Wednesday

Three Westerns came out in the Autumn of last year - Seraphim Falls, 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. As you may be able to tell by my formatting of the titles, it was the former of these that I watched recently. I intended to see them all at the cinema, but somehow other films, and other things, got in the way. Now they're out on DVD, I'm going to attempt to make my way through them again. Strangely, this movie stars two Irish actors - Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan - in the main roles. I was impressed by the way this movie began, giving no back-story or explanation for what was happening: a group of five men hunting down another man. Indeed, it is not until the end of the film that things are explained (reminding me of Once Upon a Time in the West). But I don't even think that an explanation should be given. The film would do much better without the flashbacks. The director was lucky enough to work with two experienced actors who I'm sure could've portrayed and conveyed regret and anger over the past sufficiently without us needing to see slow-motion images of it. The meetings with people and communities along the journey become increasingly surreal as the film progresses, and this disturbed me. It took away the brutal, tough reality that the film began with. This is a classic sort of Western, similar to The Naked Spur, attempting to expose a moral, or question the notions of right and wrong, but I feel that it loses track of itself towards the end. They weren't brave enough with a conclusion, and I felt slightly unsatisfied. Overall, though, this is a compelling story, and the inclusion of Liam Neeson is always a reason to watch a film. We'll have to wait to see how it compares to the others.

Tuesday

Be Kind, Rewind is the latest film from Michel Gondry, director of Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep. I think the partnership of Jack Black and Mos Def works extremely well - one exaggerating scenarios as the other understates them. It's an intriguing idea - all the movies in a video shop are erased, forcing the two characters to re-enact them - but it does teeter on the edge of being a 'concept film', or, if you prefer, a 'one joke movie'. The humour and inventiveness of Gondry, however, as well as the performances of Black and Def keep you interested. A fascinating and seductive world is invented for you. The problem here, though, is the sentimental over-used Hollywood plot that runs behind the creativity. The video store is threatened with closure and destruction. The characters must do something to save it, and also the community. The conclusion is unsatisfactory, leaving many plot-lines unresolved, and trying to seduce us with a sickly sweet ending. This could have been a truly brilliant movie, especially if they tried to say more about creativity, copyright, and the current trend for sequels, franchises and reproductions in modern American cinema. Unfortunately, this remains just a sweet, light-hearted movie, but it will be interesting to see if Gondry can adapt his incredible creativity to tackle more serious themes in the future.

Thursday

I should preface my remarks on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by saying that I have little patience for musicals. I went to see this movie, however, on the understanding that it was a very un-musical musical, and because it was directed by Tim Burton. He's a director that I initially liked, but have come to be suspicious of. Are any of his movies actually any good? Ed Wood, perhaps, is remarkable, but it stands as a rare example rather than a general trend. Anyway, this is a subsequent issue. The singing starts within about thirty seconds of this film beginning, and thus immediately I was on edge. Perhaps what irritates me is the singing of unspectacular lines. I don't mind songs at passionate, dramatic moments, when a character is in tension, but when a character sings 'I'm walking down the street', or something equally mundane, I am tempted to punch them. I was, however, gripped by the plot (this coming from a play by Christopher Bond), and tried to engage with the characters. The stage design, as always with Burton, looks far too artificial, and the speeding camera shots through the East-end streets were unnecessary, annoying, and failed to give the film the scope or size intended. It still felt like a series of solitary sets with nothing tying them together. The songs kept slowing the pace down. Towards the end, however, as the inevitable conclusion drew nearer, the film does pick up, and the finale is satisfyingly grim. The performance of Depp was appropriate, but he is hardly doing anything innovative here. Overall, what was interesting about this movie came from other sources. Of course it is well made and produced, but I don't think it is a good, lasting film, and it's been significantly over-praised in the media.

Wednesday

There Will be Blood is almost a masterpiece. Instead, it is just a very, very good film, which isn't a bad thing, of course. I hesitate to say what you would need to add or remove to make it better, but the answer has to be 'not much'. It is a remorselessly intelligent movie which treats its audience as intelligent. Someone told me P. T. Anderson is too contrived, but I think they have a different meaning of that word than me. The music sustains a grim mood, and the lack of sound effects and silence in horrific moments makes them even more horrifying. The humour at times seemed out of place, and this may have come from the book, but was missing in the rest of the film. Daniel Day Lewis, on screen for almost the entire film, puts in an amazing performance. At times, however, it felt too intense, too 'method', and the difference between this and his role in Gangs of New York seemed minor. The ending was perhaps the only major blemish, turning the film into a biography of the man, rather than a portrayal of part of his life. The brief flashback to happier times, and the last scene itself, felt out of touch with what had gone before. But these are minor complaints. This is easily one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

Wednesday

No Country For Old Men, or 'Old Country For No Men' as the people behind me in the ticket-queue called it, is a remarkable film. The Coen brothers return to the serious themes of some their earlier work (Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing), but with the twenty years of intervening experience added to it. They still retain some of their humour, but it comes from the characters themselves, rather than being contained in the style of the film. The plot is a little reminiscent of Fargo, but that is neither really their fault, nor a great problem. This movie is sombre and threatening with, to begin with at least, little dialogue, and little music that I noticed. For the majority of its length I thought it was superb, but the ending disturbed me. Not wanting to give too much away, but it seemed like a substantial character was dealt with unsubstantially. It felt as if perhaps they had suddenly had to condense a large part of the book to fit it into the film. I don't know. The conclusion itself caught me when I wasn't quite concentrating (such that I had to go find the novel in a bookstore and read the last pages), but perhaps it is a good thing that I can still be surprised by a movie. I did, however, feel strangely unsatisfied, despite this being I think a brilliant film.

Saturday

I never had any intention of watching About a Boy. I'd read High Fidelity when I was younger, and marginally enjoyed it, but it wasn't the kind of fiction I continued reading, or especially wanted to see adapted into movies. So, Hugh Grant in what seemed like another romantic comedy role trying to scrape the last bit of success out of the achievements of Four Weddings and a Funeral. Nonetheless, I somehow found myself with nothing else to watch last night, and decided to give the film a chance. Most reviews seemed to be 'better than you'd expect', which was encouraging. And, overall, I'd have to say it was better than I'd expected. This does not, however, mean it was good. The director simply wasn't brave enough with the material. The first thing to do is get rid of the voice-over narration. And this isn't a romantic comedy, it's been mis-advertised. Hugh Grant's relationship with Rachel Weisz takes about five minutes. The rest of the film is devoted to how he deals with the boy. Without the richness of a book, the film is unbalanced, and becomes bizarre. The ending isn't at all satisfactory or convincing. But I'm being too harsh. This wasn't a bad movie, it's just that it didn't make much of an attempt to rise above a standard that had been set eight years earlier.

Friday

I don't remember the cinema release of Double Jeopardy. I wouldn't be surprised if it went straight to video, at least in this country. It does have big stars, Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd, but I think the problems start with the title itself. When I heard it I thought 'I've seen that before', and that's a terrible thing for a movie title to do. It should excite and inspire you. When I started watching it, however, I realised I hadn't seen it before. The plot, though, felt familiar: a woman's husband dies and she is accused of the murder. She is sent to prison, only to discover that he isn't actually dead. The film tries to encompass too much. The woman spends six years in prison. This is too heavy an experience to drift over in two minutes with a montage (which they do). It would've been better to begin the film with her emerging from prison. Then we could engage with her better. This movie is really not much more than a TV film. It is interested more in story (which would be ok if the story was fascinating), rather than in a way of telling that story. It has a strange mixture of happy and grim moments. Perhaps the director's hand was forced by producers but, overall, there is no excuse for anyone making a movie like this.