Sherlock Holmes - 2009

How does he do it. Somehow people keep funding Guy Ritchie's film. Thankfully with his latest he has enough good points to make the film watchable, almost entertaining, but certainly not the waste of time and money most of his films become. With Sherlock Holmes he has a hero who is not only likeable, but a rounded, flawed and deeply entertaining character, and in the hands of Robert Downey Jr. is effortlessly charming, charismatic and watchable. He also has Jude Law, who has Watson knits into the film beautifully to turn Ritchie's film less into a crime thriller than a bromantic comedy. Dwoney Jr and Law work wonderfully together, falling into a natural banter, as if they have known each other a lifetime. You assume it was fantastically fun working on the film and it helps the enjoyment of the film. Unfortunately their chemistry makes the inclusion of Rachel McAdams former lover of Holmes feel somewhat redundant, and the script leans so heavily on the Holmes/Watson double team, that a good, servicable performance from McAdams is almost completely overlooked. The principal cast is completed Mark Strong, playing your stereotypical evil genius.

The actual plot is fairly preposterous, and Ritchies direction is the weak link, he overuse of slow motion, and his direction of certain scenes threaten to implode a film built on shaky foundations, but the film contains a good number of action set pieces and the story rattles along at a good pace, meaning you don't really have time, or don't really want to spend time analysising the flaws too much, except those glaring problems Ritchie brings to the table.

The other major problem with the story is a lack of explanation as to who Sherlock Holmes actually is, we are never given any real character development, the writers assuming the audience has a level of knowledge to carry us through with his violin playing or astute deductive genius. What the film attempts is to move away from the stuffy, old fashioned English gent portrayed in most other film and TV adaptations. Instead this is Sherlock Holmes for the 21st century, cool, charming, strong and with a cheeky knowing arrogance which has come to epitomise a lot of modern action adventure filmmaking.

Not a complete disaster, especially as the pre-release buzz was that Ritchie had fluffed it, but still not the great film it could, and possibly should have been with such a riveting duo in Downey Jr and Law. Here's hoping the next adventure will be a problem investigative thriller, with a human, yet brilliant villain (Moriarty) who forces Downey Jr's Holmes to face a opponent he and we as an audience are absolutely confident he can beat.

Nowhere Boy - 2009

Sam Taylor-Wood's directorial debut, Nowhere Boy, is a slight, curious piece of filmmaking. Telling the story of a pre-Beatles John Lennon and the bizarre relationship he had with his aunt and mother, the film is a fine example of some excellent acting, and also, for fans of John Lennon an interesting exploration of how he got into music, and how The Beatles formed. Where the film fails is in leaving a wider thematic resonance. The film never once attempts to explain how the women of his life influenced his musical career, or the subjects he explored through them. It positions Lennon as a troubled youth, trying to come to terms with his dysfunctional family set up, and the tragedy which befell him at such a young age. Of course, you could argue Taylor-Wood and screenwriter Matt Greenhalgh might have purposefully opted to avoid that, instead purely depicting the life of Lennon before The Beatles and not hint at the impact of influence his formative years had on his later music, but in doing so the film, despite being enjoyable, feels to light and lack importance.

That's not to say the film isn't a success. It is both enjoyable, funny and deeply moving. Aaron Johnson is very good as John Lennon, but the film is stolen, in equal measure by Kristen Scott Thomas as the repressed old fashioned aunt Mimi and Anne-Marie Duff as Lennon's bohemian, carefree mother Julia. Also of note, is Thomas Sangster as Paul McCartney, the grounded equal of Lennon, and some of the films finest scenes portray the beginning of what would become one of the strongest and most prolific working friendships in music, but also hints at the gulf in difference which would inevitably lead to The Beatles split.

So, another music biopic which is intriguing, offers some insight, but lacks to relevance and weight you would expect from the life of someone as talented and influential to popular music. What really stood out was why this story was about John Lennon, as it could have been about anybody. As it is, this marks out Sam Taylor-Wood as a potential new voice in British cinema, but perhaps more so, marks the arrival of Aaron Johnson who never looks to be struggling under the weight of playing Lennon.

Paranormal Activity - 2009

The latest in a string of handheld shaky cam films which try to justify the use of such a technique by implying firstly that the material is real (Blair Witch) and secondly having the characters actually holding the camera (Cloverfield) is another horror film which scares more when you see nothing, than it does when the film tries to use actual physical events to terrify.

The trailer and the marketing campaign almost guaranteed Paranormal Activity would be a success. A clever trailer which showed audiences screaming and trying to hide behind loved ones, and an endorsement and aparently a reshot ending suggested by non other than Steven Spielberg, who was quoted as saying he had to wait until morning to watch the films climax helped to raise word of mouth before there actually was any.

But is the film any good? And more importantly perhaps, is it actually scary? The short answer is no. It never captures to originality of The Blair Witch Project or the sheer terror of the Unknown that Cloverfield managed. Instead Paranormal Activity has distracting out of focus, shaky camerawork, which rather than unsettles just brings on nausea. There is far too many scenes when the is no sense of danger or peril, and despite their best efforts, its not until the final few minutes that the film actually creates a genuine increase in tension.

The acting is however, very good, the relationship feels real and their interactions and the increase in tension within the couple is palpable. But none of this makes up for the complete absence of genuine scares. There are moments; a shadow here, footprints in talcum powder, and a door slightly opening and shuting. The whole premise of a demon haunting a single person also works well as it removes any chance for the characters to escape. Their fate seeled and at the mercy of a creature which neither of them can comprehend.

Ultimately though, despite the fanfare, or because of it, Paranormal Activity is a major dissapointment and even worse actually gave me a feeling of nausea which made me want to leave the cinema after about the first 20 minutes.

A Serious Man - 2009

After the Oscar success of No Country For Old Men, the Coen brothers made Burn After Reading, a typically Coen-esque comedy but a little light on meaning and substance. For their latest film they have created not only their most personal film, but also one of their wittiest and most enjoyable.

A Serious Man is a period film set in the 1967 in the Twin Cities, and tells the story of Physics professor Larry Gopnik. His is a troubled life, both at home and work. Up for tenure, Larry comes under pressure both from a blackmailing student and anonymous letters trying to undermine his potential tenure. At home things aren't any better - his wife wants a divorce, leaving him for Sy Abelman, a family friend and widower. His brother, Arthur, has been living on his couch for months, hogging the bathroom and writing an inpenetrable numerological treatise. Add to this a daughter stealing from him to fund a nose job and a son (Danny) who is constantly smoking weed, and you have what can only be described as a dysfunctional life.

Out of this Larry tries to remain a serious man. In the face of such adversity and antagonism, Larry tries to find some sense of spiritual solace and seeks the advice of three leading Rabbis. At the same time, his son, who is getting in trouble at school and is constantly being pursued by a bigger local kid, whom he owes money (used to feed his drug habit) - one of the funniest recurring moments in the film. Larry's attempt to seek spiritual understanding of his plight is enhanced by the upcoming Bar Mitzvah of Danny.

The film also contains a number of bizarre, slightly unreal moments, the opening for example is a 19th-century set prologue in which a Dybbuk (an undead of jewish folklore), is welcomed into the home of a Jewish man, before being stabbed by his wife, for being a Dybbuk. The so called Dybbuk then rises and leaves, leaving the mystery of his existence unresolved. This scene is also shot entirely in Yiddish. The final shot of the film offers an equally unresolved and confusing finale to the film.

This is one of the Coen's most uniquely satisfying films. Drawing from their own childhood, the film provides a level of insight and a personal touch often lacking in some of their other films. For all their talent, they are extremely mysterious directors; their films revealing their unique surreal outlook on life, but rarely the identity of themselves as filmmakers. A Serious Man offers a glimpse into who they were, and possibly what shaped their vision of the world. Add to this their brilliant style, a subtle, engaging performance from Michael Stuhlbarg and A Serious Man is a fine, exemplary and hilarious comedy.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 2009

To fully understand and possibly enjoy The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, you need to understand that it was written by Eric Roth. Roth is probably most well known for writing Forrest Gump and Curious Case is the same type of story. A story which could only be told or written in America, it's as much about the country and what it represents as it is about a man who is born old and grows young.
The other unique element of Curious Cae is that it's director is David Fincher. An elegiac, nostalgic romantic tale is not what you would expect from the man who last brought us Zodiac and is best known for Seven and Fight Club. The only aspect of these films which links them is Brad Pitt. That and David Fincher eye for detail and the ability to construct a sumptuous mesmerising mis en scene.
The film starts well, and the CGI/prostethics are fantastically seamless, the young, aged Button resembling Pitt enough to not feel distracting and Pitt's performance early in the film is fantastic. The film carries is magical, elegiac theme on its sleeve and Pitt's southern American accent helps infuse the film with a wistful nostalgic quality which never really lets up.
The problems begin really as we move into the 2nd act. When Pitt's character comes of age, and I mean in the sense that Button is the age that Pitt needs no enhancements or make up effects. The main problem being that we never really learn or see Button achieving or doinf anything in the prime of his life. It's at this stage that Button's life links up with Blanchett's Daisy. A passionate love affair, and a coming together or two souls always destined to share the most important part of their life together. But it's here that Fincher falls down, as does Roth's script. The love affair never feels convincing, and it all feels far to cliched, shot through with soft tones. One scene conjures images of Lennon and Yoko's bed live in, as the two lovers seem to spend most of their relationship achieving absolutely nothing. Button is blessed with wealth, he manages to reconcile with his estranged father, and enjoy a loving relationship with Daisy. Other than that the second act fails to elaborate upon his life. As the film moves towards it final act and the climax the film begins to feel overlong and the narrative strands lose some of their poignancy.
Despite all of this Fincher's direction is superb, and he probably deserved an Oscar more than any other nomination. The script like a poor rehash of the themes which made Forrest Gump such a success, but lays on the sentiment to heavily. The script also brings in a framing story which doesn't in my opinion add anything additional. An aging (dying) Daisy (heavily prostethiced Blanchett) lies in bed whilst her daughter reads the journal which relates the story. Julie Ormand plays the role of Daisy's daughter and she is our window into this story. But the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina, beating against the window of the hospital room never feels significant or revelatory to the story of themes. Yes the film manages to drop in some of the key moments in America history (early in the film Button sits on a segregated bus with a black pigmy, later whilst yachting we see the launch of a Apollo mission, but button is merely a spectator, where Gump was an active particpant. Even his exploits in the second world war are simply him experiencing rather than influencing the events which occur.
There are real highlight though. Ironically a brief affair with Tilda Swinton Elizabeth Abbott feels more engrossing and emotional than his eventual relationship with Daisy. Pitt, as a old man, conveying the sense of wonder and anticipation of spending a few more hours with his first love. This is probably the best episode of the entire film, and serves to undermine the love affair with Daisy later.
Cate Blanchett is fantastic and proves once again why she is probably cinema's greatest leading lady. Not once is her performance not captivating. Pitt too handles himself with aplomb and although he may never reach the heights he achieved in Fight Club or Assassination of Jesse James he is still wonderfully watchable and relishes the opporunity to undermine his good looks, until off course his good looks become the focal point of the story.
The true truimph and ultimately the films failure is its depiction of a love story between two people who spend very little time together in their life. The early moments when Button resembles a old man and Daisy a young girl, and the final moments when an aging Daisy care for a child suffering dementia are those which truly hit the emotional punch. Sadly as previously stated for two people who do not need each other but come together once in their lives when the timing (and their ages briefly meet) is the film falls flat and undermines the tone and theme of the entire venture.
Thankfully not a resounding failure but certainly not the grandstanding success those involved promised. The prospect of a David Fincher film starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett with Tilda Swinton thrown in for good measure with a script by Eric Roth based on a F Scott Fitzgerald story promised to be a magnificent piece of cinema. At times it achieves this, but never consistently, and when it looses its way, it suffers worse than you'd hope for.
Enjoyable but it left a dissapointing feeling as the credits rolled. A great exploration of two peoples lives over a major period of American history. A film as much about the passing of time, as fate, love and those special moments in our lives which linger in the memorry forever. It's a shame the film will not do the same.

Frost / Nixon Review

Based on the famous play which was based on the actual interviews, and written by Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon is and feels like an adapted play. Very talky and also extremely static, the film, directed by Ron Howard, still manages to get the heart racing.

Having never seen the play, or the interviews, I went into the cinema with only knowledge of what David Frost managed to achieve and his reputation, which was built on the back of the the Nixon interviews. I therefore found the film revealing and intriging in equal measure. David Frost, played admirably by Michael Sheen, isn't the interview king I thought he was. And Richard Nixon is never portrayed as the villain I'd always seen him as.

The film benefits massively for the great supporting cast including Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Kevin Bacon, Toby Jones and Matthew Macfadyen. In fact there isn't a poor performance amongst them. But when the lights go on, the cameras start rolling, this is Frank Langella's film. Nominated for an Oscar, Langella imbues Nixon with the statesmenlike quality you'd expect from a former leader of the worlds greatest nation. But there is also humility, vulnerability and a desire to not be painted as a villain. Unlike say Bush, who seems only a fool, even in Oliver Stone's strong W, Nixon is an intelligent poloitical warrior, who overstepped the mark. Langella turns him into a ferocious opponent, one who Frost underestimates, even up to and including his eventual confession.

When the climax and resolution finally arrives, it's Langella's performance who demands our empathy. The feeling you get, upon his confession, isn't so much of a man who has completely and absolutely abused the power, but a man who carried the weight of the greatest nation in the world on his shoulders, and did what he believed was the correct way to act.

Peter Morgan's greatest achievement in the script, and no doubt the play, was to humanize the only President to resign from office. When I went into the film I had expected to see a savvy, cunning and masterful interview extract something the American government never seemed inclined to approach, instead, we saw the truth of a man, who had the most difficult job in the world, and I learnt, that Nixon, and ever other president to have served are only human, just like everybody else and is therefore vulnerable and fallible like the rest of us.

A triumph over performance and writing, Peter Morgan is probably one of the finest screenwriters working today, and with a cast including Langella and Sheen this film is entertaining and engrossing.

The Wrestler - 2009

Mickey Rourke is back. If your interested in The Wrestler you've probably read this already. A lot. But it's true. Mickey Rourke may have given his finest performance in The Wrestler. On a thematic level the film feels as if it was meant for Rourke. In one scene before a fight he addresses the crowd and the distinction between actor and character becomes blurred. And yet thankfully Mickey Rourke is not the only reason to watch The Wrestler. Darren Aronofsky makes a significant departure from Pi and Requiem For A Dream territory with an intimate handheld style which observes, follows and watches Rourke's Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Robert Siegel's script also presents an intimate portrait of a man coming to terms with the limits of his body, and realising that without that which he loves he doesn't have much else to cherish and saviour in life. Supporting Rourke is Marisa Tomei who gives a performance as engaging and emotional as Rourke's. Playing a stripper you also serves as a counterpoint to Rourke's wrestler. Both characters exploit their bodies for money and the enjoy of the crowd. But both are beginning to realise that their time is up.
Thankfully for all of the sentiment and emotion running around in this film, it never loses sight of its sense of humour. Nor does it opt for a typically sentimental ending. Instead leaving the opening slightly ambiguous. There are questions which remain unanswered and yet you feel satisfied. The ending shot is one which captures the films theme elegantly whilst also hinting at the greater tragedy of this man's life.
This is still Rourke's film. He gives passionate, emotional performance, truly relishing the chance to show his real actin range. He'll draw a tear to your eye, but also make you laugh, perhaps inappropriately. He also conveys the extreme vulnerability a man in Randy's position must feel. Although the best actor Oscar category this year may be a tough one, Rourke can feel quietly confident that when the envelope opens it'll be his name, and his return to the main stream of America cinema that will be the outcome. A if that happens it'll be long overdue. And if it doesn't, his reputation ill be cemented as one of the most engaging, heartfelt and enjoyable actors working today.

Role Models - 2009

I unashamedly love Paul Rudd. He first came to my attention when he was getting some of the best lines on Friends as Phoebe's boyfriend and later husband. But since Anchorman and The 40 Year Old Virgin he is usually to funniest supporting character in anything he features in. Thankfully he has been given a lead, and Role Models is it. Not a great film, but a solid, hilarious romp in which he plans a cynical miserablist. A type of humour I think I respond to. Not zany, wacky or downright ridiculous like so many contemporary comedians are, Paul Rudd is understated and instantly likeable.
As for Roles Models, its really Rudd's film, Sean William Scott, his co star is good, funny and entertaining, but he is trading on his screen image (something Rudd could equally be accused of), and he plays the dumber, less inspired of the two characters.
The premise is simple. After a pathetic proposal to his girlfriend (Elisabeth Banks), Danny (Rudd) is dumped, then after a poor demonstration for energy drink Minotaur, he becomes victim of community service to avoid the prison sentence. His job, to be role models for children from backgrounds which have left them unhappy or neglected.
The film provides a belly full of laughs from the relationships formed between the adults (a loose term) and the kids, played brilliantly and for the most effective comedic effect by Christopher Mintz-Plaisse and Bobb's J Thompson.
The film will never be considered a classic, but can not be faulted for a good friday or saturday comedy which will give you some intelligent humour, but mainly just crude innuendos and stupidity personified. Which is some ways is the best comedy you can hope for from any film.
So what's next Mr. Rudd, given a writing credit for Role Models, I would hope to see more material catered for his brand of sarcastic humour. He's an actor who deserves time and a platform to demonstrate his brilliance.
I for one will be queuing up in a jovial mood to watch his next film.

Slumdog Millionaire - 2009

Danny Boyle's new film has been described as the feel good film of the year, and in most respects it is. A unique little story about a slum dweller who manages not only to get onto the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, but also manages to get all the way to the final question and the chance to win 20million Rupees. Through a inventive and engaging flashback, which writer Simon Beaufoy intricately weaves into the script, we learn the life of this unexpected success from his childhood right through to his destiny in the chair.
Beautifully shot in Mumbai the film successfully captures the vibrancy of living in a city so over populated. In addition the film spans enough time to show how the city has evolved over the past 20 years.
Danny Boyle's direction is effective, if not quite up to some of his previous efforts, and the performances are all engaging, commited and above all believable. Dev Patel who plays the hero Jamal is particularly likeable and his younger selfs (Ayush Mahesh Khedekar & Tanay Hemant Chheda) are also fantastically good actors.
Essentially this film is a romantic drama. Jamal, as a young boy meets Latika and spends the most part of his life trying to save her, find her or be with her, despite traditional obstacles. This is another love conquers all stories, if with a distinct twist to the tale.
Slumdog Millionaire picked up Best Film and Danny Boyle, Best Director at the Golden Globes, and this bodes well for his Oscar chances come February, but the film feels too much like a Oscar type film. The ending, although never too sentimental, still feels predictable, right from the very first few frames. But then this is not a story about the ending, but rather the journey there. The bizarre and often unexpected events in the young hero's life which provide him, unexpectedly, with the answers to each of the questions. The interrogation, as the authorities suspect fraud, of the Jamal is violent but never brutal, and his questioning seems a little too relaxed, particularly considering the violent interrogation which occurs beforehand. What interrogation techniques actually exist for cheating on the game show (which aparently is more common than in the UK) are excessive, but shed little light on the true mentality of the Indian authorities.
My main problem with the story wasn't that it felt over romantic, or sentimental but that it was all too convenient and stereotypical. Two brothers, Jamal and his older sibling Salim, follow a preditable path. There's nothing there which feels genuinely unique other than the concept of having the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire reward. Despite this its very difficult to not like the film, and for most this will be one of the gem's of 2009.
Although I do not feel it is good enough to be deserving of Oscar's, I for one would not be in the least surprised to see both best picture, and best director going to Danny Boyle's heartfelt love story.
A uplifting, heart warming romantic drama with a unique twist, still manages to feel predictable and conventional despite some excellent cinematorgraphy and superb performances. Not so much a missed opportunity as a solid entry into the feel good genre.

Che Part 1 & 2 - 2009

On New Year's Day I was fortunate to get to see Steven Soderburgh's excellent Che is its full uncut version. For most people they will have to pay twice and see Che as part 1 and 2 seperately. Unfortunately this will probably reduce the appeal and the reaction of peoples opinion, as the two parts together make the film a more enriching and enlightening experience. Firstly both films are distinctly different. Part 1, the cuban revolution is fragmented, unconventional, and lacks a clear cause and effect. Instead the film seems to show isolated moments of the revolution, the growing guerilla force, the attacks and invasions of villages, towns and cities. Castro pops up from time to time and pushes the story forward, without ever really giving too much context to the struggle. To a degree the film could be accused of assuming too much. i can not tell you why Castro felt a revolution was necessary, other than believing the country was run by a dictator. Nor could I tell you the exact political reasons Che decided to become an integral part. What I can say for sure, is that the revolution made him an icon. A hero in the truest sense of the world (to those who felt liberated at least). And this is generally already known. So the film ends up feeling a little too much like a step by step unvailing of how Castro and Che, along with some other siginificant commanders, managed to overthrow a government and liberate its people.
The film is intercut with moments of Che's address to the UN. Shot in black and white they go some way to underlining Che's political feelings toward America, the world and Latin America in particular. This event occurred chronologically in between the Cuban revolution and the Bolivian revolution, which makes up the second part of Che.
And its with the 2ns part that you begin to fully understand part 1. Where part 1 demonstrated how a nation needed and desired a change, how the people had longed for a hundred years for this revolution, the second part juxtaposes a failed attempted revolution. Part 2 is also much more conventional in its narrative structure. The film carries a fatalistic air from the very first moments. Che, who throughout is portrayed with exceptional skill by Del Toro, is a massive figure to the small band of guerrillas hoping to liberate their country. However, Bolivia is a different country, with a different history and a people seemingly less motivated than the Cuban's. It also demonstrates a slight stubbornness on Che's part. He is so committed to his political beliefs that Latin America be freed from tyranny that he never once contemplates that his revolution may fail, that the people are not as proactive. As such the film becomes a engrossing counterpoint to part 1 and enables a deeper more resonant meaning to come to fore.
If you ever get the chance to view both films as one, do so. It may be four hours, but it will not as such. If on the other hand you see part 1 out of a curiosity, then be sure to watch part 2, and keep in mind throughout part 1. It will make the experience much more fulfilling and definately more rewarding.