Change Your Image
Juliette-10
Reviews
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Stop reading reviews, just go and see it
It's finally NZ's turn to see this film and now I totally understand the hype surrounding it at recent award ceremonies.
I really enjoyed this film - Danny Boyle and his cinematographers have outdone themselves by managing to capture the 'bigness' of India- the sounds, the sights, the vastness of the landscapes and the sheer amount of people. However the individuals within this place are not forgotten with the nine actors who play Jamal, Salim and Katika doing an outstanding job of making their characters' 'ordinariness' extraordinary.
A lot has been made about the way Jamal's story unfolds (in flashback we are shown how this 'cheat' really did know the answers to Who Wants to be a Millionaire). I haven't read the book Q&A on which the movie is based so I don't know whether this is a feature introduced during the screenplay or not. Either way I think it works and stylistically it is very appropriate as it reminded me of Bollywood movies that I've seen.
That said it isn't all glitz and glamour and Boyle, as his fans no doubt expect, has not shied away from the darker aspects of slum life. However he does this respectfully and without exploiting his characters. What is perhaps most amazing to me about this film is that, even after showing us the sheer desperation of these characters, Boyle still manages to pull it together for a truly exciting finish.
Right now there are vast numbers of positive reviews around about this movie so you will just have to go and see it.
Babel (2006)
I can't watch this stuff
Maybe it's me, maybe it's my job but I couldn't make it past the thirty-minute mark with this movie. Because that's what it is - a movie, art, whatever. Although children do engage in sexual behaviour that is no reason to serve it up in such a voyeuristic fashion to an adult audience. And what's with the pulling head's off of chickens? Did this pass muster with the American Humane Society? The shame of it is that this was probably the sort of movie I would have liked - certainly the cinematography was beautiful (where it didn't involve the kids) and I enjoyed the way it wove the individual stories together. Surely it must be possible for director's to be 'edgy' without pandering to the wrong sort of people?
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
They got it right
Well I've gone over to the Dark Side and it's a much sexier place I can tell you.
Loved the movie - really benefits from professional script-writers this time round and I heard that apparently Lucas left a lot of the scene direction to his AD and you can tell. This one can actually claim to be a Star Wars movie. Yoda is much better - good decision to go digital I think and the fight between him and Darth Sidious is awesome.
Hayden Christensen and Ewen McGregor really come into their own in this film (because they've been allowed to I think - see comments about AD). HC looks awesome - apparently put on an extra 11 kilos to play the grown Anakin and that's a good thing (okay I realise only some of you will appreciate the gratuitous topless scenes). Natalie Portman leaves the butt-kicking behind in this one (the fans will know why) which is actually good because she really shines in these sorts of roles (eg Mathilda in The Professional).
There's a lot of digs at the current US administration in this one - at one point Senator Amidala comments "there is the death of democracy to the sound of rapturous applause" (or something like that I've only seen it once so far) and lots of navel gazing about which side is in fact the "good" side in this one. But ultimately the moral of the story is that the ends never justify the means - even if you do have prophesy backing you up (and it's not just the prophesy you're thinking of).
King Arthur (2004)
Thankfully this Arthur does not come with a wife, 3 kids and a labrador
I have to admit I was sceptical to see that Jerry Bruckheimer was making King Arthur - an excuse to combine the magnitude of Gladiator with the blood-thirsty self-righteousness of Braveheart for the lucrative (Northern) summer season. However where Braveheart takes the truth and turns it into a fairytale, this movie actually lifts the legend of King Arthur from the almost inherent campness of other productions to offer something both thoughtful and entertaining.
I've heard and read a lot said about Clive Owen's understated performance as King Arthur and on reflection I have to disagree with the bulk of what has been said. Owen, I believe, has deliberately avoided offering too much to ensure King Arthur remains an enigmatic character - he is a Captain of a Roman unit, he tells people what to do he doesn't explain why or how. Thankfully this Arthur does not come with a wife, 3 kids and a labrador - he is what he is, a warrior who cares for the people.
I was also impressed with the battle scenes that got their point across without becoming exploitative. So too was the photography which enhanced the movie without turning it into a postcard for Irish tourism.
There were faults - no doubt the medieval scholars will have a ball pointing out the anarchronisms and yes the role of Guinevere is wasted on Keira Keightly. However the movie has stayed true to the heart of the Arthurian legends - that of people who would stand up and protect the weak and innocent, of their loyalty and of their refusal to betray the trust placed in them. As a fan of the legend I'm glad I did actually go and see the film!
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
One not to miss - that means you too, Oscar.
First of all I should probably declare my bias - I am definitely NOT a Speilberg fan. So when I heard the hoopla on this film - as yet another gem from the Speilberg stable I was sceptical. However, I did find two reasons to overcome my aversion to Steve and go anyway - the fact that it is based on a real-life person (hey, it might be educational) and secondly, that it signals the end of a two-year hiatus for DiCaprio. Okay, okay - I'm sure there are quite a few of you out there who base his entire career on Titanic - but for those of us who have seen a number of his smaller, 'indie' projects you'll know what I mean.
And, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Gone are the long build-ups that Speilberg favours. Out, too, goes all of the schmaltz he has tended to dollop onto his movies of late. And, probably best of all, he gives us a movie in which Tom Hanks doesn't cry (oh come on, name another one!). Instead we get a tightly-scripted foray into the world of grand larceny through the eyes of a 17-year old boy.
DiCaprio and Walken are both brilliant in their respective roles. Walken is both endearing and infuriating as the idealistic dreamer of a father who can't (or won't) understand why the IRS keep pursuing him for his taxes. DiCaprio, on the other hand, pulls off a double-whammy by being both enigmatic enough to be able to pull off the con-jobs while at the same time, never allowing you to forget that he is only a boy. DiCaprio's treatment of 'Frank' is neither condescending or trite - something many actors today could learn when playing teenagers.
However, that is not to say the movie is without its flaws. The first is Hanks. Often held up to be one of the greatest actors today, here he flounders against not only DiCaprio and Walken but against much of the supporting cast as well. He just doesn't seem to be able to find a rhythm for his character and instead seems to be trying a different tack in each scene.
The other flaw is that obsessive need of many American directors to bring psychological theory into their movies to increase the dramatic gravitas. We do not need to be told the reasons why 'Frank' embarked on his crime spree for two reasons: 1, DiCaprio has already done it for him through his sensitive, three-dimensional portrayal of 'Frank'; and 2, because the charm of this kind of movie ultimately resides in the fact that each of us find a certain appeal in 'Frank's' actions - both the audacity and the flair he shows in being able to pull off these heists. In saying all of that, this movie is one not to miss - and that means you too, Oscar. DiCaprio was robbed for What's Eating Gilbert Grape - don't let it happen again.
Best Men (1997)
This film is mad.
I have to admit Best Men was one of those films I had passed dozens of times at the video store - every time meaning to check it out. But I am glad that I finally did. In a way this is just like other off-beat, crime capers. The plot won't keep you guessing but then, that's not the point. Instead the pace of the film matches the laid-back town where it is set. And the movie definitely plays for laughs over any attempt at pathos. Which is good, the last thing we need is yet another movie trying to be more than it really is. All the audience is asked to do is kick back and enjoy the ride. However the film is not without its surprises - namely the performances of Dean Cain and Sean Patrick Flanery. Dean Cain is a revelation - forget Superman, this guy should definitely aim for parts like these. He brings a sensitivity to his role that belies his previous tv role. And Sean Patrick Flanery gets a mention for his adeptness with Shakespearean dialogue. There are not many actors on the big screen today who make it sound so easy - especially when you consider that not all of the dialogue spoken is original (and therefore with no prior standards or interpretations to guide the way). Kudos to the writers too, for doing such a great job. However, don't let the Shakespeare bit put off any action fans - there's more than enough to keep the blood pumping. Shakespeare plus shootouts and a groom who is going to be reeaallly late - this movie is mad.
Solomon and Gaenor (1999)
A dark and unforgiving tale of a modern Romeo and Juliet.
Solomon And Gaenor never lets you forget for an instant that this is a doomed romance. Unlike Shakespeare's version, there is no sympathetic character to offer a glimmer of hope to the young lovers. Rather the story takes its cue from its bleak setting in a Welsh mining town in 1911.
This is not to say, however, that the film is maudlin - it isn't. Rather the horrifying reality of Solomon and Gaenor's situation adds poignancy to their love. A delicate and intricately detailed dress that Solomon makes for Gaenor serves as a reminder that, like the dress, their relationship is too beautiful and fragile to last in such hostile surrounds. On a more technical note, the blend of languages (Yiddish, Gaelic, and English) works well, adding an air of authenticity without being self-conscious or knowing. The two leads, Gruffudd and Roberts bring a freshness and vitality to their roles that sidesteps any stereotypes. These are not Byronic figures, stalking moodily across a barren landscape. They are two people made happy by love in a dismal place.
I definitely recommend this film.