn't want to see. Most of the time, it seems, I will just have to choose between those that I liked the first time. Luckily, however, there was one movie (and I'm pretty sure only one) that I hadn't seen in the theatre, but had wanted to see: The Black Dahlia. This seemed to me like a bad copy of L.A. Confidential. Perhaps the novel by James Ellroy was good, but the adaptation seemed unnecessarily confusing (although watching it in parts over five hours might have hindered me there). Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank were good, but Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson were miscast. Hartnett was ok, and could be good in this sort of role, but Johansson was too innocent and blank to pull off this role. She has no character or interest. Overall, the film seemed too light, too clear and colourful. The mood wasn't right at all. I was especially disturbed by the unexplained first-person steadicam shot we got at one point of Hartnett greeting Swank's family. Very odd. If it's referencing something else, fine, but it left me perturbed. I've never particularly got along with Brian De Palma. I thought this film might change my mind. It almost did, but not quite.

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.