All entries for January 2008
January 18, 2008
I've seen a number of films over the last couple of months, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on them with you all. I'll try and keep each review brief, as there are a few :-)
It's easy to say that as Ridley Scott directed this, it was a very good film; he does, after all, have a good track record. Whilst it was masterfully directed, as one would expect, the real joy of this film is to be found in the treatment of the story and the acting. Denzel Washington shone, and I'm gaining respect for Russell Crowe who has never in the past struck me as a particularly good actor; I found his performance in Gladiator rather wooden at times, for example. 2004's A Beautiful Mind changed all that; his portrayal of the great mathematician John Nash was truly moving. He's not as good in this as he was in A Beautiful Mind, but it was another example of how he has discovered or grown his acting abilities.
In the same vein as films such as Blow, American Gangster tells the story of the real-life drugs baron Frank Lucas (touting heroin in this case, as opposed to Blow's cocaine), his descent as the power and wealth accrued corrupts, and his moral recovery. That, and how he allegedly helped to bring down a large portion of the DEA for corruption, although the veracity of this claim is being disputed. Lucas' operation was a marvel of organisation and negotiation, employing the same "direct from the wholesaler" technique to heroin as has traditionally been applied to things like white goods.
This is a long film, but doesn't really feel it until it's nearly over; there's a lot of story to cram in, and Scott just about manages it without dragging in the detail too much.
I've not got much to say on this one, as it was generally pretty rubbish. I did, however, go to see this in 3-d, which made it worth seeing, not least because a lot of it had obviously been made specifically for the 3-d version. It was an enjoyable way to spend the time, but it was not a great work in any sense, and the only reason I woud recommend it would be for the 3-d effects and the interesting rendering techniques used. Seeing it in regular 2-d probably wouldn't give you the necessary distractions from the movie's shortcomings.
3-d version: 3/5; 2-d version: 2.5/5
I am Legend
Will Smith stars in this story of the last man alive in New York after a deadly virus sweeps the world, killing or mutating the entire population save the 1% who are immune to its effects.
I am Legend is the tale of Robert Neville (Smith), a military scientist who has stayed behind in New York ("this is my Ground Zero") despite the advice to get the hell out. He feels responsible for what has happened, and is looking for a cure. Neville has been in New York, alone, for nearly three years when we join him at the start of the film, and the long shots of New York empty and abandoned are nothing less than chilling. I literally had tingles running up and down my spine for a full 30 seconds or so. But even this is indebted to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, which did the same thing to London.
I am Legend is really two films, and this is what what lets it down. Particularly because the second film is a bit crap. The first film, running for the first hour of the picture's 1.5hr running time, is an interesting psychological study of a man who's been alone for too long. Neville's only friend and companion in this first film is Sam, his dog, and it focusses on Neville's use of routine to cope with the loneliness and boredom. Most people would have gone insane and probably killed themselves in this situation, but Neville is driven by his desire to find a cure to atone for his crimes. And the deaths of his family. That's not to say he's compis mentis; he holds conversations with mannequins, knows every line of Shrek off by heart, and has difficult adjusting to human company. Will Smith plays Neville fantastically, carrying an hour's worth of monologue as though it were the most natural thing in the world - he is Robert Neville.
The second film is an action-packed half-hour that winds the story up too quickly and in a different direction from the one you might expect. There's a significant event at the end of the first film that leads us to the second, but it doesn't stop I am Legend feeling like it's spiralled out of control. The last half-hour contains comparatively little plot development and is mainly zombies/vampires attacking Neville's house, and this is to the film's detriment.
I had high hopes for this film, expecting it to be on a par with I, Robot but once it leaves behind the sometimes excellent first part, it loses any chance of even clutching at I, Robot's tail feathers.
Charlie Wilson's War
I cannot recommend this film highly enough; it is an absolute joy to watch. For fans of The West Wing in its original incarnation, you will recognise Aaron Sorkin's writing at its best throughout this film. This is an accomplishment itself, because Sorkin's writing often takes a turn for the sentimental and he doesn't handle that sort of material as well as he does sharp political commentary. As someone once remarked about Sports Night, Sorkin's first success:
It's like all the worst bits of The West Wing thrown together.
Charlie Wilson's War, however, is the exact opposite. It's everything that The West Wing was when it was at its best, and somehow more too. The script is sharp, witty, and incisive. You could be forgiven for thinking that this was a comedy, the jokes come that thick and fast, but it's not. It has a serious core, and that core is the story of America's intervention in Afghanistan. No, not the 2001 incursion, but the original intervention, back in the 1980s on Reagan's watch. It tells the story of the congressman Charles Wilson, who inspired the covert action against the then Soviet Republic's invasion of Afghanistan. It was America that put the guns in the hands of the Afghan people, and, as Sorkin makes clear towards the end, it was America that didn't clean up afterwards.
Tom Hanks plays Charles Wilson very well, with — certainly by the end — more than enough humanity to make him a loveable old rogue rather than a man with questionable morals. Julia Roberts is disappointingly two-dimensional and uncommitted as Joanne Herring (compare this with her excellent starring role in Erin Brockovich), but doesn't appear in the film enough to take the shine off. Philip Seymour Hoffman as CIA agent Gust Avrakotos steals the show, however, providing pure gold in every scene he is in. The scene in Wilson's office when Gust and Wilson first meet is a masterclass in comic timing and farce.
Having seen Charlie Wilson's War, you can't help but feel that actually maybe there is something in all this political rhetoric about Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., sponsoring terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The methods employed are very clever and constantly maintain plausible deniability: for example, using Israel's stockpile of confiscated Russian weapons to arm the Afghans so that there was no evidence of America's involvement, not to mention getting Israel to side with Arabs.
Very highly recommended.
This is not a film about an American woman (Cate Blanchett) shot on a bus, supposedly by terrorists. This surprised me initially, as this is what the trailers seemed to promise, and I'm sure that had Alejandro González Iñárritu (most well known perhaps for 2003's 21 Grams) put together that film, it would have been excellent. What is delivered instead, however, is something far more outstanding and unique.
It's hard not to draw comparisons with Paul Haggis' Crash, but all those comparisons are favourable. Crash was an excellent film, but Babel is outstanding. Babel is to language and communication as Crash was to racial prejudice, but carries it off in a much more subtle manner, despite the obvious allusions of the title and the tagline ("If you want to be understood... Listen").
Like Crash, there are multiple and interwoven storylines traced concurrently. Unlike Crash, they are taken out of sync, and time becomes as elusive as the comprehension the characters so desperately seek. There's the married couple with problems that are in Morrocco to try and work things out; there's the Morroccan goat-farming family who purchase a rifle to keep the jackals away from their herd; there's the deaf-mute Japanese girl struggling to cope with her mother's suicide and rejection by men; and there's the Mexican nanny who takes her two charges to Mexico for her son's wedding and struggles to get back into the US that night with almost tragic consequences.
The film is at its most vocal when the characters aren't talking; the most comprehension between the characters is gained when they're not actively communicating. The Tokyo club scene is a clever and subtle exposition of this idea.
This is a film that will either affect you or leave you a bit cold; it's "arty" in places, particularly with some of the Tokyo scenes, and this might put off some people. But every story line is as moving as each of the others, as is the underlying theme.
January 04, 2008
Ok, so I'm in a position to be thinking about buying my first car. My first proper car. A horribly underpowered Ford Focus (that's otherwise pretty nice) doesn't really count, and a Vauxhall Nova certainly doesn't count, so I'm going to forget I drove them for the purposes of this post.
The main thing to bear in mind here is that I don't know much about cars. I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I have, to put it mildly, a very poor understanding of torque, and all I know about Brake Horsepower is that it has a silly name, and somehow describes the power of an engine. As such, I know my Focus has about -2365bhp.
However, having been given Clarkson's latest book, Don't Stop Me Now, for Christmas, it's safe to say I'm quite excited by the prospect of driving a proper car. One that does 0-60 in less than a day. One that is a driver's car, because I'm the sort of person that likes driving to be fun. I'd like to feel the G-forces when I accelerate; you get more G-force from licking a spoon than you do from accelerating in my Focus. One thing I do love about my Focus, though (and there are more than just this), is the boot. It's huge for a car that size.So I'm interested in a number of models, and intend to undergo a long try-before-you-buy process of test-driving everything with four wheels that comes within a sensible budget. What is deemed sensible is still up for grabs, as is the insurance premium.
My Holy Grail, perhaps, is the Golf R32. Less chavvy than the Focus ST, but obviously still a solid driver's car and well-spec'd. Conversely, a new Mondeo or a Citroën C4 or a less souped-up Golf would do nicely. The reputed reliability of Citroën is putting me off the C4, though, and I'm not 100% sure I necessarily want a family car just yet, however much fun the new Mondeo looks. There's also the option of getting my Dad's Mercedes C220 diesel second hand in October. Not that I'd be able to drive it until I'm 25 in March 2009 for obvious insurance-related reasons.
I don't know whether I should be looking for petrol or diesel engines: I gather that diesel is more economical over large distances, but petrol is greener and cheaper and gives better performance. Apparently. Somehow. A lot of diesel engines seem to be turbo-charged, too; does this bring their performance up to the level of an "equivalent" petrol engine (if that even means anything)?
So, in essence, I'm opening this up for debate. What sort of thing do you think I should I be looking for? What can you recommend as being a reliable car that's fun to drive and sensibly-sized and -priced? What should I test drive first?