52 Films by Women Update

So... I guess the first thing I should say is my it has been a long time! Once again I failed to keep up my New Year's resolution, and I think it's safe to say that those Orry-Kelly reviews will likely never be written.

But that doesn't mean I haven't been busy watching other films. I've been doing a challenge called 52 Films by Women, where basically once a week you're meant to watch at least one film directed/written/produced by women. For more info, you can check out this link.

So far, I've seen 26 films, so I'm a little behind. I have seen some truly terrific films through this challenge, and some not so great ones. But anyway, here are the first 26 films by women that I have seen this year, ranked from worst to best. Enjoy!

26. Breaking the Girls (2012) dir. Jamie Babbit
25. The Wedding Party (2010) dir. Amanda Jane
24. The Quiet (2005) dir. Jamie Babbit
23. The Falling (2014) dir. Carol Morley
22. John Tucker Must Die (2006) dir. Betty Thomas
21. The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) dir. Barbra Streisand
20. The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) dir. Amy Holden Jones
19. Looking for Grace (2015) dir. Sue Brooks
18. Corrina Corrina (1994) dir. Jessie Nelson
17. Take the Lead (2006) dir. Liz Friedlander
16. The To Do List (2013) dir. Maggie Carey
15. Women He's Undressed (2015) dir. Gillian Armstrong
14. Beautiful (2000) dir. Sally Field
13. Money Monster (2016) dir. Jodie Foster
12. Every Secret Thing (2014) dir. Amy Berg
11. Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) dir. Susan Seidelman
10. Eve's Bayou (1997) dir. Kasi Lemmons
9. Graceful Girls (2015) dir. Olivia Peniston-Bird
8. Julie and Julia (2009) dir. Nora Ephron
7. The Bling Ring (2013) dir. Sofia Coppola
6. Near Dark (1987) dir. Kathryn Bigelow
5. Clueless (1995) dir. Amy Heckerling
4. Awakenings (1990) dir. Penny Marshall
3. Since Otar Left (2003) dir. Julie Bertuccelli
2. Love Serenade (1996) dir. Shirley Barrett
1. The Hedgehog (2009) dir. Mona Achache

As you can see, most of them are from the US. In the second half of the year I hope to expand to the other parts of the world. But I'm definitely enjoying myself so far. I'll be seeing a couple of female directed films at MIFF this year, and I've discovered that my library is better stocked in films than I thought.

I hope this was interesting. Sorry it's quite literally a list. If you have any suggestions for films I should watch, please let me know. Well, hopefully I'll get another blog out sooner than last time, but no promises. You know I always break them. Until next time, readers.

Monsters University, Despicable Me 2 and Epic

Okay, so over the past two weeks or so, I've managed to see all 3 of the new big animated features that have recently come to Australia, mainly because there is nothing else at the cinema (at least the cinema closest to me) that I want to see. So, I've stuck to animation, because at least the visuals should be nice, and at least the jokes might be funny. Instead of giving these films their own reviews, I've bundled them together in the hopes of comparing for my own weird pleasure. Anyway, I just want to say firstly that all of these films are quite good. Really good, actually. Maybe even great. But let's get into them each individually, starting with Pixar's latest.

Monsters University is a prequel to quite possibly my favourite Pixar film ever, Monsters Inc. In this enstalment, we get to see how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) met at university. After both of them being kicked out of the Scarer Program at the university, they team up together to try and win the Scare Games, along with the underdog fraternity Oozma Kappa. There are other things that happen, of course, but I don't really want to spoil it, because I alway find that Pixar films work better when you just know the basic premise, then you can discover all the messages and meanings for yourself as you watch it.

Okay, I'm gonna say this now. When I first heard that they were making a prequel to Monsters Inc., my first reaction was "Oh crap." I thought it was unnecessary to make anything else to do with that universe, especially since the original film came out over ten years ago. And you know what, after seeing it, I still think it is unnecessary. That doesn't mean I think this is a bad film, far from it, but the ending to Monsters Inc. is for me one of those endings where you don't need anything else. The film was resolved perfectly, and for me, this prequel is just a way to cash in on a franchise. But like I said, that doesn't mean I don't think this is a bad film, and I did enjoy watching it. I just don't think it needed to be made.

Well, now that that's out of the way, what makes this film good? The same thing that held the first film together, the relationship between Mike and Sulley. It is nice to watch them build up their friendship and get to know each other in a fairly believable way, and the other characters in the Oozma Kappa fraternity are all interesting in their own way, especially the designs. But Mike and Sulley really steal the show, especially in the last 20 minutes or so of the film. In fact, the last 20 minutes of the film saved it for me. Up until then, the plot was essentially your typical underdog sports movie type plot, and the end happened and everything changed. I'm not saying what happened, but it is almost as good as the ending in the first one. Almost.

So, if I had one complaint, it would be that Randall's character doesn't get enough screen time. It's pretty much just tagged on as an after thought, which leaves his character really thin. The other thing is that animation is very childish. There are a lot of primary colours used, whereas the first one was more natural looking and dark, but that's just me being a nitpick. The actual animation on the characters is superb as always, I just don't like the colour scheme. Randy Newman returns to do the score, and it is really good this time! There are a few pieces from the first film used here and there, but there are also some really excellent new pieces that use a marching band instrumentation to bring out to university feel. It works really well.

I think that's it for Monsters University. If you liked the first one, then you will probably like this. If you love the first one, like me, then you may come out of this like me feeling a little bit... confused. Not really thinking it should exist, but liking it anyway sort of thing. But it is a good film, it's funny, the characters are great and kids will more than definitely like it.

Moving on to our next film, and I can pretty much guarantee that every kid will like something in this movie. I saw this film about 3 weeks after it had come out at the cinemas and there was not a single seat left in the house. Mind you, it was school holidays, but still. Despicable Me 2 follows the adventures of Gru (Steve Carrell), ex-villain and now proud father, as he is roped into helping the Anti Villain League, run by Silas Ramsbottom (Steve Coogan). He is given a mission to discover a villain in a shopping centre, and also a new partner, Lucy (Kristen Wiig). But that doesn't matter. The whole plot doesn't matter, and doesn't make much sense. This film is basically Minions and other people who are also doing stuff... but mainly MINIONS! They are getting their own film as well.

Yeah, if you didn't like the minions from the first film, then you won't like this film at all. There are whole segments where the plot takes a back seat because the minions are doing something funny. Whereas in the first film they comedic background noise, in this film they take over the whole thing. And to be honest, if you're willing to just sit back and have fun and let the silliness wash over you, then it's not that bad. The minions are funny, so much so that other companies are now copying them terribly (looking at you, Lorax) and even though they draw so much away from the plot, I found my self not caring too much. Basically because this isn't a serious film. It doesn't care if the plot staggers to a rather anti-climatic conclusion, it just wants it's audience to have fun. And have fun I did!

Voice acting-wise, everyone here is good. Steve Carrell is excellent again, as Gru. Kristen Wiig is fun and Lucy is probably my favourite character from the film, if only because she moves from professional to fangirly in a matter of seconds. Both Ken Jeong and Steve Coogan are underused, with there really being no point for Jeong to be in the film except as an obvious red herring. Russell Brand seems to me to be one of those actors, like Seth Rogan, who would be better off as a voice actor, if only because he seems to put more effort into his voice roles than his live action work, though unfortunately in this film his character, Dr Nefario, was sadly not in it that much.

Again, the music was also excellent, with some fun songs written Pharrell Williams, and one of them is even sung by Cee Lo Green. But the tune that steals the show is the Minions version of the YMCA. I think my friend died of laughter at the end of the film when they started singing that. The girls in this sequel aren't in it as much, but Margo (Miranda Cosgrove) does get a cute little romantic subplot that also adds to Gru's frustrations as a father. In fact, everything in this film that isn't minion related, adds to both plot and character, but since the minions are at the centre of it all they take centre stage. It's a tricky conundrum to pull off, and to the films credit, it does this very well. If you want to see something fun and not too complicated or anything, then I'd recommend this.

And finally, we move onto Epic. M.K (Amanda Seyfried) moves back in with her estranged father (Jason Sudeikis) after her mother dies. Her father is obsessed with finding the Leafmen who live in the woods near their house, and obsession that led to his wife leaving him before the events of the film. M.K at first doesn't believe him, until she is shrunk down by the Queen (Beyonce Knowles) and told to guard a pod that contains the Light of the Forest from the evil Boggans, led by Mandrake (Christoph Waltz). Helping her is the leader of the Leafmen, Ronin (Collin Farrel), a young warrior named Nod (Josh Hutcherson) and Mub and Grub (Aziz Ansari and Chris O'Dowd), a slug and snail respectively who are the caretakers of the pods.

When I first saw the trailer, I thought this was a gender-swapped Ferngully, and I'm sure a lot of other people thought that as well. There are countless films that are so similar to this, whether through style or story or design or character, it would be pointless to name them all, but some of the ones I came up with were Avatar, Arthur and the Invisibles, and The Spiderwick Chronicles. But let me tell you something, this is better than all of them. The biggest problem with this film was that it came out too late. If this had come out ten or even five years ago, then I think people wouldn't dismiss this film as easily as they are doing now, and as I did. That isn't to say it's perfect, but out of all the out-of-body/walk-in-someone-elses-shoes/shrinking-humans with a possible environmental message films that are out there (and there are more than you'd think), this one is at the top.

And I think the reason for that is because there is no real environmental message. In fact, you want the message of the movie? Watch the rainforest speech from The IT Crowd. That is the message. Everyone is connected, and relies upon and helps each other. The animation in this is also glorious, and some of the designs for the leafmen and the forest inhabitants are very beautiful. The characters are also fun, but my favourite would have to be Queen Tara, mainly because she doesn't let being in a life threatening situation ruin her day. She still has fun! And then when she is in immediate danger, she helps all her subjects as she is helping herself. And she's Queen, not Princess, fucking Queen! Oh my god, it is refreshing to not have an authority figure that is female that isn't a Princess for once.

The voice acting is generally good, with the Chris O'Down and Aziz Ansari stealing many of the scenes they're in. Pitbull makes a cameo appearance as a toad (he he), but I think the real thing that makes this film my favourite of the three (and it is my favourite, and I'll get into more detail as to why in a minute) is that it has Steve Tyler playing a glowworm named Nim Galuu. Let me repeat that. Steve Tyler, yes that Steve Tyler, play a glowworm named Nim Galuu. Nothing can beat that.

So, apart from Steve Tyler, why is this my favourite? I think it might be because, even though the story was old 20 years ago, it isn't part of an existing franchise. Yeah, it was based on a book, from the same author who wrote books that Meet the Robinsons, and The Rise of the Guardians would be based on, but it isn't a sequel or prequel. In the film world, it is an original. The story may not be new, but all the little details are, and it stands out against a world dominated by tired franchises that need to be put down (looking at you, Fast and Furious 6). So yeah, if you haven't seen any of these movies, I would recommend all of them. They all cater to different tastes, so you're bound to find something you like in one of them. I think my next blog will be a list. Not sure yet. Anyway, until next time, readers.

Mediocre Movies: A Bunch of Amateurs

What can I say about Burt Reynolds? Well... he wasn't always an actor, and didn't really see himself as an actor, even though he had acted through college and was a part of the Hyde Park Playhouse summer stock theatre in New York. Umm, what else? He tried to audition for Sayonara, but was told he looked too much like Marlon Brando. Er... his first film was Angel Baby in 1961... and he was in Smokey and the Bandit... and Striptease... In fact, he was terrible in Striptease. His character is one of the worst written screen characters ever, and Reynolds playing him just made it all the more  excruciating. And because of that character, for a while I couldn't stand the man. Until I saw this movie, and my mind was changed. And after a while I saw Boogie Nights, and now I can kinda see the appeal. Kinda.

Reynolds' stars as aging action star Jefferson Steele, who is quickly coming to the end of his career. With no offers from any major film companies, he goes to England on the advice of his agent to star in what he thinks is a professional production of Shakespeare's King Lear, in Stratford-upon-Avon. When he arrives, however, it turns out that the production is done by an amateur acting group, being led by the firm but understanding Dorothy (Samantha Bond), in Stratford St. John. After many misinterpretations and fights with the other members of the group, Jefferson begins to get along with everybody, and starts to become more humble as he stumbles his way through  Shakespeare. Also starring is Imelda Staunton as the put-upon Mary, Derek Jacobi as the pompous Nigel and Camilla Arfwedson as Jefferson's daughter Amanda, who is also trying to break into acting.

Burt Reynolds and Shakespeare aren't two things that you would necessarily think go together, but Reynolds is actually pretty good. And even though in the beginning he is incredibly annoying, he goes through a definite change that makes the character endearing by the end. The English amateur actors are all good, but the main three, Bond, Staunton and Jacobi, steal the show. Bond's Dorothy is a no-bullshit single mum, yet she isn't austere, and there is a genuine connection between her and Jefferson, but thankfully not a fully fledged romance. Jacobi is in his element, quoting Shakespeare at random throughout, thinking he is abovethe rest and generally being stereotypically as British as he can be. But it's Imelda Staunton who steals the film as Mary, a woman who has a fangirl crush on Jefferson yet is frustrated by his rudeness, creating a bittersweet mix of wanting to please yet also wanting to kick someone in the balls.

A Bunch of Amateurs is also innovative in the way it uses the plot King Lear as a background for some of the action. There is a mad scene on the hill in this, which in all honesty is one of the best parts, and the only real part where Reynolds moves out of his comfort zone. While there are more subtle references to the source material, such as the women in the village becoming frustrated at trying to serve all of Jefferson's crazy whims, the biggest connection is through Jefferson's rocky relationship with his daughter. Not wanting to rely on her fathers falling clout, she tries to make it on her own. When that fails she realises that he was trying to protect her, though albeit in the worst way possible. The relationship is played very believably, even though the actors themselves only share about two scenes together, they are able to both convey the frustration they feel towards each other. But while the characters in this are exceptional, the plot isn't so.

The comedy relies on a lot of cliches from the 'fish-out-of-water' genre, and the 'up-himself-person-must-learn-humility-to-acheive-enlightenment' genre. For example, on the plane to England, Jefferson thinks one of the stewardesses wants his autograph, when in actual fact she wants his signature for the bill. Totally haven't seen that one before in a thousand other movies! And then of course, he complains about the weather, the size of the room, the food, the beer, the locals... pretty much everything when he actually arrives in Stratford St. John. All of this rehashed comedy makes the beginning of the movie feel very long and cringe-worthy, but the second half is a lot better. That's when it focuses more on the play rather than just Jefferson reacting to stuff.

So, is it mediocre? Well, I'd say no. It's an incredibly different film, especially from someone like Burt Reynolds, who might I add was 72 when this came out, and you can kinda see it in the way he walks and moves his hands. I think this is actually one of his best films, not as good as Deliverance and Boogie Nights, but it's up there. He made at the right time, and wasn't afraid to create a caricature of himself. While the cliched comedy can be annoying, there is some fresh stuff in there too which is genuinely hilarious, especially from Imelda Staunton.

Another reason why A Bunch of Amateurs isn't mediocre? The Queen saw the premier and then bought the DVD. That's right. The Queen of England likes this film! So, if that isn't a recomendation, then the only thing I can add is that it's probably the only movie you'll see where Derek Jacobi gets covered in shit. But seriously, this is one of those little British films that get swept under the blanket by the bigger Hollywood blockbusters (to be honest, most of the movies in this blog series will be), and if you like those sorts of movies, then you'll probably like this one. So, I'll probably have another blog up next week, since it is holidays. Unless, I decide to be lazy, which is a distinct possibility. Until next time, readers.

Mediocre Movies: The Parole Officer

So, let's talk about Steve Coogan for a moment. I'm not his biggest fan (though my friends may not believe me), and it's mainly because I don't like the awkward comedy wheel to which he revolves. But that doesn't mean that I don't like some of his stuff. Like 24 Hour Party People or even Around the World in 80 Days, which is probably one of the worst adaptations ever made (and one day we will get to it). I still don't understand why he appears in so many kids films, and always in supporting roles. Well, apart from The Wind in the Willows. Wow, doing this introduction has made me realise just how many films of his that I've seen. Anyway, let's take a look at Coogan's first staring role directed by Australia's own John Duigan.

Probation officer Simon Garden (Coogan) is forced to move from Blackpool to Manchester after everyone in his department complained against him, and then just to make his day worse he witnesses his boss, Detective Inspector Burton (Stephen Dillane), murder an accountant. Now, the only way to clear his name is to steal the security tape that documented the crime with the help of George (Om Puri), Jeff (Steven Waddington) and Colin (Ben Miller), his only three successfull probation cases. They are then joined by Kirsty (Emma Williams), a feisty teenager who had drugs planted on her by Burton, and they get help from police officer Emma (Lena Heady). But will they be able to get the tape out without getting arrested in the process? (Obvious spoiler: They get the tape.)

So, by now you've probably noticed the first problem with this film. The main character is a probation officer rather than a parole officer. I guess The Probation Officer didn't have the same ring. The second problem with this film is that it's very predictable, but one shouldn't hold that against it. There are a lot of enjoyable films that are incredible predictable, and no one seems to care. It's the parts in between, the deviations in the script from other films in the same genre. And how does The Parole Officer stand up when viewed from that light? Well, a little hit and miss. There are some obvious jokes that they make at times, including one scene with a statue and a giant penis featuring a cameo from Simon Pegg. But the actual heist is quite ingenius in parts, mainly because the gimmick for this heist is that they're all amateurs and barely know what they're doing. For example, instead of ski masks they use insect masks and crazy string to block up the cameras.

Of course, this does mean that the heist is the best part of the movie, which is true. The forced romance between Coogan and Heady is just that, forced all the way. And in a really awkward, embarrassing way as well. Considering Coogan wrote this, I can only assume that he just wanted a make out scene at some point. Apart from Heady's character (who really is wasted in this), the other side characters are really fun, especially the crew that Simon puts together to rob the bank. And out of them, especially Emma Williams as Kirsty, who is the smartest out of all of them, really. The villain is nicely camp, but not overly so. He is able to be menacing when he needs to be. And he does have some of the best lines.

 
But now we come to the crunch. Is this mediocre? Well, kinda. If you're a fan of Coogan, or of his style of comedy then you should like this. If you like heist movies, even the silly ones, or parody movies then this might interest you. But otherwise, I'd give this a miss. It's by no means terrible, but it is rather ... predictable. I'm sorry, but that is one of the most accurate words to describe it. But now that I can put my critic hat away, I'm going to say that I do really like this film, awkward Coogan moments and all. Call a little bit of a guilty pleasure. Though I do think that the side characters are better than the main character, which is not generally a good thing.

So, to end this little review, I'm just gonna say that if you want something a little silly to pass the time, then this could be it. I do know it has cheered me up in the past week while I've been lying on my arse feeling sorry for myself. Dunno what will happen with this blog after next week when I start uni for the first time. Which I'm still a little apprehensive about. Wish me luck, readers. Until next time.

Problems I had with 'Perks'

Yes, I have now seen the new teen-angst hipster movie, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, based on the book by Stephen Chbosky, who also directed the film. And if you haven't guessed from the title, it fell a little flat with me. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great. Really, the only compliment I can give it is that it's competent, and even that is stretching it a little. Basically, it just could've been so much more, but I didn't connect with it. And I would like to examine why that is. If you did like it, good for you. Maybe you could answer some of these questions that interrupted my viewing of the film. Yeah, I can't be bothered and I don't have time to right a full review. And I'm just going to guess that most of you know the plot. If you don't, watch the trailer. Gives you enough information on it. Oh, and they aren't in any particular order.

1. Did they seriously not know that David Bowie song?

Okay, this is just me being a little nit-picky and annoying, but this frustrates me. During a tunnel ride, the song "Heroes" by David Bowie is playing on the radio, but for some reason, none of them recognise it. Now I know that the song didn't create that much of an impact when it was first released, but by the 90s it had gathered a lot of respect, and had appeared on about 6 best of CDs by 2002. The only explanation I can come up with is that the three main characters' musical tastes is so alternative that David Bowie has somehow slipped their radars.

2. What happened to Patrick?

Halfway through, after his big emotional breakdown, Patrick (Ezra Miller) just kinda disappears from the movie. And we don't hear anything else about him. We get no closure for the character! How does he overcome his depression? Does he find someone else? What the fuck happened to him! I guess this just shows how little invested I was with the main character that I desperately wanted to know what happened to one of the supporting characters.

3. Was there any point to Joan Cusack being in this?

I mean the actor, not the character. Didn't think so. It's just distracting to see her pop up five minutes before the end of the film.

4. We needed more Melanie Lynskey and Aunt Helen

I really like Melanie Lynskey, ever since I saw her in Heavenly Creatures. And it's nice to finally see her in something other than Two and a Half Men. But the flashbacks involving her character are so brief that she might as well not even be in it. And it would be really helpful if Aunt Helen got a bit more screen time. Whatever we do learn about her is more implied than outright said, and it's just bloody frustrating rather than intelligent. And it brings me to my next point...

5. The final twist is not clear enough to have an impact.

Yes, this movie has a twist. There will be spoilers. I know that it's better to show than tell in films, but the final part of the film really shows Chbosky's inexperience as a director. Because what Aunt Helen did is never explicity said, I was left with an implication that came out of nowhere. This is why we needed more scenes with Helen, so that this twist would fit in more with what we would have learnt from her character. Because we don't learn anything, the twist becomes confusing. Also, because it is presented so incompetently, it doesn't have the impact it was meant to. Plus, it seems to be fairly exploitative, pulling a child abuse back story straight out of its arse. Which brings me to my next point...

6. The movie tries to hard.

Yep. It really does. All the teenage characters are indie, they're outside the group, but all that we know of 'popular/normal' is what the movie deigns to show us once in a while. It tries so hard to tug at your heart strings and relate to you that it loses a lot in terms of plot mainly (see previous point).  And it falls into so many cliches of other teen films without bringing anything that different. There's an inspirational teacher, there's a falling out of friends halfway through, there's the standing up to bullies. In all honesty, it's boring. The one good thing about the film, and I wish they had spent more time on this, was Charlie's family. They were there for him, concerned for him all the time, they helped him through his problems. And I'm not talking about just his parents, his siblings are there too. It's the only refreshing thing in the movie.

And now my last point.

7. When the fuck was this film set!

I'm serious! This pissed me off more than anything! We never got a fucking year! Is it too much to ask for! I think it was set somewhere in the 90s, but it could've been the 80s, or even early 00s. Please, if you do reply to this, please tell me what fucking year this is set in!

Anyway, that's it. I know I should've done a review, but I'm guessing those who wanted to see it already have, and won't care what I think about it anyway. With Christmas coming, hopefully I'll get another one up during the week (if I don't procrastinate and watch Christmas movies all day). This one should be Christmas themed. Until next time, readers.

I Was a Male War Bride (List Movie)

Cary Grant is one of the greatest actors to have ever graced the silver screen. The epitomy of American man-hood (even though his real name was Archie Leach and he was born in Bristol) Grant was able to be charming and sexy, or fumbling and screwball whenever and wherever it was required. The man was perfect, able to switch between comedies like Arsenic and Old Lace and dramas like An Affair to Remember. If I have one complaint about him, it's that he makes a terrible woman.

I Was a Male War Bride is based on the true story of Henri Rochard, played by Grant in the film (and whose original autobiography was called I was an Alien Spouse of Female Military Personnel Enroute to the United States Under Public Law 271 of the Congress). Rochard was a Belgian who married an Amreican Army Nurse, and went through a massive kerfuffle to be with her in America. This film is about that kerfuffle! Though there are some changes, of course. For example, Rochard in the film is a captain in the French Army. And his love interest, Catherine Gates played by Ann Sheridan, is a Lieutenant in the American Army. But, having never read the book, these changes are made in the best interests of the film, and work well within the story. Anyway, the kerfuffle that the plot is based on, is this: the orders come in for the American troops to leave on Henri and Catherine's wedding night, and Rochard finds that the only way he can accompany his wife back to America is to apply as a war bride.

By the end of the film, you end up feeling so sorry for Rochard. It transpires that American women aren't expected to get married to foreigners for all of the paper-work is expected to be filled out by brides, not husbands. This isn't the only protocol that seems a little bit extreme. Three wedding ceremonies, civil, Army, and church, are needed to satisfy the authorities. And when they are married, and with the forms filled out, there are still many confused people who come across Rochard and his predicament. He is thrown out of the war brides quarters, the American army quarters, and the German army quarters at one point, and I don't think he sleeps in three days. And when he finally does get to the boat that will him and his wife to America, the navy won't let him on board because he's a man. So, of course, he has to dress up as a woman to get on. And that's not the half of it.

No seriously, that's only half the movie. The latter half, I might add, sorry for not posting spoiler. But the film isn't really about the plot, it's more about the little comedic touches that hide themselves within the scenes, and are brought to life brilliantly by Grant and Sheridan. Also, film is infamous for the cross-dressing scene, so whatever pictures/reviews you find of it will make mention of the fact that you see Cary Grant in a skirt. But to be honest, the first half of the film is better. Not that the second half is bad, but it's bogged down a bit by the protocol and you annoyed really easily at how stupid the American military personnel are. The first half deals with romance (or lack there of) between Catherine and Henri, who are forced together on a mission against their wishes.

 Hate at first sight! Hooray! The best way to start our stars off. The way they tolerate each other, that slowly grows to a strong affection and then to love. They don't make films like this any more. It's very fluffy and very fun! But also kinda weird. This was released in 1949, and takes place in Germany, were the American and French armies are working together to rebuild after the Third Reich... I think. It's not quite explained why they are there (though I did do some research, and they were there mainly to stop any more Nazi's popping up), but the history nut in me finds this incredibly interesting. I think the weirdest thing, though, is that they chose Cary Grant to play a Frenchman. I know why they chose him, he's Cary Grant! But he talks in his transatlantic accent all the way through. It's particularly jarring when there are actual jokes about him being French. But at the same time, I think the filmmakers knew that, and decided to have a little joke themselves.

It's a shame that this movie isn't as well known as some of Grant's other movies, though thankfully more people are seeing it now. It isn't as good a comedy as Arsenic and Old Lace, but it is light-hearted and fun, and the romance is genuine between the leads. It's just a really sweet film about two people falling in love, at the end of the day. The gimmick that made this film famous (or infamous) isn't there until 5 minutes before the end, and it doesn't actually stand up to what the rest of the film has to offer. The little moments of comedy are what make this movie shine, sometimes even through the big set-pieces. Sorry for spoiling the ending, and for not being as long as some of my other reviews. Next time, hopefully a list, and let me leave you with this rather dashing picture of one of the most handsome men to have lived.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

Oh God, where do I being with this? This has to be one of the most visually beautiful, stunningly deep, and down right gorgeous films I have ever seen. There is so much here to talk about, so many themes, so many shots that will stay in my mind for a long time after I've seen this. But this poses a conumdrum. For you see, I could tell you everything about this film that captured me, but this is one of those films that you really have to experience and discover for yourself. So, I'm going to give the things that stood out for me personally, and just hope that you go out and watch it, and come up with your own conclusions.


So, the basic plot is a group of police officers, including the Chief of Police for one of the big villages, a Prosecutor and a Doctor who have been brought in from out of Anatolia, and two Suspects, who travel around the countryside of Anatolia looking for a body. But it's not about that, not really. It's about the different characters, and how they strangely bond over this "quest", and how they respond to what happens over the course of the night. But, again, it's not just about that. It's about everything that isn't said, the silence in pauses, the looks between people. It's about what makes people human, what makes them monsters and everything in between. Director Nuri Bilge Ceylan has said that he prefers to not use words, because a lot more is said in silences, so the dialogue is minimal and is never really about the main plot. In a nutshell, it's deep. It's fucking deep.

I'm not really going to sell this film if I say there is a lot of standing around, looking at scenery and talking. This is like a murder mystery after the mystery has been solved. But, oh! The scenery is beautiful! Ceylan is a photographer as well as a director, if you pause any moment of the film you could sell the frame as a photo. The third shot of the film is two cars and a police truck driving along the winding Anatolian roads while the sun is setting, and it has to be one of the most amazing things I have ever seen, in film and otherwise. The lighting is incredible as well. The first half of the film takes place during the night and the only lights that are used are the headlights of the three vehicles and the "moon". Yet, with this minimal lighting it's amazing what you can see. The darkness is almost this mystical protector, and indeed when daylight does come, the characters become actual people rather than the half hidden hunters that they were during the night.

Instead of talking about all the big themes in this film, I'm just going to talk about the one that stood out the most for me. As I said earlier, there is a lot in this film, and you could come up with any number of things that I never picked up on. But for me, there was this overwhelming theme of guilt. A lot of the characters seemed to have this nagging guilt that they just couldn't leave behind and would interfere with the work they were sent to accomplish. There's Kenan (Fırat Tanış), the Suspect, who is haunted by the friend that he killed. The Chief of police, Commissar Naci (Yılmaz Erdoğan) who is never there for his son and beginning to feel the repercussions of that neglect. The Prosecutor (Taner Birsel), who's story I won't spoil because it's one of the greatest (for lack of a better word) twists of the movie. Even the mysterious Doctor Cemal (Muhammet Uzuner) and Chauffer Arap Ali (Ahmet Mümtaz Taylan) have hints of guilt or regret in what little of their back stories is revealed. Again, I already fear I'm saying too much, and I don't want to spoil the film but the guilt of the characters for me is what fills every frame.

And I haven't even got onto the acting! I'm not sure I should reveal anthing more about the characters, I do feel it is better going into any film and not really knowing what it's about. What I will say is that there is a forced sense of formality that doesn't truly disappear over the course of the film. And that there is a really dark wit to the writing at times. I'm serious, there are some laugh out loud moments in here. The acting felt a little wooden at the beginning but that might just've been the different cultures and a different acting style to waht I'm normally used to, and after a while you don't notice it. 

I'm not going to pretend that this is a film for everyone. As much as I implore you to watch it, many of you won't and even if you all did, I'm sure there would be many of you that wouldn't like it. This is not a Hollywood movie, this is about as un-Hollywood as you can possibly get. There are lots of silences, and lots of darkness. There isn't any soundtrack, and except for natural noises, there is only one time when there is music. And it is long. Apparently 150 hours of footage was shot, and that was cut down to 157 minutes. The pace of the film is very slow and steady, so by the third act it does start to drag. But I don't care. By the time third act arrived for me, I was so engrossed with this movie that I had to see how it would finish, even though I did feel the drag.

 

Keeping with the un-Hollywood feel of it all, nothing is fully explained or finished. It is ambiguous, but in a good way. In a way that sticks in your mind for ages after and makes you think what actually happened. A lot of the main "action" happens off screen, making it even more ambiguous and confusing. This could be very annoying for some people who like their endings nice and neat. But I do have to say that the atmosphere is truly exceptional. I felt cold in the cinema, it felt like I was personally part of it and freezing my arse off in the cold Anatolian night. 

What more can I say? I love this film. It's one of the best films I've seen this year, if not the best, so far. All I can say now is if I've sparked your interest in any way, please go and see this film on the big screen. It's one of the only film I've seen in years that really seems to understand that film is a visual medium. All I'm doing now is repeating myself. So, I'd better stop before you get bored. Until next time, dear readers. Until next time. 

 

Careless Love

Second Aussie film in one term! Because there is nothing else out at the moment... Anyway. Careless Love is the new film by veteran Australian director John Duigan, and it's about Asian sex workers in Sydney. And I'm just going to go out and say it right now, I really like this film! I can see why people might be put off by the premise. A lot of people seem to become quite prudish and preachy when you mention the words "sex workers". You tend to think of sex trafficking and slavery, or else you think of the Pretty Woman type of romanticized shit. And not that this isn't slightly romanticised in parts, but it is a more accurate and honest showing of the world's oldest profession.

Linh (Nammi Le) is a university student who works part time as an escort for an Asian escort agency to help her parents pay off their house while her dad is unemployed. The film basically recounts her different interactions and relationships with clients, one American client in particular, Luke (Peter O'Brien) who she becomes close to, with her driver and co-worker (David Field and Ivy Mak) and her fellow students. She eventually begins seeing another student named Jack (Andrew Hazzard), and her two worlds slowly threaten to collide, while she tries to keep them apart.

So, let's talk about what's bad about the film. The acting isn't anything to write home about. Nammi Le can be quite wooden at time, but it fits her character, who is quite introverted, so that's okay I guess. The unfortunate is that this is (yet again) a minimal script, and she doesn't have the right amount of acting ability to pull off the contemplative expressions that we are able to interpret. But she's still good. No, the loose cannon in this film is Andrew Hazzard as Jack. He's just not that good. You don't really get the love story between him and Linh, he doesn't have the charisma that the characters requires, and he's kind of a douche at parts. But that's largely to do with the character not being fully rounded. What he really needed was a couple of extra scenes so that we could really understand the character better. And maybe a better actor, as well. Another thing that has drawn criticism is Peter O'Brien's iffy American accent, but in all honesty, I didn't really notice it. That might be because I didn't know he was Australian, but it's not too horrendous.

I suppose one other big criticism that I have with the film is that it could be seen as a male fantasy of what prostitution is. Linh has only one 'bad' encounter with a client, and even then she regains control when things get a little sticky (any puns you see are unintended). But then again, this is what is awesome about the film and the character of Linh. She is also one of the strongest female characters I have seen in a drama film for a long time. There are plenty of strong female action characters, but they aren't that many for the drama films that aren't monarchs. Or cancer patients. So, it's really refreshing to find a character like Linh, who is in control of every situation. Though this could be seen as another aspect of the male fantasy again, the fact that the filmmakers don't exploit her, or her profession in any way is also nice to see. There are only two sex scenes on screen, and Linh is only naked once. So, feminists, don't get your knickers in a twist or judge this film solely based on it's premise. I think what one has to remember is that Linh chose this profession, and during the course of the film, we see her make other choices to benefit her and essentially, to keep her safe. The film also focuses on the economic side of prostitution, and gives us an even less glamourous view of it. So, the film also doesn't say that it would be a good job for someone to have, and that in the end, it all comes down to the money.

Other things of note are the excellent side characters, that are more interesting than the protagonists in a lot of ways. First, you have Luke, the enigmatic American. The scenes with him and Linh are some of the best in the film, and it left me wishing that the whole film was just made up of those two talking together. But if that happened, then we wouldn't have the two most awesome characters from the film! Dion, the driver (David Field, who you may recall from the "Hungry/Thirsty" ads) and Mint, a co-worker (Ivy Mak). These two provide the comedy, the heart felt moments and the best lines from the film. Go see the film for those two alone, it's most definitely worth it.

Anyway, the only other thing I can say against the film is that it is quite long, and there are some scenes that drag on a bit. But in retaliation to that, it is well shot, and I'm sure those that live in Sydney would love to see their sity looking this gorgeous onscreen. If you want to see one homegrown film this, why not this one? You'll notice I didn't give much away in terms of plot or themes, and that's because you should really discover this film for yourself. Don't be put off by the subject matter, it's a helluva lot better than Wish You Were Here, a lot less obvious and it stays in your head for ages afterwards. In the end, this is a simple story, yet beautifully put together. No, it's not perfect, but then what is nowadays. And, that's really all I have to say. Take care internet. Until next time!

Questions Raised During "Nine to Five"

So, the Careless Love review which I promised at the end of the last blog will be coming, but I feel really shit this week, and so I don't think that I can be bothered to finish it. It may come out over the weekend, hopefully. And this is basically what went through my mind while watching the 1980 movie Nine to Five, or 9 to 5 depending on how much you can be bothered to type. So, this film is kinda funny and it's kinda stupid and it's kinda good. It's not bad, and actually kinda fun. Kinda. But there were some things that just sort of don't make sense to me. Or that I was confused by. I may look pretty stupid by the end of this. It's also in no real order, except the order in which they come into my head as I write this.


1. Couldn't the whole plot be over if Dolly Parton's character filed a sexual harassment suit against Dabney Coleman's character?

No, hear me out. I did a bit of reserach, and sexual harassment has been around since 1973-ish, but it wasn't really known about until the 90s. Even so, the bastard was firing people (mainly women, I don't think any of the male characters actually fired on screen) for no reason, or idiotic reasons. Anyone in his office could've made claim to some sort of harassment, but no! We had to watch a silly series of events whereby he gets locked in his own house by 3 of his employers! Anyway, back to the point, if everyone was so upset by him that he wasn't handing in good enough results, or just average results, then surely they could've gone to the big boss and complained. The proof is that when he was gone, there was a better workplace environment and better results. Anyway, I think this is my brain wishing for a slightly more serious comedy, instead of the frivolous romanticized, almost male fantasy-esque dream of gender equality.



2. (During Lily Tomlin's fantasy) That seems to be some top class animation going to waste. I wonder who animated it?

Ok, so for those who haven't seen the film, the three leading ladies get baked one night and tell each other the different ways in which they woud get rid of their boss (even the most legal way would be the best). Lily Tomlin's fantasy goes extra Disney as she imagines herself to be a loyal princess type thing complete with forest animals. Animated forest animals, that are very cutesy. But I can't find out who did the animation! And it's gorgeous! Of course, I could watch the film again, or fast-forward to the credits to find out, but if the internet doesn't know, then I'm guessing the film doesn't want us to know...

3. No one goes into his office for 6 weeks... ?

I know we aren't meant to take this film seriously, but honestly! The boss was hated so much that no one wanted to see him in his office for 6 weeks! Surely someone could've told the big boss that he was hated that much. Gah!

4. (With regards to Elizabeth Wilson's character) Can this woman get a life!

This isn't really a question. I just hate these sorts of characters that purely serve a stupid as purpose with no real character development apart from their bitchiness and stupidity. Stupid characters really piss me off, in case you haven't noticed.

5. Why couldn't we see the epilogues?

Seriously! The epilogues look a lot more interesting than half of the stuff we saw in the film! How did Dolly Parton's character become a country singer? (Oh, was that a joke. I didn't see it there behind the groaning) How does Dabney Coleman get lost and possibly eaten in the Amazonian jungle? Who is this Xerox representative that Jane Fonda goes off with? *Sigh* I guess that's what fanfics are for, but who would want to fanfic this.

6. What was their name?

You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned a single characters name. I can't remember any of them, only the actors. I don't know what that says about the power of the script or how endearing each character was, you can make up your own minds about that. But forgetting a characters name and only remembering they were in the film because of the person playing them... that can't be good!

and finally

7. That was Jane Fonda!?

I've only seen Jane Fonda in Barbarella. She doesn't look anything like Barbarella in this film. I didn't recognise her with clothes on.





So, this was stupid, but I had fun. Nine to Five isn't bad, I just expected something a little more realistic and less annoyingly stupid. (I think 'stupid' is the most used adjective in this review. Sorry for that.) So, I should hopefully have Careless Love out soon, I've almost finished the draft. Until then, keep your powder dry!

Snow White: 4 Adaptations

So, Mirror Mirror. How to begin? Well, I suppose I should first say that this is a pretty awesome movie. Not even kidding, it's a lot of fun to watch. But I don't really want to talk about the film by itself. Hence why this review is called Snow White instead of Mirror Mirror. I'm going to try and talk about the different adaptations of the fairy tale, and how this new is a lot better than most of them.

The original tale is a fairly standard fairy tale. We have a beautiful princess, whose mother is dead, an unexplained absent father and a wicked stepmother who is jealous of her stepdaughter. And 7 dwarves. For some reason. Anyway, in the story, Snow White's mum dies right after she is born and her father (I assume after a few years of mourning at least) marries another woman, who is vain, selfish and evil. And she has this mirror, see, that keeps on telling her she is the 'fairest of them all'. Now, this next part, from the original story is the part I find the weirdest and creepiest. When Snow White is seven, not 16 or 17, seven, the mirror one day says 'Snow White is the fairest of them all'. No offence, but seven!? Well, I'll get back to why that is particularly creepy. Anyway, the queen is pissed and she sends Snow White out with a huntsman and says he has to kill her and bring back her entrails. Which he doesn't do, instead he just leaves a seven(!?) year old in the middle of the woods. Luckily she finds seven dwarves (there is something about that number) and they let her into their home if she becomes their housemaid.

Anyway, the queen finds out and tries to kill Snow White 3 times, each time technically failing (not a very good witch, by all accounts) but on the third time she succeeds in making her sleep as if in death. The dwarves, thinking she's dead, put her in a glass coffin and don't bury her for some reason. After a while, a prince rides past the coffin and falls in love with her. Now here's the creepy part for me. Did Snow White age while in the coffin (which is probably more likely) or did he fall in love with a seven year old girl? If it's the latter, then ewwwww. Anyway, in the original story they get married, and the queen finds out that someone is fairer than she is and she gets pissed again. And so she goes and finds out who it is and discovers it's Snow White. And Snow White is like "It's payback time, bitch!" and makes the queen where red hot metal shoes and dance until she is dead. I like that ending. I have yet to see an adaptation that finishes like that though.

So, I'm going to talk about 4 different adaptations of the story (not ambitious at all). And where else to start but at the beginning of evil itself, the Disney version. Completed and released in 1937, this film showed the world that animation can be considered an art form and a viable way to tell a story. For the technology at the time, and considering the rather simplistic shorts that came beforehand. But I'm not here to talk about its merits in filmmaking. No, I'm here to see if it is actually a good adaptation. Well, all the elements are there. Pretty young girl (who looks around 18, thank god), eveil stepmother, surprisingly absent father, and 7 dwarves. Oh, and that whole business with the apple.

Let me make it clear, I really don't like this movie for a number of reasons. Ok, no, I really don't like this movie for one reason. Snow White. And it's not just her Lena Lamont voice. Her character is annoying! She spends all day wishing for a dude, and singing to animals in an out of tune voice that makes me sympathise with the evil Queen. No really, I can understand why she would want to get rid of her. Also, she doesn't do anything. Her character doesn't grow and everything happens around her rather than her creating a situation. It's not her fault she was born too pretty, fate just decided to gang up on her. Bleh! Anyway, for me, the best thing about this adaptation is the animation. It is lovely to watch, moving from the pastel-y colours of Snow White in the beginning to the dark, more vibrant colours of the forest and the blackness of the final chase scene. That and the Queen. I know she gets left behind in favour for more "complex" Disney villains, but to me, especially as a kid, she was absolutely frightening. And her character design is quite chilling.

Another thing that annoys me now, but didn't so much when I was a kid, is the seven dwarves. I know in the original story they are really more side characters with no distinct personalities. So, Disney decided that the story would not be complete without them having annoying one track personalities. I wouldn't mind it so much, if none of the other adaptations that came after it did exactly the same thing! I'm not even kidding, each of the other films in this series do exactly the same thing by either setting up stereotypes in one or two of the dwarves, or just giving them a generic "thing that they do/say/act."

As a whole, the film isn't too terrible an adaptation. It was faithful to the original fairy tale, right down to the bland under-developed characters. I know I shouldn't be mean because it was a product of its time, and it is quite an amazing film given when it was made. And it was a family film, which was kinda rare in the 30s. Most of the time there were only gangster films and King Kong.... Oh, that would be awesome!!

Anyway, moving on to the second most evil family corporation in America, the Hallmark version. Snow White: The Fairest of them All. Oh Hallmark, you stay so close to the story yet stray so far. This adaptation certainly show that. The story is essentially the same (well, it is the same). There are a few differences from the story, the main one is that Snow White didn't start out as a princess. That is, her father wasn't a King, but became one when he accidentally wished to be after rescuing a frozen troll wizard with his tears... Don't ask, it's Hallmark. They write everything when they're high. So, yeah, Snow White wasn't a princess, and also the Prince pisses off the Queen (who is played to an embarassing level of over-acting by Miranda Richardson) and she turns him into a bear in a snowglobe (Don't ask! It's Hallmark!) and he becomes a prince again after he kisses Snow White to make her not frozen? (God, I wish I had that clip of Christopher Lloyd saying "I was frozen today!" -sigh-)

Yeah, there are some silly story choices, but as an adaptation it's ok. I mean, it's nothing new, even the dwarves seem to be copying the Disney dwarves, except they have even less personality, and they're named after the days of the week. Snow White is a little more likeable, she has a little more attitude, but that might be because she can only emote between happy and slightly put out. I think the thing I like least about Snow White is that she is essentially a house wife, and I have no idea why. How did she learn to cook and clean? She's a bloody princess! Ok, she wasn't born a princess but she was raised one! Gah! Anyway, yeah, this is ok. Again, it pisses me off now, but I did like when I first saw it. The adaptation is more faithful (at least the absent father is explained... with magic!), but there are some truly stupid additions that Hallmark chose to try and add whimsy. If anything, see it just to see how bad it can be, especially Miranda Richardson's acting.

The next film I want to talk about is the Amanda Bynes' movie, Sydney White. When I first went to see it, I didn't know it was a Snow White adaptation until my friend told me it was halfway through. So, without knowing beforehand, I can say that this is a very subtle adaptation. Yeah right! As subtle as getting hit over the head with a brick! Anyway, the norms are here. Dead mother, absent father, but instead of a princess, Sydney is a new college student and wants to get into a sorority of bitches that her mum was in. While it's not very subtle, it is very clever. The magic mirror has become a website, where people vote on which girls they think are hot, the poisonned apple is a Mac with a virus. The seven dwarves are now seven dorks, or geeks or nerds. What the hell is a dork? Anyway, even though I hate the one-track personalitites of the Disney version, I do like the obvious harking back to that version with modern versions of those personalities.

This is certainly the funniest out of all of them, but that's mainly because of Amanda Bynes as a no nonsense Snow White, who is more focused on getting good marks than finding a prince. The prince in this one is actually a character, and not just a romantic lead. He has motives, back story, he has a fleshed out character. The other two versions don't dwell on the prince as much, preferring instead the evil queen. In fact, I'm sure the prince in the 1937 film doesn't say anything, he just sings. Also, the romance developes slowly, and while there are some rom-com misunderstandings, they all sort themselves out and all is well. I don't really have any objections to this film, apart from the fact that it is predictable (in a good way) and the occaisional embarassing joke.

And this brings us to Mirror, Mirror. I know I have only seen this once, but I do think this is my favourite adaptation of Snow White, for one main reason. Snow White is not a damsel in distress. She's smart and kind, and her character grows over the course of the film in a natural way. Also, Julia Roberts as the evil queenis so fun to watch. You can just tell how much fun she is having in the role. Again, the romance between the young lovers is also more natural, with both in love with each other, and yet there are just some things that they can't stand in them as well, yet they love them all the same. Of course, the dwarves have one track personalities, but instead of them being shoved down your throat in the Disney version, or being uber condisending in the Hallmark version they seem more realistic.

The film got lot of mixed reviews, with people saying that it wasn't original or lacked depth. I can't agree with that, mainly because the original story lacked so much depth that all adaptations can appear to have more depth even when they're excessively shallow (coughDisneycough). And not original? Yeah, remember that bit about the apple? Not in this version. No, Snow White has to save the prince from a spell by kissing him, instead of the other way round. Cause that's not original. In fact (spoilers!) when the queen does try to poison Snow White in a last attempt to get rid of her, Snow White sees right through her and beats her at her own game. But even if you don't agree with that, most critics have said that the best part of the film is the stagecraft of the film. The costumes and scenery are spectacular! You notice them more than in the other adaptations (except the Disney one which was beautiful to look at). Also, the film ends on a random Bollywood number. Because it can!

So, I do love Mirror Mirror more than the other versions, because it is more modern and more fun than some of the other versions that take the original story just too seriously. That isn't to say that the other versions are bad, but for our time, this version is perfect. So, go see it! Even if you don't like it, the costumes and scenery should hold your attention enough. I'm sorry this is so long (I didn't even get to half the things I wanted to talk about), but you probaly won't get another blog for a while, unless I suddenly get creative. Anyway, what are your favourite Snow White adaptations? I always love watching and comparing different versions of things. Though I probably won't see Snow White and the Huntsman, that one looks really... tweeny. Also, the next blog might be a list...

Margin Call

 

 How this film got nominated for best original screenplay I will never know? I know it's bad to start a review with the biggest flaw of the film without any backstory, but when the worst aspect of the film is one of the most important aspects, there isn't much you can do. So, I am just going to go right ahead and say it. This film is indecipherable. To put it more bluntly, the script is shit!

For those who don't know, this film was based on the events surrounding the most recent stock market crash, but the writer, instead of providing any sort of clear explanation as to what caused the crash, instead expects the audience to know every minute detail surrounding what happened and fills the film with financial techno-babble, that everyone who isn't an accountant has no idea what the hell is going on for 2 hours. So, what is meant to be a probing and intellectually interesting account of what started the recession becomes a finance version of Primer. 

So, can you see my problem? I can't tell you what happened in the film because I only have a vague idea of it myself. I can't even remember the characters names, only the actors who played them. In fact, that was the only reason I went to see the film, because the cast list was so amazing! And the acting was good, given the pile of crap they were told to memorize. I'm sorry, this is going to become a rant in the end. But this film could've been so much more! Anyway, the film begins with Stanley Tucci getting fired and giving Zachary Quinto a USB stick with .... something bad on it? All I know is that everyone gets slightly frustrated with it. (I know the film is rated MA for swearing but after watching In the Thick of It, nothing can really compare) Anyway, Paul Bettany gets worried and stands on top of a building, Demi Moore does impossible sums in her head and actually does a good job in her role, Jeremy Irons hams it up and has the best speech in the whole film and Kevin Spacey gets depressed about his dead dog. Thats about all I remember.

I should probably say that I did see this about a week ago so I can't remember things exactly. But one thing I do remember is the reaction that the whole audience had at the end of the film. So, what happened was that Kevin Spacey's dog died and he was so depressed about it that he went to his ex-wife's house to bury him. Don't ask. Anyway, after a little conversation the film just cuts to black with the sound of Spacey still digging the hole for his dog. Symbolic much. More like pretentious. Sorry, anyway, the entire audience just went "Oh", and slowly started walking out of the cinema in a big cloud of disappointment. When a film has that sort of reaction from the majority of the audience (I'm not a mind reader, someone may have liked it) you know there is something bad with it. 

And this brings me to the other main problem with the film. There is no pacing. I'm not saying the pacing is bad, or rushed or slow. There is no pacing whatsoever. The film ambles along at a sublime pace unaware of everyone is meant to be rushing around and panicking. Because of the no pacing, there is no real sense of urgency and so we don't feel that the problem is as big as it was. Add to that the fact that we don't really know what's going on in the first place, and the film becomes the worst thing a film can become; BORING. But also frustrating. This film could've been so much more, but instead ambles into oblivious. And dies.

Not even the cast can save it, however impressive they are. There are some good moments, and as I said early, Jeremy Irons has one of the best speeches I have heard. but without clarity and without tension, this film becomes annoying and dull. I'm repeating myself now, so I will say goodnight. Maybe if you know about what actually happened then you may enjoy this more, but this is more like one financial conversation after another, that one who is not as savvy in accountant-y ways can neither comprehend nor even give a rats arse about.