Change Your Image
alphabetgreen1996
Reviews
Kids (1995)
"Gritty" is not the word.
As an English man born in the 1960s (when mods and rockers were fighting on Brighton beach, I have to ask myself if this film shocks me. It doesn't (although the amount of early teenage nudity was too much. An equally strong message could have been put across with far more subtlety in that area) because thinking back to when I was a 16-17 year old art student, apart from kicking 7 tonnes of sh*t out of an innocent bystander and deflowering pre-pubescent virgins (virgins yes, but 16-18 year old ones in my case), there wasn't a lot of that film that I didn't do myself. Soft drugs, under-age drinking, even shoplifting will figure in the lives of most young people. It certainly did in mine (not so much the shoplifting, I have to say) until I caught myself on and joined the Air Force. So when you consider that this film is about kids growing up in one of the most notoriously violent cities in the world, after an hour of watching it, I was shocked (although far from disappointed) that I hadn't seen one single firearm being pulled.
However, the documentary-style filming of these "fallen" characters does lend a certain grittiness to one's viewing experience, in that the style of acting and nature of dialogue is far more candid in its realism than your average film. I even had some sympathy for the "Casper" character after he gave the little girl some fruit and donated some money to a paraplegic beggar on the train. That was of course until he instigated a vicious multi-assault on a member of the general public. I sort of lost him at that point.
It seems ridiculous that many reviewers have accused the film-makers here, of being exploitative. To whom, may I ask? Certainly not the actors. I believe that this film was a major platform for one Chloe Sevigny (now, a highly successful actor, model and fashion designer) and kick started her career, as it did for one or two of the other kids.
I've yet to see the last half hour of this movie, but I will shortly. So far, I've been very impressed by all concerned, especially the young actors. And I would quite happily have given it 10 if they would have eased up on the child nudity a bit.
2081 (2009)
Chandler Tuttle, eh? Nice going, Sunshine!
If that was a debut direction, I hope the above will be working again. I've never seen or heard such vision (and I've not read the story). A simple story with a great premise and near perfect treatment. I can quite honestly say that I had goose bumps watching and listening to the orchestra when it was being led by the cello soloist, which is saying something because as a composer myself, I'm not easily fazed. All the cast were magnificent, especially the Scottish actor, James Cosmo. There seems to be a lot of British actors affecting American accents and vice versa, which whilst seemingly unnecessary, works if the actor(s) can pull it off, and James Cosmo certainly can.
I really do hope to see witness more of Tuttle's work because what I just saw blew me away, and it will blow you away too, no matter how equal you are.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
A sad ending does not necessarily a bad movie make!!
I've just finished watching the DVD of both Spiderman sequels tonight. That was after reading glowing reviews about Spiderman 2 and mediocre/bad reviews about Spiderman 3. Now I know why. The former ended on a high and the latter didn't. OK, people thought there were too many super(anti)heroes in the 3rd one. Maybe, but I thought it balanced out alright. But one should not be too quick to judge the film based on the way you feel about the ending. I thought 2 was really slow to get going and didn't really move until the science demonstration by the good doctor. And the only real action was on the train. In contrast, 3 had me hooked from the beginning. All these little stories popping up. In fact the best line of the movie was Peter Parker's when he was emptying sand out of his boots: "Where do all these guys keep coming from?" followed closely by: "Oh God, I hate these!" when his mate was throwing spinning blades at him.
My actual criticism will surprise most people, and that was, that for $200 million plus, the effects were disappointing. I was ready to be blown away by them but they seemed to be pretty run-of-the-mill in comparison to the first two movies and other films of that ilk (the effects in Superman Returns were better, to be honest). I mean, that Sandman (when he was huge, towards the end of the movie)looked like he had been drawn on the film by a kid, for goodness sake.
All in all, ten for ambition, seven for entertainment value (and that's the only category any review should really be marked upon).
Eroica (2003)
"Everything's different as of today"
"Everything's different as of today" said a weary Josef Haydn, and how right he was.
"Eroica" is the best film about Beethoven that I have seen. OK, I've only seen three others, one of which was made in the 70s and I can't remember the name of that one. The other two were "Immortal Beloved" which was good, and "Copying Beethoven" which was horrendous. What attracted me to this movie was the clever direction and how it was made watchable despite the entire work being played throughout. When I say "despite", don't get me wrong, I'm a composer and I loved the music, but to be able to base an entire film around the complete performance (OK then, a rehearsal) of a particularly long work whilst simultaneously retaining visual and cinematic interest is a tricky task, and the director rose to the challenge magnificently. Ian Hart was convincing (unlike Ed Harris's comically over-acted portrayal, although his makeup was very good) and one of a very professional cast indeed. Isn't Fenella Woolgar gorgeous? Such a sexy nose! And so to the music. What was interesting was the fact that although Elliot Gardiner's soundtrack was obviously not that of which we see, it WAS played on period instruments. The biggest clue being when hearing the valveless horns playing the few notes that were not to be found within the harmonic series (on an Eb crook) sounding a bit flatulent. It also helps to know that John Elliot Gardiner is really hot on period instruments. I personally prefer modern orchestral instruments, but nothing can be taken away from the superb performance by this ensemble. Also the synchronisation must have been extremely tricky because all the musicians in shot were actually playing the music together, whilst acting simultaneously (they would have had to, to gurn their faces like they did as if the music was something completely new, which it so obviously was).
But what really made the movie work was the silent reaction to the music of the surrounding gentry and servants. It really helped to bring tears to my eyes.
A fabulous two hours of my time spent. Heartily recommended!!!