non-review review | the m0vie blog

Non-Review Review: The Reader

Posted on May 16, 2009 by Darren

The first of the big Oscar nominees to be released on DVD/Blu Ray in Ireland, it’s little surprise that Dad came home with The Reader this weekend.

I like to think I’m an open-minded sort of guy. I can watch controversial films without blinking. I can even stomach the occassional political diatribe and acknowledge its well-crafted artistry (I enjoyed Lions for Lambs despite its hamfistedness). Yet The Reader just irks me. Perhaps it’s the way the film tries so hard to pass itself off as a ‘big idea’ film (and evidentally succeeded, securing a Best Picture nod). Perhaps it’s the way that it acts like it has got guts, asking tough questions when all it does is dance around them and undermine them with shameless Oscar-baiting (let’s look at german post-war guilt – but let’s make the subject of this examination an illiterate, uglied-up, pedophilic Kate Winslet).

Continue reading →

Filed under: Movies, Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: holocaust, illiteracy, kate winslet, nazis, non-review review, oscar, ralph fiennes, review, stephen daldry, the reader | 9 Comments »

Non-Review Review: Chaplin

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Darren

I caught Chaplin for the first time last night on Sky Anytime. I was quite impressed for a film I’d heard next to nothing about – always a bad sign.

I quite enjoyed it. As much a love letter to the ghost of Hollywood past as to its lead character, it managed to successfully evoke the slow dwindling of the Hollywood dream. Director Richard Attenborough manages a number of inspired touches (my favourite being the scene where Charlie theatrically claims that The Tramp called out to him (the first hat he tried on, the cane flew to his hand), only to be called out by his editor, leading to the much more mundane days of searching for props and the character’s voice). You almost believe you’re there in the golden age of Hollywood, thanks to costume and set design, as well as staging. In particular, the film works well emulating famous bits of Chaplin schtick (an extended sequence where they flee his wife’s lawyers while editting the film, playing with a volleyball so as to remind viewers of The Great Dictator). It realises that there’s more to Charlie than the life that he lived, and manages to recreate an air of magical non-realism around him. Somehow I imagine his life was much more mundane, but it feels good to imagine it wasn’t.

While we’re on the strengths of the film, three words: Robert Downey Jnr. He was only twenty-eight years old when he played the role, but the audience could be forgiven for being unsure – the film traverses Charlie’s life and, while the later makeup mighty be a bit ropey by today’s standards, it ages Downey relatively well through the bulk of the film. It’s a difficult performance, but one that works. As imagined by Downey, Chaplin is a flawed human being. Not so tragically flawed as the more recent Oscar-nominated performances in recent biopictures (Johnny Cash or Ray Charles are easier to sympathise with), in that he is openly condescending and bitchy about the people close to him, without ever seeming to need to apologise (check out his blithe summary of “America’s Sweetheart”). On the other hand, it’s hard not to feel proud of a man so unwilling to compromise his humanism, even when he knows it will land him in hot water.

It’s to Downey’s credit we neither love nor hate the man, but feel a little like we understand him. It’s also to the performer’s credit that his schtick embodies Chaplin so well that Attenborough can play clips of the man himself (who plays himself on celluloid, save a recreation of the finale of The Great Dictator where Downey steps in) without shattering the illusion.

The rest of the performances are hit-or-miss. Very few supporting characters get screentime, so the really great actors make their mark with that time. Traditionally underrated players, like Dan Ackroyd, Kevin Kline and Diane Lane, in particular make the most of small roles. Veteran performers like James Woods and Marisa Tomei seem criminally underused. The parade of women in Charlie’s life seem like little more than extended cameos, despite being played by Penelope Ann-Miller, Milla Jovovich and Moira Kelly among others. At this point I should reflect that Moira Kelly’s Oirish accent is terrible. It’s painful to hear, but it’s not there for long and is worth soldering through.

There are the usual complaints about biopics to be made here. It does lack focus and suffers from confused priorities. Does Charlie’s sex life deserve the attention is receives at the expense of his career? Is the handling of his politics deep enough, or is it lost amid the tragedy of Douglas Fairbanks? The truth is that – at least in films of this scale – it’s nearly impossible to strike a balance. This film lands squarely in the middle of the pile – landing with W. or Beyond The Sea rather than Nixon or Walk the Line – but is elevated slightly be those inspired director’s touches, a genuine love for the material and a fantastic leading performance.

Call this one a cautious recommendation, though I’m always biased for a love letter to the golden age of Hollywood.

____________________________________________________

Chaplin is directed by Richard Attenborough (Ghandi), based on the life of film maker and comedian Charlie Chaplin. It stars Robert Downey Jnr. (Iron Man, Tropic Thunder) and a huge ensemble cast featuring Kevin Kline (A Fish Called Wanda, The Pink Panther), Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs, Fracture), Marisa Tomei (My Cousin Vinny, The Wrestler), Dan Ackroyd (Ghostbusters, Evolution), Diane Lane (Nights in Rhodesia), Penelope Ann-Miller (Carlito’s Way), Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil, UltraViolet), James Woods (Videodrome, Nixon) and David Duchovney (The X-Files, Californication). It was released in the US on 8th January 1993, but was actually released earlier in the UK and Ireland on 18th December 1992.

Filed under: Movies, Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: anthony hopkins, chaplin, charlie chaplin, dan ackroyd, diane lane, kevin kline, milla jovovich, non-review review, review, richard attenborough, robert downey, robert downey jnr., the great dictator | 3 Comments »

Non-Review Review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Posted on May 14, 2009 by Darren

In short, if the title doesn’t offend you, give it a go. There are worse things to do with your time.

Kevin Smith has come on miles as a director. What’s really notable about the film is that Smith manages to draw fantastic performances from just about every member of the ensemble. This is particularly evident with performers who have worked alongside Smith over a long period of time – Jason Mewes and Brian O’Halloran – both of whom give better performances than I’d have thought they could. It helps that Smith knows them both well enough to hide their weaknesses (O’Halloran does better as a supporting player than a lead) and play to their strengths. The performances in the film are all top-tier. Not one performance feels forced or awkward. True, some like Seth Rogan or Brandon Routh play within their comfort margins, but it’s Elizabeth Banks, Jason Mewes and a scene-stealing Justin Long that are revelations.

The film is populated with the kind of uniquely crazy individuals that seem to inhabit Kevin Smith movies, but he writes them and casts them so well that we don’t consider their money-generating scheme as bizarre as we should (given I doubt it would have occurred to anyone watching in similar dire straits – otherwise Ireland would be a low budget porno haven at this stage). It’s odd when the inevitable “emotional complications” that always pop in on Smith’s third act seem more oddly out of place than the two acts of audacity that proceeded it, but it feels a little out of place here. Maybe it’s because while we expect Smith to mix the crass and the romantic, we don’t expect the extremes to be so far apart. In a comparison to crass-comedy forefather The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zach and Miri manages to be both cruder and sweeter. It’s jarring mix that doesn’t necessarily work, but the comedy is fantastic.

So, yep, if you’re not too prudish for it, it’s a damn funny film that maybe gets a little too sacchrine towards the end, but features several fantastic performances (Long’s extended cameo as an actor who star in productions with “all-male casts” is too amazing for words). Banks in particular shows a growing range which makes her one to watch in the years to come.

________________________________________________

Zach and Miri Make a Porno is a film directed by Kevin Smith (Chasing Amy, Clerks). It’s on his second major film (after Jersey Girl) not to feature his trademark characters Jay and Silent Bob. It stars Seth Rogan (Observe and Report, Knocked Up) and Elizabeth Banks (Scrubs, W.) with supporting turns from Jason Mewes (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Dogma), Brian O’Halloran (Clerks, Clerks 2), Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) and Justin Long (Live Free and Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0).

Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: brandon routh, brian o'halloran, elizabeth banks, jason mewes, justin long, kevin smith, non-review review, review, seth rogan, zack and miri, zack and miri make a porno | 1 Comment »

Non-Review Review: The Bourne Ultimatum

Posted on May 8, 2009 by Darren

Sitting down for the bi-weekly movie, we flicked through the channels and couldn’t find anything really good on that we hadn’t seen. We decided to watch The Bourne Ultimatum in High Def. It counts as a new viewing experience if it’s in HD, right?

Watching it, I was stunned at how much of the movie I’d forgotten since the first time I saw it. That’s not to say the movie is crap, it’s just the cinematic equivalent of junk food: quick, easy, tasty if you don’t think too hard about it, not particularly filling. Watching it as though for the first time, I was blown away by the set pieces: a tense siege at Waterloo station, a chase through Morocco and the finale car chase through New York. The film does these astonishingly well, tying together fancy stuntwork, a pulsating soundtrack and just the perfect amount of cutting (not too much, not too little). As action movies go, it is a very, very good example and comes highly recommended.

The only complaint lies in the overly complicated attempt at plot. As ever, our erstwhile secret-agent-cum-fugitive Jason Bourne is trying to piece together his past. The film is well-constructed as part of a trilogy (tying up loose ends and picking up in the midst of the action), but new viewers may be a bit lost. As a conclusion to the saga, it’s a little mediocre and simplistic, but that is arguably a claim that could be made of the series as a whole.

Even the final revelation about Bourne’s recruitment in Blackbriar doesn’t add a necessary shade of grey to the proceedings. The bumbling CIA-types, though played by Oscar-nominated actors, are never embued with any sense of depth or character – the film instead seems intent to portray its antagonists as power-mad bureaucrats, without an etching of genuine conviction or belief. Of course, this was present in the other two films, but maybe Chris Cooper and Brian Cox were better at shading than this film’s ensemble. Of course, this is a film where the good guy reads The Guardian.

In short, it doesn’t feel like Bourne has travelled particularly far in the span of three films, nor has he answered his own existentialist questions. He now knows his name before he entered the scheme, but he knows little of who he really was. All he’s really done is seemingly gut the middle management of America’s chief intelligence bureau.

The cast make the most of the roles. Any humanity in Bourne is brought to the fore by Matt Damon, who manages to do that despite a relatively small amount of dialogue (he’s a man of actions, not words, dammit). Joan Allen is, as ever, fantastic with a relatively light role. Albert Finney glowers impressively, Scott Glenn seems constantly disappointed and David Staithairn is a little self-righteous while out of his depth. No member of the cast plays outside their comfort zones. Not that any performer is weak, just that no one (with the possible exception of Damon) stands out.

It’s entertaining, fantastically staged and pounding. The story is too crude and simplistic to reach the depths it seems to seek. Taken as it is – a rip-roaring action adventure with amazing setpieces – it works wonderfully. Those looking for a subtle examination of the American intelligence-gathering community in anything but black-and-white terms will be disappointed.

All in all, better overall than The Bourne Identity, but weaker than The Bourne Supremecy.

________________________________________

The Bourne Ultimatum is the third part of a trilogy following the adventures of amnesiac spy Jason Bourne. It is directed by Paul Greengrass (Bloody Sunday) and features an ensemble of Matt Damon (Good Will Hunting, Dogma, The Good Sheppard), Joan Allen (Face/Off, Nixon), David Staithairn (Good Night and Good Luck), Albert Finney (Erin Brokovich, Miller’s Crossing) and Scott Glenn (Silence of the Lambs, W.). It was released in the United States on 3^rd August 2007 and in the UK and Ireland on 17^th August 2007.

Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: albert finney, bourne, bourne ultimatum, joan allen, matt damon, non-review review, review | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page