Archive
Review of 2011
Now that we’re firmly into 2012 I thought i’d take a moment to do a quick recap of my favourite films of 2011. This includes films released in Ireland in 2011, so January 2012 releases like The Artist and Shame will have to wait until this time next year to see if they made the grade.
The blog began in June, so any films I did not get a chance to review before then will not be included either. Also due to happenings beyong my control I did not get to see some of the releases I really should have, such as Midnight in Paris. Apolgies to these omissions I will be sure to catch up with you on DVD!!
Ok, first off!!! Best film!!
5. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
It was a poor summer for films but ROTPOTA delivered well beyond what was expected. I admit when I first heard about it I expected disaster, but kudos to the filmmakers who delivered a very different summer blockbuster to what we have come to expect. The human actors were the only let down but Andy Serkis more than made up for this portraying CGI ape Ceasar in a wonderful performance.
4. Drive
I’m still listening to the soundtrack to this one. I cannot wait for Danish Director Refns next film as he is the man to watch. Pure style and atmosphere resulting in a very very cool film.
3. Ghost Protocol: Mission Impossible
Another film I thought would be a disaster. The trailers, the posters, all making me believe Tom Cruise was about to crash his career but no, this was pure fun. Some great set pieces and a helluva great time in the cinema!
I expected good but not great from this given the mixed reaction by critics but was pleasantly surprised to find myself right in the middle of Puerto Rico knee deep in bottles of rum having a great time with Johnny Depp. An absolute gem of a film, ignore the critics and watch it.
1. Tree of Life
I’m afraid to watch this again in case I start to see cracks, but for the moment i’m still in awe at the skill of Malick. Film making like no other he creates such natural performances from his cast in what must be a painstaking process of film making and editing. All looking amazing and with an atmosphere I don’t quite understand and might not agree with but still respect the skills of Malick for creating it.
Honourable mentions: Sherlock Holmes, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Guard, Trollhunter
Guilty pleasures of the year: Captain America and Jurassic Park re-release!
And the worst: Warrior (yes I still hate it even though everyone else tells me it’s great!!), Horrible Bosses, Cowboys & Aliens
The most overated films of the year: Tinkor Tailor Soldier Spy, Moneyball, Hugo, Super 8
A lot of foreign language films which i’ve heard amazing things about, such as A Seperation, probably won’t appear in Ireland until 2012 so as to capitalise on their Oscar nominations, in case your wondering where they are!!
Let’s hope for a better year of films in 2012!
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Stieg Larssons book ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ uses the story of a millionaire’s murdered niece to introduce us to the characters that are to become the foundation of his best-selling trilogy. In my own humble opinion ‘Dragon Tattoo’ is the weakest of the three books but is essential in setting the foundations. Whereas book two and three fully get under the skin of Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander and also introduce some other great characters, Dragon Tattoo, bar a few character setting scenes, is primarily plot driven, unravelling the mystery clue by clue, scene by scene, and as such to anyone who has read the books or seen the original Swedish film this might be entertaining enough but not overly exciting stuff, but if you haven’t you’re likely to have a fine time at the cinema.
As you’ve probably picked up from the above yes I’ve read the books, and I’ve seen the original Swedish film (twice) so this cannot be a fair review. As much as I’d like not to, the books and original film are new enough releases so David Finchers version is going to have to deal with my mind making constant comparisons. When they announced the English language remake I found it too soon, and had little interest, but I’m a huge Fincher fan so was always going to be curious about anything he makes. The Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo was excellent but they made a mess of the sequels, so my hope would be that Fincher would eventually do justice to the second and third books. Given the films box office performance we’ll have to wait and see if Fincher will return to this franchise.
Daniel Craig plays Bloomkvist, a Swedish (apparently despite the London accent) journalist who’s just been sued for libel by a corporate giant. Feeling beaten and without much cash flow he reluctantly takes a job with ageing tycoon Henrik Vagner (Christopher Plummer) investigating the unsolved murder of his niece fourty years ago. Isolated on the Vanger Island in the depth of a Swedish winter Bloomkvist finds himself at odds with all members of the family, all suspects in the case. He soon enlists the assistance of private investigator Lisbeth Salander, girl genius and computer hacker, who has a hell of a lot of problems of her own, including her new guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick Van Wageningem) and his sadistic side.
Director Fincher has toned down his once kinetic energy style of filmmaking, and although Dragon Tattoo is a great looking film it is subtle in its style (bar an over the top title sequence). Every musical cue and edit is timed perfectly creating an excellent pace and the two and a half hour running time flies by. He makes great use of the cold Swedish setting; in several scenes the audience can almost feel the chill. The script by Steve Zaillian nicely gets most elements of the book in, improving on the Swedish version of the Wennerstorm affair and the characters love interests. There are a whole lot of characters going on, it could easily have lost the audience with the sheer volume, but the script somehow portrays them all in a way the audience find distinguishable.
The star of the book trilogy is the Salander character, and the great challenge with Salander is a director and actress establishing how to portray her. She’s a unique character that is very hard to derive from any other. As such full credit for this will always go to Naomi Rapace for her portrayal in the Swedish version, as there was no blueprint established. Rooney Mara does a great job (although I’m a bit puzzled by the Oscar nomination) capturing the character as we’d imagine, and showing full trust in Fincher. Her careless approach to friendship and its slight change nicely conveyed by the actress. Craig is great too, convincing as a journalist sharing Salanders similarly careless view of people, albeit one more professional.
The film might not lack anywhere, but for someone like me with a prior knowledge of the story you’ll notice certain things. The scenes with Salander being abused by her guardian don’t feel as claustrophobic as they did in the Swedish version, particularly the first mentioned scene I questioned why she didn’t just get up and walk away. Also you will be a bit disappointed by the similarity in tone, at some stages the lighting and costume seems identical, although the books do describe everything in detail so it’s hard to differ greatly without straying from them. And for both people who have and have not seen the original, seeing American actors pretending to be Swedish (talking English but with a ‘foreign’ accent) can just seem silly sometimes.
I’m giving this three out of five as it’s impossible for me to be overly excited by a film I know every plot turn to and seen the characters established already, but if you have nothing to compare this to you’ll probably find this a four or even five star film.
3 out of 5
Shame – f’in brilliant
Mockingly I saw this film on the same day the Oscars were announced. I hoped the Oscars would be different this year, accept that films are not as straight forward as they used to be and acknowledge the films that today’s audiences love even though your Granny might not. I sat there cringing as overhyped mess like Moneyball and Hugo got nominated for award after award. I almost swallowed that bleach when I heard Jonah Hill got nominated for best supporting actor. What? No Michael Fassbender nominated for best actor? Ah well, maybe he was overhyped anyway. Maybe the Oscars were right not to acknowledge him. I was wrong, both Fassbender and Shame deserve to be at least nominated if not winning every award under the sun. This is a brilliant film made all the more brilliant by its lead actor giving us hands down the performance of the year, if not one of the greatest performances ever.
Not near as explicit or sexually obsessed as some of you would like to believe, Shame tells the story of a thirty something Irishman living in New York, unable to shake off a troubled past and using sex as escapism. Fassbender plays Brandon, a man who walks the tightrope between charming and psychotic in his approach to picking up women. His mind is constantly on sex, spending his days looking up porn on his work PC and his evenings seducing whatever women he can or spending money on prostitutes. His life is constantly waiting for his next lay and the time in-between is a nightmare for Brandon. When his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) comes to visit his privacy is thrown out the window and he begins to realise that his obsession is slowly eating him up.
Reuniting with Hunger director McQueen, Fassbender obviously has a work colleague he can trust. McQueens directs the film in a style not many filmmakers would risk. When Sissy sings New York New York in a bar the camera stays uncomfortably close on Sissy and Brandon’s faces without cutting for long periods. It’s an uncomfortable moment for Brandon and the audience gets that too. Up until this moment Brandon has avoided his sisters’ gaze as much as possible, now his eyes are glued to her. McQueen doesn’t cut for the sake of cutting; the scene never once cuts to the band or skyline. Why? Because Brandons life is one of tunnel vision, constantly taking in only what he needs to so he can move on to his next lay. This isn’t the stylised long takes of DePalma or Scorcese, existing to inject energy and excitement, McQueen uses these takes several times in the film to demonstrate a characters focus or emotional change. He’s a brave director, tackling a subject most would avoid with a minimal story and letting the characters develop around the unspoken emotions, all accompanied by a great score.
Mulligan is great as Fassbenders sister, their bickering being an unpredictable elephant in the room that drives the plot. She gets under his skin and tolerates his insanity. We never know why she does but we somehow understand it through her look alone.
Fassbender is on fire, but not like you’ve seen any actor before. There’s nothing glamorous about this role, one second he’s charming the pants off a woman the next he’s crippled with fear and hate knee deep in his own tears. He goes from sexual predator to bipolar teenage angst in a split second and effortlessly. This is not a safe role. You’d never see George Clooney in a role like this. Fassbender is never afraid to lose inhibition physically and emotionally resulting in a performance that all other actors can only look at in awe.
Go fuck yourselves Oscars.
5 out of 5
The Artist – a correction
Apologies bit of a mistake in my review of The Artist. Star of silent films Rudolph Valentino was in fact Italian! Not Puerto Rican. Apologies people of Italy, I hang my head in shame.
The Artist – that’s all i’m sayin’ about that
It’s been a poor year for cinema. Maybe they’re in the foreign language films yet to be released, hoping to gain publicity with an Oscar nod, but I’m struggling to find more than one classic this year. Last year produced the gems that were 127 Hours, The Kings Speech and The Social Network to name a few. This year I struggle to think of a shortlist worthy of nomination. That’s not to play down the greatness of The Artist. A fine film indeed but not the classic the Weinsteins would like us to believe. Their studio needs an awards contender so they’ve pushed this out there with praise galore, with subtle hints in their publicity that this is Oscar worthy, in a manner of propaganda the North Korean government would be proud of.
Yes it’s good, yes it’s very good indeed, and should allow Director Michel Hazanavicius the freedom to continue creating some fine original films. Just don’t believe the hype. In any other year this would be a novelty film, a lot of fun but quickly forgotten, but due to the poor quality of cinema recently it’s found itself a frontrunner for every award under the sun. If it does win I have no bad feelings (rather this than Hugo) as for all its flaws it’s hard not to love this film.
Based loosely on Rudolph Valentino, the Puerto Rican immigrant who owned silent cinema in the twenties before sound came and people didn’t take to his ‘funny’ accent, Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, the king of silent cinema. Handsome, charming, and with a smile that lights up the screen, Valentin is gold to his studio. Women flock to see him and his personality seems infectious to all those around him, including extra on the rise to stardom Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) who he takes a shine to, much to his wifes dislike. Things start to go wrong with the introduction of sound to cinema and Valentin finds his silent films considered old and obsolete. Soon he separates from the studio and finds himself en route to rock bottom.
The use of silence is excellent. The first time the music stops and a huge crowd erupts in applause, all to silence, truly is mesmerising. In fact when the film suffers is when it starts to bring in sound, a David Lynch-esque nightmare scene distracts too much and is an awkward step in the films pace. Well shot in stunning black and white and a novel idea but not what the film needed. The actors have a lot of fun too. Although they don’t have the dialogue problem to worry about they do need to pay extra attention to expressions. Smiles alone must have taken weeks to perfect. Their profile is under constant scrutiny due to the restrictions of silent cinema but director and actors all show a great understanding of this and appear to have done a lot of silent film homework.
The story while far from original is a pleasant enough tale. It allows the filmmakers a chance to utilise the cinema staples of the twenties, movie lots, classic cars, elaborate dress. It encapsulates the era and the films of the time while never parodying them.
The relationship between the two leads while nice needed more initial scenes. When we see that Valentino kept a reel of film of a woman he barely knows he comes across more as an obsessive stalker than a romantic. Still though this was the twenties, and the film keeps true to both the good and bad of the era.
Extremely enjoyable and a lovely homage to the olden days of cinema. Far from perfect but a great film that will please everyone and leave them with a smile on their face.
O and there’s a dog you’ll probably fall in love with too. Worth seeing for him alone.
4 out of 5
Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol – damn good cinema!!
The first Mission Impossble film was an expert demonstration of tension and suspense tied together loosely with action and mystery. The second let the series down by bringing on board action helmer John Woo and going balls to the walls with gun fights, silly explosions, and even siller slow motion. The third got the series back on track with JJ Abrams bringing much needed style and charisma to the series. A good film but instantly forgettable. When I first saw the trailers for the fourth installment, Ghost Protocol, I admit I thought the series was washed up and would be a disspointment, teamed with Tom Cruises unpopularity keeping the crowds away. What I forgot was that it’s been nearly three years since the last Bond film, and a gap has been left in the market for intelligent yet fun action thrillers (preferably not with Vin Diesel or Dwayne Johnson starring) and as such audiences have eaten up Ghost Protocol making it one of the most successful films of the year, and in a December where all other major releases have seen poor box office takings, that’s quite an achievement. Luckily Ghost Protocol is well worth your the price of your ticket, and is as much fun as your likely to have in the cinema all year.
Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, a man so taken over by his job as an international spy he has no time to develop any personality or characteristics, but that’s ok because his sole purpose is to get caught up in a plot of international importance that we can quite happily follow him from exotic location to exotic location and hold our breath at another amazing stunt. This time we find him locked up in a Russian prison for reasons unknown, but soon his expert team break him out and quickly their involved in a mission to infiltrate the Kremlin. This all goes horribly wrong and before they know it their being framed for an act of war and are on the run from the authorities whilst also trying to prevent bad guy Kurt Hendricks (Dragon Tattoos Michael Nyqvist) from kicking off a nuclear war. With such an elaborate plot you can bet there’ll be stunts galore and a lot of tense action scenes. And hey they even throw in a sandstorm, let’s get mother nature in on this too.
The set pieces really are excellent. The infiltration of the Kremlin and the much publicised tower climbing in Dubai really are brilliant. The whole Dubai chapter, with the tower climb instantly followed by the sabotaging of two meetings is the stand out section of the film and is extremely promising from Director Brad Bird given this is his first live action film. Although post production digitial wire removal and effects galore are used Cruise is never shy from these stunts, always letting us know it’s him hanging there hundreds of feet up in the air. Say what you want about the man but no one does stunts like him.
Out of all the Mission Impossible films this is the first one where the team have actually felt like a team. Hopefully the filmakers keep with these actors for any future installments in the series. There’s a lot of buzz around Hurt Lockers Jeremy Renner at the moment, with him being touted as the next big thing. I fail to see what the buzz is about but playing second fiddle to Cruise here he proves a good supporting man. There’s a good chemistry between the four leads and their relation is believeable. Even Simon Pegg isn’t that annoying for once.
It’s not without it’s flaws though. Great actor that he is Michael Nyqvist finds his first major Hollywood role criminally underdeveloped. The last fourty minutes while not bad find it hard to live up to the set pieces that preceeded it. A seduction scene is just silly and for some reason the filmakers insist on a clumsy scene in which character development and plot are tied together awkwardly with chunky speeches. All in all though these are very minor complaints for a film which easily outdoes most of the years other releases.
Love him or hate him Cruise is here to stay, and if he keeps making films as good as this I won’t complain. Go see. Enjoy.
4 out of 5
Take Shelter – Shannons great, films bad
Michael Shannons a great actor. Anyone who’s seen Boardwalk Empire will know he stole the entire thing from under Steve Buscemis nose. Already with an Oscar nod for his part in Revolutionary Road and with him taking on the role of General Zod in next years Superman reboot it looks like he’s going nowhere too fast. There’s a peculiarity to him that makes you tense just watching him and always unpredictable. In Take Shelter he capitalises on this, one second loving father to his deaf daughter the next he’s shouting insane prophecies at a bewildered crowd. He’s a joy to watch but unfortunately it’s not enough to save a film that never really feels too sure of itself.
Shannon plays Curtis, a simple rural Ohio resident, spending his days in construction and his evenings with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and their child, in what appears to be a perfect family life. Soon Curtis is plagued by nightmares, and given his mothers mental illness problems he starts to get concerned when his nightmares start appearing in his waking life as hallucinations. Paranoia and fear ensue and his family and friends can do nothing to help Curtis, convinced he’s the one who’s right.
Director Nichols takes his time, building up the mood gradually. Unfortunately this sometimes comes off as repetitive. Too many scenes of Curtis in work don’t add to the plot, just procrastinate it. There just isn’t enough going on to warrant such a dragged out narrative. Fringe characters like Curtis brother Kyle or his wifes friend Nat could have been trimmed. The story here should have been of Curtis and his family. These fringe characters appear for a scene then dissappear, only serving as a convenient catch up for those in the audience not paying attention. There are two threads going through the film, one with Curtis and his dread of a storm, and one with Curtis uncovering his familys mental illness. The two never really combine in the way they should and when the ending comes their pulled as far away from each other as possible, leaving us to dismiss half of the film we’ve just sat through.
Despite all this it is always watchable thanks to Shannon. He is excellent as always and hopefully this is demonstration enough of his ability to warrant him some exposure to larger productions and more interesting scripts.Chastain is excellent as always in what has been a huge year for her, already getting huge praise for her performance in Malicks Tree of Life, but hopefully soon we get to see her depart from playing the loving mother (which she’s got down to a tee) and throw herself into something completely different.
Dissappointing given the talent of the two leads, only they keep this from being unwatchable. Give it a miss.
2 out of 5
Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows – more of the same but better
The first Holmes film was simple fun. Weak on story and characters the two leads compensated for this by injecting as much fun as possible into their dynamic and the unseen third member of their gang, director Guy Ritchie, threw in some nice visual flourishes. It was a failure in that it broke no rules in storytelling and was as formulaic as they come but a success in that it created two leads who the audience took as much joy from watching them bicker as they did from watching them dodge bullets and fight the bad guys. The sequel manages to trim some of the fat, gain some new fat, and again is two hours of complete fun.
Still wandering around nineteenth century London, threading the line between genius and madman, Downey Jr plays Holmes, detective, scientist and combat expert extrordinnaire. Holmes claims to have found a link between the respected and mysterious Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris) and a recent series of supposedly anarchist influenced bombings throughout Europe. His partner in crime Watson (Jude Law) dismisses all this as he’s due to be married shortly and wants to see his wedding through without incident. Before we know it Holmes has stepped over the line with Moriarity and unravelled evil plans on a global scale, much to the annoyance of Watson who finds his honeymoon rudely interrupted in order to help Holmes save the world.
The script is sharper than the first with some nice dialogue for all the characters, not just the two leads. New addition Naomi Rapace as gypsy girl Simza is largely ignored but bad guy Moriarity get’s some of the films best lines and is given enough sinister moments to play with. The story is business as usual but manages to be a decent catalyst to move Sherlock and Watson from location to location, set piece to set piece, and these transitions happen a lot smoother than the first film. Guy Ritchie is at his visual best, particularly a waterfall dive in slow motion that is the films stand out shot. Every frame looks fantastic and every effect flawless. A chase sequence through the woods is dragged out but allows for some nice visuals.
Where things start to weaken is in Holmes. First time out Downey Jr brought a surprising angle to a character we thought we already knew. He continues this in the sequel but there’s no development of Holmes personality. He starts and ends the film without us learning anymore about him. The persona Downey Jr has brought to Holmes may be somewhat limited to exploring the character deeper. Before he fights we’re giving an explanation in slow motion of how he anticipates each move. In the first film this was fresh and clever, in this film it’s overused and too familiar to be as clever as it once was. Holmes game is one up manship. By the end of the film tension is lost as we know that Holmes is always one step ahead and will get out of any situation. Whenever the camera lingers on an object for a second too long or if something needless happens and is quickly forgotten, we know this will prove part of his plan later on. The cleverness in the script starts to become transparent when this is repeated time and time again.
Lukcily Holmes is never alone for too long and whenever Watson is on screen the film is fantastic. Everything about Watson is a joy. His style of fighting much more believable and everyman than Holmes structured martial arts, his weakness for gambling, and his eternal frustration and friendship for Holmes all portrayed brilliantly by Jude Law.
A three star film but I’m throwing in an extra point as given how dark and bleak January can be this is a perfect fun film to cheer you up.
4 out of 5
Hugo – great Scorcese bad kids
He may be getting on in years but Scorcese is far from a beaten man. After a lull in the late nineties recently he’s managed to pick up his game with several acclaimed films and with his last, Shutter Island, his biggest financial success to date. Scorcese for the most part continues his good run with Hugo, but disappointingly some major flaws which could have been avoided drag the film down from the masterpiece it could have been.
Set in the 1930s, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) lives parentless in the walls of a Parisian train station, spending his days keeping the clocks running and avoiding the clutches of station Inspector Gustav (an excellent Sacha Baron Cohen). After getting on the wrong side of toy shop owner Georges (Ben Kingsley) Hugo finds himself mingled up with his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and an adventure begines to uncover a message Hugos dead father left behind and how it may be linked to Georges secretive past.
Employing 3D in a way that even this 3D hater took a liking to, Scorcese gives us his trademark continuous takes with a twist, the opening segment being a particular delight. His signature is all over this film, lightly disguised as a childrens adventure, and here is where the flaws begin. The childrens aspect of the film let’s the whole thing down. Hugo is nothing more than a plot device to unravel the story of George Melies, one of the first legends of cinema, but yet Hugo with all lack of peronality and charm is pushed to the forefront of the film and turned into it’s star. Supposedly Hugo has been living parentless for sometime surviving as a petty thief but there is not an ounce of credibility to this aspect of the character, at no point does he appear in any way ‘streetwise’. Maybe is was a bad casting call or maybe it’s just down to his awful dialogue but Asa Butterfield plays Hugo as plain and boring, and very hard to get behind. Why the much older and taller Isabelle takes any interest in him is hard to see. The film may have worked better had their roles been reversed, as Chloe Grace Moretz is able to instill some bit of character and fascination into her otherwise one dimensional character. Scenes seem forced to fit into the childrens narrative, and several speeches are just confusing as to why this underdeveloped character has affected their emotions so deeply. And don’t get me started on the automaton, it’s add nothing to the film besides the prospect of a toy they can sell to kids if the films enough of a success.
Other than this the film is a delight. Ben Kingsley has a lot of fun and even get’s to be young again thanks to some impressive effects. Scorceses love of cinema is all over this film, a flashback segment to the early days of cinema is done with such love it’s impossible not to feel a new appreciation for cinema. The frustrating thing is that these scenes are such a delight that this really could have been a great great film. Had Scorcese left the story at George Melies and omitted the awkward childrens plot this really could have been the film of the year.
Another visual success from Scorcese, and proof he’s going nowhere, but unfortunately not consistent enough in story to be the classic it should have been. One for die hard Scorcese fans and lovers of classic cinema.
3 out of 5
Colm2305 