jamesdeanstolemyturkey Reviews

Ghost World (2001)

it seems, from other reviews on this page, this is a widely misunderstood film

[14 July 2002]

A significant number of reviews I have read regarding Ghost World complain about "nothing" happening. This is simply untrue. Having read the book by Daniel Clowes and being sceptical and admiring of it in roughly equal measure, I was very pleased to see the film far surpassed the book in excellence. Another book that can be likened to Ghost World is The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, and even The Graduate shares themes with Ghost World. The narrative revolves in all three around characters who have reached a juncture in their life where the road splits many different ways, causing confusion.

The wonderful thing about Ghost World, however, is that Enid's reluctance to grow old is accentuated by the other characters ensuring their lives advance. Even Seymour "grows up" when he finally meets his attractive blonde. Constant reminders of Enid's immaturity make this film. When the two visit Josh's apartment and he is not in, Enid scrawls an immature and explicit note to him and hangs it on the door knob. But we hear Becky ask "Are you really gonna leave that?" This is one of the first signs of a difference between Becky and Enid. More follow, particularly the job hunting fiasco, in which Becky quickly finds and keeps her bum counter job in a coffee house, where as Enid jumps from job to job, her immature cynicism ensuring job loss.

Plenty happens in this film. Not least the ending, which, contrary to something I have read, is not an ending that the director rashly consturcting to rescue a failing storyline. Thankfully, the ending from the book was retained for the film, and it proves to be similarly poignant on screen. This is not a bus to nowhere, it is a bus out of nowhere. Enid finally finds a direction in her life - even if the direction is wide and undefined.

My only criticisms of Ghost World is that 1) the directing was tepid, showing little flare whatsoever, which detracts from the film and 2) Enid's university application in the book was not kept in the film. This was a particularly pivotal point in the book I felt, and it was unfortunate it was not kept in the film.

However, the acting is enjoyable - Buscemi is wonderful as the lugubrious Seymour and Birch is commendable as Enid. The comedy is a plus point in the film, however, I object to it being defined as a comedy, as the book was not and people may have seen this film expecting incisive comedy when the real story is far far more subtle than the frank comedy.

Definitely see this film. The desperate nature of the two protagonists is quite heartbreaking, the comedy characters are suitably cliched to ensure lightweight laughs (such as the hilarious store manager), and the ending is very good.

I give this film eight out of ten.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

a serious disappointment

[12 May 2002]

The special effects in this film are absolutely fantastic. The lightsbre battles (particularly in the finale) are very well choreographed, and the pod race really does give an impression of very high speed, which is impressive. However, this film can't decide who it's target audience. In Britain this film was given a Universal rating. That means that a three year old could have gone and watched:

1) Battles in which death and destruction are trivialised 2) Liam Neeson impaled on a lightsabre albeit without gore 3) Darth Maul severed in half, tumbling to his death

I don't want to turn this into a rant about certificates and I really am all for a relaxation of film certification in Britain, but really that sort of material needed a Parental Guidance rating. Also, the complicated fictitious politics of the republic are mixed with the puerile humour offered by the Gungans. But what three year old is going to be able to comprehend the politics? And what thirty three year old is going to be riveted by the superficial nature of these politics? Also, and this is from a purely British point of view. What the hell was going on with those accents? Ewan McGragor is Scottish, a stones throw away from England, and yet he has the most unrealistic representation of the English language I've ever had the misfortune to aurally experience! Amidala's accent is lamentable, and the racial politics of this film are dubious to say the least. The pigeon english of the gungans, and their brash, loud nature is a stereotypical represenation of the Jamaican stylee accent. The chinese laced accent of the trade federation fish faced fools is almost offensive. Why do the righteous have a) if they are regal or enigmatic an English accent (eg. the Jedi Knights, Queen Amidala) or b) an american accent if a little more gung ho and lively (eg. Anakin)? I suppose Senator Palpatine had impeccable English, but all the same, you can see where I'm coming from. Also, the acting was below par. McGregor is a fantastic actor (see Trainspotting or any other of his movies), so what's the deal? So is Liam Neeson. They were doing their very best with a fairly appaling script. The narrative is confused, there are too many fortuitous coincidences and the simplistic nature of Star Wars "good vs. bad" has not been altered. Which for me is the most irritating part of it all. Star Wars, and I know this has been said way too many times, is too much a reflection of it's influences. The bible is too prominent (eg. Darth Vader the archangel (see Milton's Paradise Lost)), its simple good vs. bad structure too visible. On the other hand, to kids (or modern theatre audiences as the case unfortunately is) who just want amazing special effects and a poor script masked by incredible special effects, this film answers all their prayers. Its main problem is that it relies too much on the fact it is a star wars movie to redress all its shortcomings. If this were not part of the saga, I have little doubt it would have been a monumental flop.

The Hole (2001)

Promising but... what a shame

[13 March 2002]

I'D RATHER YOU DIDN'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SEEN IT, JUST IN CASE I SPOIL IT FOR YOU!

When Liz staggers, tattered, shocked and disturbed in a blood stained coat through the halls of residence in an exclusive British boarding school in the opening scene of the film, which has thus far been intense and atmospheric, I begin thinking - "This is promising." But then, and I don't wish to be known as a pedant or anything, she stumbles up to a British telephone in her British boarding school and calls the British emergency services, saying, in a British falsetto...

"Nine... one... one."

WHAT?????????????

911? The most basic and fundamental of research errors, the number for the police, has been overlooked.

I know I am watching an American film. Ever since I first saw her in American Beauty (in which she managed to hold her own against Spacey and Boening beautifully. I have found a brilliant allure about her. I so wanted to like this film. And I did. I would have liked it more if it had been a little more culturally sensitive.

All American-Britons in the film had flawless British accents - but that's just it - a regional dialect here and a glottal stop there would have been far more believable.

The concept itself is brilliant - a tale of adolescent obsession and peer pressure leading to insanity and homicide. And there are moments in the film that are genuinely disturbing, for example when we see Liz beside her vomiting best friend, ignoring her totally, preferring to obsess about Mike - her teenage fantasy incarnate.

Technically, the film is superb, and fragmented fast shots of the bodies and effective lighting and mise-en-scene in the Hole itself are brilliant, but everything set in the present is fairly terrible, mostly due to dubious acting and underdeveloped script work. The contrived atmosphere of the first fifty minutes is representative of Liz's tale itself - false, and when we do see the account as it happened, it is shocking and tense (although the cheesy funeral scene is fairly diabolical).

The biggest problem around the film is the fact that the characters, even Liz, are underdeveloped and the script and issues (eg that of identity, ie belonging - "The be popular at (name of high school), you have to be either..." said by both Martin and Liz) are too. Her obession is a fantastic premise for a film and its context in the hole is excellent but then it is damaged by a throw away attitude to making decent psychological thrillers - in this case, the teen horror genre was too much of an influence (although the grissly death scenes were very effective).

An excellent idea, but seriously underdeveloped, especially when placed in a market with peers such as Cube, with a lower budget and totally unknown actors (I'm sorry, Thora, I'm sorry!!)which manages to be shocking, timeless and tense.

Watch it, it's good. But note that its potential was done poorly by using American actors to create a pseudo-Britain, and "American-England," and the sometimes unbelievable dialogue.

Ratcatcher (1999)

Beautifully haunting, but fundamentally flawed

[23 February 2002]

Ratcatcher, a tragic but touching tale of a young Glaswegian boy's coming of age and increased alienation from the society to which he belongs, shows its director's roots as a photographer (that is, Ramsay trained in photography) all too obviously, in its strikingly impressive and poetic metaphors and symbolic, seemingly irrelevant shots of inanimate objects. People are often quick to pigeon hole films of this kind, "Is it social realism?" "Is it a return to the kitchen sink dramas of the 1960s?" Is it actually necessary to define it in such a crass way? I thought the film was an excellent contrast of the beautiful and horrific, and the perverted life of its young protagonist, who has the typical naivity of a child, but has been forced to grow up prematurely after his friend is accidentally drowned in the local canal by his hand. The concept of entrapment is played on throughout the film, we see the same locations a number of times and rarely any others. Even when we first glimpse the field, and see his aspirations of freedom from the abject poverty he faces every day, it is seen through a window frame, suggesting his aspirations are as distant as a picture on the wall. And yet, despite the impressive cinematography, decent acting and excellent contrasts of conflicting emotions, the film is flawed. After all, what is the point of creating a film which desperately wants to evoke, when it is (in my opinion at least) a fairly unwatchable film? I am studying the film presently, and while I can appreciate its ambition and beauty I am constantly reminded that, should this film ever be aired on TV, I would turn it off after ten minutes. It is not an entertaining film. I would not say dull, simply of little substance as a piece of entertainment. Perhaps that is not its goal, but to impact society and affect peoples' feelings, a film must first compel the viewer to view on. Another, minor complaint is that watching the film is like trying to play tennis on an enclosed court, with fifty tennis balls. So many issues are addressed (and yes, I understand that it is a good and accurate depiction of every day life; none of us deal with one thing at a time), that the viewer is liable to be left feeling bombarded, albeit slowly and subtly. An ambitious and beautiful film, but in my opinion, it is flawed.

Ratcatcher (1999)

Beautifully haunting, but fundamentally flawed

[23 February 2002]

I'd just like to be safe: if you haven't seen the film, I'd rather you didn't read this in case I spoil something for you.

Ratcatcher, a tragic but touching tale of a young Glaswegian boy's coming of age and increased alienation from the society to which he belongs, shows its director's roots as a photographer (that is, Ramsay trained in photography) all too obviously, in its strikingly impressive and poetic metaphors and symbolic, seemingly irrelevant shots of inanimate objects. People are often quick to pigeon hole films of this kind, "Is it social realism?" "Is it a return to the kitchen sink dramas of the 1960s?" Is it actually necessary to define it in such a crass way? I thought the film was an excellent contrast of the beautiful and horrific, and the perverted life of its young protagonist, who has the typical naivity of a child, but has been forced to grow up prematurely after his friend is accidentally drowned in the local canal by his hand. The concept of entrapment is played on throughout the film, we see the same locations a number of times and rarely any others. Even when we first glimpse the field, and see his aspirations of freedom from the abject poverty he faces every day, it is seen through a window frame, suggesting his aspirations are as distant as a picture on the wall. And yet, despite the impressive cinematography, decent acting and excellent contrasts of conflicting emotions, the film is flawed. After all, what is the point of creating a film which desperately wants to evoke, when it is (in my opinion at least) a fairly unwatchable film? I am studying the film presently, and while I can appreciate its ambition and beauty I am constantly reminded that, should this film ever be aired on TV, I would turn it off after ten minutes. It is not an entertaining film. I would not say dull, simply of little substance as a piece of entertainment. Perhaps that is not its goal, but to impact society and affect peoples' feelings, a film must first compel the viewer to view on. Another, minor complaint is that watching the film is like trying to play tennis on an enclosed court, with fifty tennis balls. So many issues are addressed (and yes, I understand that it is a good and accurate depiction of every day life; none of us deal with one thing at a time), that the viewer is liable to be left feeling bombarded, albeit slowly and subtly. An ambitious and beautiful film, but in my opinion, it is flawed.