Posts
No 316 - Trainspotting
Director - Danny Boyle
Ah the 90's and Cool Britannia.
We had Blur. We had Oasis (though I prefer Pulp - who have a song in this film - over either of them). We had Lock Stock and we had this.
'Hollywood Come In - Your time is up' rang the critic quote on the poster. The poster which even today adorns roughly a bazillion bedrooms of students and young adults.
This is one cool film. From the first seconds of the film with the 'dum dum dum' of Lust for Life playing under Ewan McGregor's Renton's iconic 'choose life' speech this film is showing itself as incredibly cool. Yet it walks a very intelligent (and very dangerous) tightrope. You see this film is incredibly cool and it shows taking heroin to be a very lovely and somewhat morish thing. But... in NO way does it glamorise heroin use.
The characters live in horrible squalid squats. There is a lot of poo throughout this film. There are a lot of robberies and a lot of violence.
For every scene in which you see people lying in bliss there are scenes (far longer, more important scenes) of utter horror. Allison's baby dies whilst she is on drugs - a horrible image which haunts the viewer throughout the film, almost as much as it haunts Renton throughout. However, the real warning comes from Tommy. A character that begins the film as one of the few normal people in their social group (he doesn't take drugs. He isn't a psychotic bastard) however after being dumped by his girlfriend he gets involved and everything spirals out of control.
It is quite sad that when we return to Tommy several months after his first hit he is living in a vandalised, dirty, unfurnished flat just lying on a sweat and piss stained mattress. When we return for the 3rd time. He is dead.
Spud ends up in jail, and later seen doped up on the side of a road (literally in the gutter) but Tommy is the warning - Heroin is not only not glamorous, it'll get ya killed.
In fact - for me the most chilling scene is the scene in which Renton overdoses. The mix of imagery as the panicked dealer drags Renton's twitching passed out body into a taxi with the soft tones of Perfect Day by Lou Reed. It is really a moving sequence - worth the price of the ticket alone. And seeing Renton suffer in that moment and the horrific 'cold turkey' sequence would put anyone off heroin forever.
But really this isn't a film about Heroin. It is about Renton trying to get clean, but mostly it is about Renton and his friends. It just turns out that most of his friends are Heroin users. However, the most dangerous of his 'friends' is clean.
Begbie. Fucking Begbie. Robert Carlysle at his most psychotic and terrifying. He has played a lot of psychopaths in the past, but the real chilling thing is how grounded in realism Begbie is. He is just a nutter that enjoys getting into fights. He is that massive cliche... a big violent jock. He is the one that Renton can't escape - he is the one that drags him back to heroin, despite being clean and very anti-smack.
The rest of the cast pale in comparison with Begbie though. Spud is an idiot, a gormless, harmless, smack addict idiot and Sick Boy is a wise alec twat. The other characters are all parents or girlfriends. Bit players in the grand scheme of things. Although I was very amused to see Shirley Henderson playing Spud's girlfriend. Oooh Moaning Myrtle talking about sex and swearing. Love it.
In fact, besides Begbie there is only one character that made an impact. Diane. I think she is hilarious and very cool (obviously as does Renton) and the fact that she is a school girl is hilarious (she is the least convincing teenager though - Kelly MacDonald was 20 at the time and I presume she is supposed to be 14 or 15 in this film.) - but despite scaring Renton to death with worry about going to jail, she turns out to be his most important ally. She writes to him and she cares for him and she's glad when he's off the junk. I like to think they eventually get together. When she has grown up.
The whole film is a slow wake up call. Not about drugs. Renton knows he is addicted. He knows it is bad. He says he should get off it at the very start of the film (that's what makes each failure so crushing). The film is a wake up call that he needs to get away from his idiot friends who bring him down.
So when he finally runs away with the profits of the big drug deal, you cheer.
You want Renton to have 16k to build a better life.
You want Renton to get better and to choose life.
You also know that jail can't hold Begbie forever.... So you want Renton to get far far away.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
Monday, 7 December 2009
I just can't see God putting a gift like that in the hands of a man who would kill a child.
No 331 - The Green Mile
Director - Frank Darabont
Saturday was the excellent Karmageddon. Which I compered. Where I got drunk and left my compere's notebook at the venue.
It had my Green Mile notes in. Time to wing it.
Frank Darabont seems to do quite well with Stephen King's material, especially within a prison setting. He made the excellent Shawshank Redemption and then he pulled this out the bag. Both deal with people being wrongly accused and imprisoned. Both films are slow and meandering, winding through a series of characters rater than an intense plot. The plot for The Green Mile can be explained in one sentence. A man with healing powers is sentenced to death. The rest of the film is just a series of events which happen in that setting.
That seems like a weird way to describe a film, surely all films are just a series of events in a setting. But what is important about the Green Mile is that a lot of the events aren't important to the plot. There are no interweaving subplots. We're just watching the lives of the people on death row, guards and inmates. We're sharing the fears of the inmates, the little (rare) moments of joy that come into their lives and the constant feeling of fear when death is on the horizon. We see the individual solace of the inmates and the sense of camaraderie and necessary gallows humour within the guards.
It is a captivating 3 hour slice of proper old fashioned story telling. A window into other people's lives and one of the saddest films I have ever seen.
The thing that really makes this film are the performances. They are all incredible but there are 3 people who deserve a special mention. One of whom is the epitome of good. And the other two are just horrid.
John Coffey played by Michael Clarke Duncan. Now Michael Clarke Duncan is giant anyway (6 foot 5 and 142kg) but they've used some kind of trickery to make him look around 8 foot tall. He is enormous. Considering what he is sent to jail for, it has even more impact when he asks for the lights to be left on.
John Coffey is the kindest, gentlest soul in the world. He suffers on so many levels. Firstly he has been wrongly accused and sentenced to death. Secondly he is an intimidatingly large black man in the depression era Southern States, finally he feels the cruelty and pain of every body around him.
None of this is nice. What is impressive, is that John Coffey's soft, gentle and timid personality shines through his giant frame. It is an incredible performance. He doesn't seem awkward. He doesn't seem unnatural. He is genuinely timid trembling petal in a hulking brutal body.
It is all the more impressive when contrasted with the smaller, more sinister figures.
Firstly, let us remain BEHIND bars with 'Wild Bill' Wharton. Sam Rockwell is an incredible actor, just look at the amazing amount of interest there has been in him this year. His performance of the horrible horrible Wild Bill is incredible.
His performance is just a pure powerhouse. From the moment where we first see him, apparently doped up to the eyeballs before he breaks free and attempts to kill the guards. His constant goading of those around him.
He destroys his room, he swings on the bars. He pisses on the guards and spits out food on them.
He is completely inappropriate, but he is sort of the comic relief in the film. His performance is so rich, so complete, that throughout the sadness of everything else (this is, after all, a film about death) his antics made me smile. As did the fact that he's constantly being hosed down and dragged to solitary.
So whilst Wild Bill is a bit of a twat (and a raping murdering scumball), but essentially he is one of those people who are deliberately antagonistic.
The kind of contrary bastard you'd expect behind bars on death row.
Which means he isn't a patch on my final character
Percy Wetmore (Doug Hutchison, who plays Horace in Lost... if anyone is still watching Lost). One of the prison guards that have got in through their contacts and painted as genuinely the most horrible person in the film. What I like about this film is that with the exception of Coffey (and he was wrongly accused) you're never told why any of the prisoners are on death row. You're made to make your own judgements and most of them are painted quite nicely. For all we know, Mr Delacroix could be the cruelest most tactical cold blooded murderer. But once behind bars he is quite sweet, so we like him.
It is the same with the guards, they tend to their inmates. There seems to be a lot of trust between the guards and their inmates. They seem to be a happy family. Its that angle to the film that makes the execution scenes so sad.
Percy is the exception to the rule. He will taunt the inmates, antagonise them. He frequently causes them physical pain. His role in Eduard Delecroix's execution is so unspeakably cruel that you'll just want to kick him.
But what makes it worse is he is just a slimy coward. For all his tough talking he still stands there rigid with fear when Wild Bill attacks the guards.
He will never be Brutus.
There are of course other characters that should be mentioned. Tom Hanks is surprisingly good in this film, and in fact the whole cast of guards are brilliant and feel like a proper team of friends with a full back history. However the story at the heart of this film is Coffey's and so I'm going to focus on him.
It is probably fair to say that this is King's 'Jesus Story' about a man who is good, who heals people and who is wrongly sentenced to death. It follows Hanks' realisation that Coffey couldn't be the child raping murderer that he has been accused of and it follows Coffey's little miracles. Both bringing mice to life, or healing the diseases in the guards around him.
The story about the warden's wife having cancer and then being healed shows the full range of Coffey's power - and the strange after effects which come with Coffey having to 'cough up' the pain.
It also introduces some of Coffey's other powers. The fact that he can feel other people's pain. The fact that when he touches people he knows all about them, including all their secrets. What I like is that the full range of Coffey's powers are never explained. Nor is it explained who he is, where he came from or how he came to be so powerful. This film is not that bogged down in set pieces moving a plot on.
This is not a superhero origins movie. This is just life on death row. Which sadly means that Coffey has to go down. The respect (and tears) in the eyes of the guards and the warden combined with the hate and vitriol in the eyes of Coffey's victims make for a really hard scene to watch. It is heart breaking to see Coffey be electrocuted and to know that his friends have to perform that act.
The scene is shot a little bit over sentimentally - with slow motion and showers of light. But it works, it is oddly beautiful.
It could make for a really bleak final chapter. So thankfully the film (and indeed the book) is bookended with a beginning and end set in contemporary times with an old Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks' character) telling the tale.
The nice little twist at the end (which I won't give away for a change) means that you're left with a kind of nice feeling. That's the whole point of this film. It isn't a thrill riot. It isn't a fast moving plot to get from A to B. It is just a captivating story with fascinating characters and phenomenal acting.
PS- I couldn't find anywhere apt to say this but... I'm pretty sure James Cromwell (who plays the Warden) is in a competition with Michael Caine to be in every film franchise ever. I mean it is ridiculous.
Director - Frank Darabont
Saturday was the excellent Karmageddon. Which I compered. Where I got drunk and left my compere's notebook at the venue.
It had my Green Mile notes in. Time to wing it.
Frank Darabont seems to do quite well with Stephen King's material, especially within a prison setting. He made the excellent Shawshank Redemption and then he pulled this out the bag. Both deal with people being wrongly accused and imprisoned. Both films are slow and meandering, winding through a series of characters rater than an intense plot. The plot for The Green Mile can be explained in one sentence. A man with healing powers is sentenced to death. The rest of the film is just a series of events which happen in that setting.
That seems like a weird way to describe a film, surely all films are just a series of events in a setting. But what is important about the Green Mile is that a lot of the events aren't important to the plot. There are no interweaving subplots. We're just watching the lives of the people on death row, guards and inmates. We're sharing the fears of the inmates, the little (rare) moments of joy that come into their lives and the constant feeling of fear when death is on the horizon. We see the individual solace of the inmates and the sense of camaraderie and necessary gallows humour within the guards.
It is a captivating 3 hour slice of proper old fashioned story telling. A window into other people's lives and one of the saddest films I have ever seen.
The thing that really makes this film are the performances. They are all incredible but there are 3 people who deserve a special mention. One of whom is the epitome of good. And the other two are just horrid.
John Coffey played by Michael Clarke Duncan. Now Michael Clarke Duncan is giant anyway (6 foot 5 and 142kg) but they've used some kind of trickery to make him look around 8 foot tall. He is enormous. Considering what he is sent to jail for, it has even more impact when he asks for the lights to be left on.
John Coffey is the kindest, gentlest soul in the world. He suffers on so many levels. Firstly he has been wrongly accused and sentenced to death. Secondly he is an intimidatingly large black man in the depression era Southern States, finally he feels the cruelty and pain of every body around him.
None of this is nice. What is impressive, is that John Coffey's soft, gentle and timid personality shines through his giant frame. It is an incredible performance. He doesn't seem awkward. He doesn't seem unnatural. He is genuinely timid trembling petal in a hulking brutal body.
It is all the more impressive when contrasted with the smaller, more sinister figures.
Firstly, let us remain BEHIND bars with 'Wild Bill' Wharton. Sam Rockwell is an incredible actor, just look at the amazing amount of interest there has been in him this year. His performance of the horrible horrible Wild Bill is incredible.
His performance is just a pure powerhouse. From the moment where we first see him, apparently doped up to the eyeballs before he breaks free and attempts to kill the guards. His constant goading of those around him.
He destroys his room, he swings on the bars. He pisses on the guards and spits out food on them.
He is completely inappropriate, but he is sort of the comic relief in the film. His performance is so rich, so complete, that throughout the sadness of everything else (this is, after all, a film about death) his antics made me smile. As did the fact that he's constantly being hosed down and dragged to solitary.
So whilst Wild Bill is a bit of a twat (and a raping murdering scumball), but essentially he is one of those people who are deliberately antagonistic.
The kind of contrary bastard you'd expect behind bars on death row.
Which means he isn't a patch on my final character
Percy Wetmore (Doug Hutchison, who plays Horace in Lost... if anyone is still watching Lost). One of the prison guards that have got in through their contacts and painted as genuinely the most horrible person in the film. What I like about this film is that with the exception of Coffey (and he was wrongly accused) you're never told why any of the prisoners are on death row. You're made to make your own judgements and most of them are painted quite nicely. For all we know, Mr Delacroix could be the cruelest most tactical cold blooded murderer. But once behind bars he is quite sweet, so we like him.
It is the same with the guards, they tend to their inmates. There seems to be a lot of trust between the guards and their inmates. They seem to be a happy family. Its that angle to the film that makes the execution scenes so sad.
Percy is the exception to the rule. He will taunt the inmates, antagonise them. He frequently causes them physical pain. His role in Eduard Delecroix's execution is so unspeakably cruel that you'll just want to kick him.
But what makes it worse is he is just a slimy coward. For all his tough talking he still stands there rigid with fear when Wild Bill attacks the guards.
He will never be Brutus.
There are of course other characters that should be mentioned. Tom Hanks is surprisingly good in this film, and in fact the whole cast of guards are brilliant and feel like a proper team of friends with a full back history. However the story at the heart of this film is Coffey's and so I'm going to focus on him.
It is probably fair to say that this is King's 'Jesus Story' about a man who is good, who heals people and who is wrongly sentenced to death. It follows Hanks' realisation that Coffey couldn't be the child raping murderer that he has been accused of and it follows Coffey's little miracles. Both bringing mice to life, or healing the diseases in the guards around him.
The story about the warden's wife having cancer and then being healed shows the full range of Coffey's power - and the strange after effects which come with Coffey having to 'cough up' the pain.
It also introduces some of Coffey's other powers. The fact that he can feel other people's pain. The fact that when he touches people he knows all about them, including all their secrets. What I like is that the full range of Coffey's powers are never explained. Nor is it explained who he is, where he came from or how he came to be so powerful. This film is not that bogged down in set pieces moving a plot on.
This is not a superhero origins movie. This is just life on death row. Which sadly means that Coffey has to go down. The respect (and tears) in the eyes of the guards and the warden combined with the hate and vitriol in the eyes of Coffey's victims make for a really hard scene to watch. It is heart breaking to see Coffey be electrocuted and to know that his friends have to perform that act.
The scene is shot a little bit over sentimentally - with slow motion and showers of light. But it works, it is oddly beautiful.
It could make for a really bleak final chapter. So thankfully the film (and indeed the book) is bookended with a beginning and end set in contemporary times with an old Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks' character) telling the tale.
The nice little twist at the end (which I won't give away for a change) means that you're left with a kind of nice feeling. That's the whole point of this film. It isn't a thrill riot. It isn't a fast moving plot to get from A to B. It is just a captivating story with fascinating characters and phenomenal acting.
PS- I couldn't find anywhere apt to say this but... I'm pretty sure James Cromwell (who plays the Warden) is in a competition with Michael Caine to be in every film franchise ever. I mean it is ridiculous.
All men are guilty. They're born innocent, but it doesn't last
No 298 - Le Cercle Rouge
Director - Jean-Pierre Melville
So, I've not posted for a little bit but I have a triple whammy of film posts to put up. Firstly a film I had tried to watch but had had to bail due to a chronic hangover. This was days, if not weeks, ago. I was then under the foolish belief that I wouldn't enjoy it.
I was wrong.
I don't enjoy HANGOVERS.
The film follows two criminals and begins by explaining how they meet up and subsequently join forces for a massive jewelry heist.
The first is Corey, fresh out of jail and hustled straight into a job by a corrupt cop. He is sort of the goody I guess. He is however incredibly cool. A very quiet and calculating figure. He seems meticulous with every movement he makes. And he has the most amazing late 60's moustache. Genuinely awesome.
I like Corey. He definitely comes out of his as the most impressive figure. He proves you can wear a mac without looking like a creepy paedophile. Something is never achieved in Highlander.
Corey is then joined by Vogel through a series of hi jinks and shenanigans (hiding in cars, shooting people etc). Now Vogel is set up to look pretty damned cool too. After all he manages to escape from a moving train. Where he has been handcuffed. In a guarded room. Using only a safety pin. However he seems to frantic, too nervous, too sweaty to be really cool.
He is not as cool as Corey. Man is one collected mother!
The two join forces with a third crack shot alcoholic ex cop in order to rob a jewelry store of 20 million francs worth of diamonds. 20 million francs may not sound like much, but remember this is 1970. A time where everybody smokes, constantly. A time when people can wear moustaches without it being ironic, or for charity. A time where back projection is ruddy awful - seriously all the clips of people allegedly driving are AWFUL. In this video, not only do you get a great example of bad fake driving, but you also see just how scary the Studio Canal title music is.
So we're introduced to our two main characters and then we have the police who are chasing Vogel. It all becomes clear (as is strongly hinted at in the scrolling text at the start) that these people will meet up. What I was surprised about was the way that it all happens.
We have a film which has clearly influenced Tarantino. The story's Mexican stand off and subsequent finale couldn't be more Tarantino and it works really well. It shows that all men are guilty and no one can avoid it.
Unlike Tarantino however, this film actively seems to avoid violence. The cool comes from the characters doing nothing. Cool, calm and collected. Any moments of violence are small gun scuffles lasting seconds and ending with a neat corpse killed by a single bullet.
They don't make violence cool. They show it as a means to an end. That makes this film very interesting and very brave.
However, nothing is as brave or as interesting as the heist. For some reason I found myself comparing the heist to Ocean's 11. It shows how cinema has changed. For at least half an hour we have next to no sound. Certainly no incidental music and no dialogue. We have no frantic edits or strange camera angles. We have no fast movements.
Just three masked men moving very slowly round carefully calculated routes in order to rob their jewels.
It is incredible. A strangely hypnotic cinematic moment. Considering so little happens, it is amazing how much it sucks you in.
Like most French cinema of that era it is effortlessly cool...
Director - Jean-Pierre Melville
So, I've not posted for a little bit but I have a triple whammy of film posts to put up. Firstly a film I had tried to watch but had had to bail due to a chronic hangover. This was days, if not weeks, ago. I was then under the foolish belief that I wouldn't enjoy it.
I was wrong.
I don't enjoy HANGOVERS.
The film follows two criminals and begins by explaining how they meet up and subsequently join forces for a massive jewelry heist.
The first is Corey, fresh out of jail and hustled straight into a job by a corrupt cop. He is sort of the goody I guess. He is however incredibly cool. A very quiet and calculating figure. He seems meticulous with every movement he makes. And he has the most amazing late 60's moustache. Genuinely awesome.
I like Corey. He definitely comes out of his as the most impressive figure. He proves you can wear a mac without looking like a creepy paedophile. Something is never achieved in Highlander.
Corey is then joined by Vogel through a series of hi jinks and shenanigans (hiding in cars, shooting people etc). Now Vogel is set up to look pretty damned cool too. After all he manages to escape from a moving train. Where he has been handcuffed. In a guarded room. Using only a safety pin. However he seems to frantic, too nervous, too sweaty to be really cool.
He is not as cool as Corey. Man is one collected mother!
The two join forces with a third crack shot alcoholic ex cop in order to rob a jewelry store of 20 million francs worth of diamonds. 20 million francs may not sound like much, but remember this is 1970. A time where everybody smokes, constantly. A time when people can wear moustaches without it being ironic, or for charity. A time where back projection is ruddy awful - seriously all the clips of people allegedly driving are AWFUL. In this video, not only do you get a great example of bad fake driving, but you also see just how scary the Studio Canal title music is.
So we're introduced to our two main characters and then we have the police who are chasing Vogel. It all becomes clear (as is strongly hinted at in the scrolling text at the start) that these people will meet up. What I was surprised about was the way that it all happens.
We have a film which has clearly influenced Tarantino. The story's Mexican stand off and subsequent finale couldn't be more Tarantino and it works really well. It shows that all men are guilty and no one can avoid it.
Unlike Tarantino however, this film actively seems to avoid violence. The cool comes from the characters doing nothing. Cool, calm and collected. Any moments of violence are small gun scuffles lasting seconds and ending with a neat corpse killed by a single bullet.
They don't make violence cool. They show it as a means to an end. That makes this film very interesting and very brave.
However, nothing is as brave or as interesting as the heist. For some reason I found myself comparing the heist to Ocean's 11. It shows how cinema has changed. For at least half an hour we have next to no sound. Certainly no incidental music and no dialogue. We have no frantic edits or strange camera angles. We have no fast movements.
Just three masked men moving very slowly round carefully calculated routes in order to rob their jewels.
It is incredible. A strangely hypnotic cinematic moment. Considering so little happens, it is amazing how much it sucks you in.
Like most French cinema of that era it is effortlessly cool...
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Apollo Creed vs. the Italian Stallion. Sounds like a damn monster movie.
Number 370 - Rocky
Director - John G Avildsen
Another day and yet another film classic I've failed to see. Has to be said that I was very impressed by this film. It isn't the greatest film n the world, it has a lot of weaknesses, but it is far better than I had anticipated.
The first thing that grabs me is just how young Stallone is, its been a while since I've watched First Blood, so now when I think of Stallone I think of the older modern Stallone. So youth was a surprise, but not as much as the whole dweebyness of the film.
Adrien is certainly nerdier than I thought (I had no idea what Adrian looked like, and it makes sense that she is the Basis for Mrs Gideon in the Killeroo episode - a rocky pastiche). Yes, her physical appearance is nerdy but it is more her character. She is quiet and shy. As is Rocky. The two of the fumble and mutter and are painfully awkward in each other's company.
In fact, I found myself feeling quite a surprising feeling, I though Rocky was quite sweet. He has this built in need to do the right thing, a need that is clearly shown in his adoration of animals. See one of his earlier attempts to get Adrian's attention where he talks in great detail about the differences in turtle food. This is a man who is passionate about his animals and treating them well. Yet, despite this evident he works as a hired goon for a loan shark, admittedly his kindness means he isn't very good at it. But he does it all the same. Rocky is an interesting character and the film follows him for a long time before it focuses on the boxing and the Apollo Creed. In fact for most of the film it is about the relationship of two quite socially awkward people. It is quite adorable.
But let us go to the start of the film, before he gets into his relationship. When we meet Rocky he isn't in the best place. Adrian ignores his pleas for her attention (2 jokes a day). The boxing club has kicked him out and his only friend (or so it seems) is Paulie, Adrian's brother. I'm sorry but Paulie is a dick. He has proper anger management issues. Lashing out over everything. I did start to invent a little back story for him. Maybe he is bipolar. He is probably an alcoholic. Whatever, he is horrible to Adrian and her and Rocky are just too sweet.
Yet, this is a boxing film. So we should probably talk about the boxing. Well particularly one bit. The Montage. Oh you've got to love a montage. If it wasn't for Rocky's horrible grey tracksuit it'd be the best thing ever.
The truth is, with the exception of the montages and the excellent Rocky Theme. There isn't much going for the actual boxing scenes.
Watch him pound meat (not a euphemism) in Paulie's freezer. Watch him run around. Watch him punch a bag. Watch him run up stairs.
Until before long he is fighting Apollo Creed.
What I love is that he doesn't win. Apollo is still world champion, Rocky just manages to survive. This isn't about the underdog beating the villainous baddie. Apollo seems like a genuinely nice (and very well outfitted) guy - after all it is just a sport. Just business. Just a show.
Rocky manages to last the full 15 rounds. He is no longer an unknown boxer. He is a star.
But all of that is peripheral, it is set up to the sequels. What makes Rocky so impressive is that really it is a love story between two shy people who love animals.
Director - John G Avildsen
Another day and yet another film classic I've failed to see. Has to be said that I was very impressed by this film. It isn't the greatest film n the world, it has a lot of weaknesses, but it is far better than I had anticipated.
The first thing that grabs me is just how young Stallone is, its been a while since I've watched First Blood, so now when I think of Stallone I think of the older modern Stallone. So youth was a surprise, but not as much as the whole dweebyness of the film.
Adrien is certainly nerdier than I thought (I had no idea what Adrian looked like, and it makes sense that she is the Basis for Mrs Gideon in the Killeroo episode - a rocky pastiche). Yes, her physical appearance is nerdy but it is more her character. She is quiet and shy. As is Rocky. The two of the fumble and mutter and are painfully awkward in each other's company.
In fact, I found myself feeling quite a surprising feeling, I though Rocky was quite sweet. He has this built in need to do the right thing, a need that is clearly shown in his adoration of animals. See one of his earlier attempts to get Adrian's attention where he talks in great detail about the differences in turtle food. This is a man who is passionate about his animals and treating them well. Yet, despite this evident he works as a hired goon for a loan shark, admittedly his kindness means he isn't very good at it. But he does it all the same. Rocky is an interesting character and the film follows him for a long time before it focuses on the boxing and the Apollo Creed. In fact for most of the film it is about the relationship of two quite socially awkward people. It is quite adorable.
But let us go to the start of the film, before he gets into his relationship. When we meet Rocky he isn't in the best place. Adrian ignores his pleas for her attention (2 jokes a day). The boxing club has kicked him out and his only friend (or so it seems) is Paulie, Adrian's brother. I'm sorry but Paulie is a dick. He has proper anger management issues. Lashing out over everything. I did start to invent a little back story for him. Maybe he is bipolar. He is probably an alcoholic. Whatever, he is horrible to Adrian and her and Rocky are just too sweet.
Yet, this is a boxing film. So we should probably talk about the boxing. Well particularly one bit. The Montage. Oh you've got to love a montage. If it wasn't for Rocky's horrible grey tracksuit it'd be the best thing ever.
The truth is, with the exception of the montages and the excellent Rocky Theme. There isn't much going for the actual boxing scenes.
Watch him pound meat (not a euphemism) in Paulie's freezer. Watch him run around. Watch him punch a bag. Watch him run up stairs.
Until before long he is fighting Apollo Creed.
What I love is that he doesn't win. Apollo is still world champion, Rocky just manages to survive. This isn't about the underdog beating the villainous baddie. Apollo seems like a genuinely nice (and very well outfitted) guy - after all it is just a sport. Just business. Just a show.
Rocky manages to last the full 15 rounds. He is no longer an unknown boxer. He is a star.
But all of that is peripheral, it is set up to the sequels. What makes Rocky so impressive is that really it is a love story between two shy people who love animals.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
And since I am dead I can take off my head to recite Shakespearean quotations.
No 327 – Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas
Director – Henry Selick
It has always been difficult to know when exactly one should watch the Nightmare before Christmas. The Halloween setting means you can realistically play it anytime round late October. But the Christmas theme makes it seem strange. There are, after all certain Christmas films that only work at Christmas. I could watch Die Hard in August and still get the same adrenaline rush, but the Muppet’s Christmas Carol is too steeped in tradition that I’d be unable to enjoy the film without th e other trappings of the season.
Nightmare is certainly seasonal, but which season?
This is why I’ve opted for watching it now. We’re almost exactly half way between Halloween and Christmas which fits the film’s timeline perfectly. We’re neither here nor there when it comes to the events. We just sit nicely in the middle.
I’m a big fan of this film. I saw it at the cinema as a youth and have loved it ever since. It still looks magnificent and the songs and characters are ingenious. There are just a couple of things that need to be mentioned:
1) Although the story and characters are based on an idea Tim Burton had whilst working for Disney, Burton’s role was only as a producer. I went to a Q&A for Coraline and Selick admitted that whilst being very proud of Nightmare he was upset that Disney had hidden his involvement and made it look like Tim Burton had directed. Henry Selick is the master of nightmare based stop motion. Films like James and the Giant Peach or his latest Coraline are fabulously scary at times. And Monkeybone has quite possibly traumatised me for life.
2) It is important to watch this film outside of the context it has fallen into. In the last decade The Nightmare Before Christmas became a visual symbol for an entire Emo generation and Jack and Sally became the ideal couple. The epitome of love. They were name checked by Blink 182 and their faces adorned almost everything in the Brighton Lanes, or Camden, or Hot Topic.
However, neither of these points have any relevance to the film as a story or visually. So let me begin to discuss what I love.
Firstly, the story itself is wonderful. The creatures and monsters of Halloween town decide to have a go at Christmas. It is such a simple concept but allows for so much confusion, the optimism and good intentions of Jack Skellington mixed with the nightmare he creates. Which leads me to the other brave element of the story. The three most genuinely evil characters in Halloween Town (with the exception of the Boogie man, who I’ll discuss later) are Lock, Shock and Barrel, three trick or treating children. Besides them, everyone is painted as kind and lovable and usually a bit dim. Even creatures who represent concepts I genuinely find chilling (the clown with the tearaway face *shudder*) are painted with pathos and kindness. This film works alongside Monsters Inc really. It shows us the monsters in our closets and then shows us they’re not that scary after all.
It also gives us Jack and Sally. Two wonderful wonderful characters. Both of which are hopeless dreamers and both are somewhat sappy. They’re also a couple that could never work live action (which must be one of the many reasons why there still isn’t a live musical of it…) a 10ft stick thin skeleton and a rag doll who frequently falls apart.
Their relationship has just the right level of shyness and flattery. In fact it isn’t till the rescue sequence near the end that you see the tougher side to Jack’s character. As he dodges knives, leaping and diving and kicking ass you realise why he was chosen as King of Halloween (in my head it is a democracy, or at least he has to have superior Halloween skills compared to everyone else) and the power he has. Until then he is quite whiney and insular. Staying within the ideas in his head. You have to love the mild trauma which must follow the children after Jack's Wimsey - being delivered giant man eating snakes or shrunken heads or possessed dolls when they were expecting train sets and bikes.
The world of Halloween is beautifully presented both as a living breathing town but also in palette. This is a world painted in a very dull palette of greys and dirty muted browns with only the occasional vibrant splash of orange. Each world is then given its own visual identity. Be it the greys and browns of Halloween, the natural tones of the human world or the vibrant primary colours of Christmas Town.
It is a really easy way to show the contrasts between the worlds and to help set our scene.
It isn’t just the set pieces which have their own visual identity, the whole film does. This is down to Tim Burton’s sketches and art style but also to the very honest medium of Stop Motion animation.
This is what I mean by honest, look at the Mayor. When ever he speaks, check the edges of the plate that contains his mouth. I love that you can see the slight changes that mark every frame. It is gloriously lo-fi and it is a big thing that we lose in CGI. So thank the heavens for people like Henry Selick and Nick Park who still champion it.
The most impressive bit is one of the later sequences, the torture of Santa by Oogie Boogie. I think Oogie Boogie is supposed to be the bogey man but is actually a surprisingly savage sentient sack of bugs.
His home is a garish casino. Each area lit with black lights to give that neon UV look. Oogie Boogie’s song brings out a jazzy glamour reminiscent to Disney’s output in the 60’s. Only this is a song about killing Santa. In fact all the songs are excellent and contrast so well. The eerie introduction of This is Halloween couldn't be any more different to the plinky plonky joy of Whats This? - but they all work together. I think this is Danny Elfman's best work (though I think I said that for Batman) - Certainly trounces his songs in Corpse Bride.
Visually, my favourite part is the end... Oogie fails and his sack is ripped open leaving the bugs screaming and tumbling into a drain. All I can think of is the sheer amount of time the sequence must have taken to animate it. The little bugs all moving individually. It is amazing.
I am such a geek
Director – Henry Selick
It has always been difficult to know when exactly one should watch the Nightmare before Christmas. The Halloween setting means you can realistically play it anytime round late October. But the Christmas theme makes it seem strange. There are, after all certain Christmas films that only work at Christmas. I could watch Die Hard in August and still get the same adrenaline rush, but the Muppet’s Christmas Carol is too steeped in tradition that I’d be unable to enjoy the film without th e other trappings of the season.
Nightmare is certainly seasonal, but which season?
This is why I’ve opted for watching it now. We’re almost exactly half way between Halloween and Christmas which fits the film’s timeline perfectly. We’re neither here nor there when it comes to the events. We just sit nicely in the middle.
I’m a big fan of this film. I saw it at the cinema as a youth and have loved it ever since. It still looks magnificent and the songs and characters are ingenious. There are just a couple of things that need to be mentioned:
1) Although the story and characters are based on an idea Tim Burton had whilst working for Disney, Burton’s role was only as a producer. I went to a Q&A for Coraline and Selick admitted that whilst being very proud of Nightmare he was upset that Disney had hidden his involvement and made it look like Tim Burton had directed. Henry Selick is the master of nightmare based stop motion. Films like James and the Giant Peach or his latest Coraline are fabulously scary at times. And Monkeybone has quite possibly traumatised me for life.
2) It is important to watch this film outside of the context it has fallen into. In the last decade The Nightmare Before Christmas became a visual symbol for an entire Emo generation and Jack and Sally became the ideal couple. The epitome of love. They were name checked by Blink 182 and their faces adorned almost everything in the Brighton Lanes, or Camden, or Hot Topic.
However, neither of these points have any relevance to the film as a story or visually. So let me begin to discuss what I love.
Firstly, the story itself is wonderful. The creatures and monsters of Halloween town decide to have a go at Christmas. It is such a simple concept but allows for so much confusion, the optimism and good intentions of Jack Skellington mixed with the nightmare he creates. Which leads me to the other brave element of the story. The three most genuinely evil characters in Halloween Town (with the exception of the Boogie man, who I’ll discuss later) are Lock, Shock and Barrel, three trick or treating children. Besides them, everyone is painted as kind and lovable and usually a bit dim. Even creatures who represent concepts I genuinely find chilling (the clown with the tearaway face *shudder*) are painted with pathos and kindness. This film works alongside Monsters Inc really. It shows us the monsters in our closets and then shows us they’re not that scary after all.
It also gives us Jack and Sally. Two wonderful wonderful characters. Both of which are hopeless dreamers and both are somewhat sappy. They’re also a couple that could never work live action (which must be one of the many reasons why there still isn’t a live musical of it…) a 10ft stick thin skeleton and a rag doll who frequently falls apart.
Their relationship has just the right level of shyness and flattery. In fact it isn’t till the rescue sequence near the end that you see the tougher side to Jack’s character. As he dodges knives, leaping and diving and kicking ass you realise why he was chosen as King of Halloween (in my head it is a democracy, or at least he has to have superior Halloween skills compared to everyone else) and the power he has. Until then he is quite whiney and insular. Staying within the ideas in his head. You have to love the mild trauma which must follow the children after Jack's Wimsey - being delivered giant man eating snakes or shrunken heads or possessed dolls when they were expecting train sets and bikes.
The world of Halloween is beautifully presented both as a living breathing town but also in palette. This is a world painted in a very dull palette of greys and dirty muted browns with only the occasional vibrant splash of orange. Each world is then given its own visual identity. Be it the greys and browns of Halloween, the natural tones of the human world or the vibrant primary colours of Christmas Town.
It is a really easy way to show the contrasts between the worlds and to help set our scene.
It isn’t just the set pieces which have their own visual identity, the whole film does. This is down to Tim Burton’s sketches and art style but also to the very honest medium of Stop Motion animation.
This is what I mean by honest, look at the Mayor. When ever he speaks, check the edges of the plate that contains his mouth. I love that you can see the slight changes that mark every frame. It is gloriously lo-fi and it is a big thing that we lose in CGI. So thank the heavens for people like Henry Selick and Nick Park who still champion it.
The most impressive bit is one of the later sequences, the torture of Santa by Oogie Boogie. I think Oogie Boogie is supposed to be the bogey man but is actually a surprisingly savage sentient sack of bugs.
His home is a garish casino. Each area lit with black lights to give that neon UV look. Oogie Boogie’s song brings out a jazzy glamour reminiscent to Disney’s output in the 60’s. Only this is a song about killing Santa. In fact all the songs are excellent and contrast so well. The eerie introduction of This is Halloween couldn't be any more different to the plinky plonky joy of Whats This? - but they all work together. I think this is Danny Elfman's best work (though I think I said that for Batman) - Certainly trounces his songs in Corpse Bride.
Visually, my favourite part is the end... Oogie fails and his sack is ripped open leaving the bugs screaming and tumbling into a drain. All I can think of is the sheer amount of time the sequence must have taken to animate it. The little bugs all moving individually. It is amazing.
I am such a geek
Saturday, 21 November 2009
I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!
No 362 – The Elephant Man
Director – David Lynch
There are two things in particular which I intend to focus on in this blog. Firstly, my surprise that this is a David Lynch film, secondly the fact that John Merrick was a real person (though he was actually called Joseph Merrick fact fans) and that therefore this story is based in truth.
I have a John Merrick biography which I attempted to read over the summer. I found it a bit too intense, too heavy and sad to read on a poolside in France. However as the winter months draw in it might be worth crack it out and reading up on the poor man.
However, first things first. I wish to talk about Lynch and the visual style of this film. I have a bit of a confused relationship with David Lynch, the first film I saw of his was Eraserhead which scared me to pieces. Ever since then, his films have left me feeling confused and uncomfortable. Yet with Elephant Man we have a fairly normal story. A story with a clear overarching plot, with a linear story and with only the merest hint of midgets.
What I loved was the feel of the film. It felt like an old film. This is more than merely being in black and white. There is something that ekes out of every element of the film. The lighting, the framing, the way that characters talk, the grainy stock footage. It is difficult to put your finger on the exact reason but the film feels old. It feels like the kind of films that were made in the 40s and are now shown on BBC2 or Channel 4 on a weekday afternoon.
It is a very unusual visual aesthetic, I’m pretty sure that it was filmed entirely in a studio, even the few outdoor shots feel like they were in a studio. The way that the film was made means it never looks or feels like a film made in 1980. It feels much older, and it is only the occasional nightmare sequence which brings back the disturbing horror that is so classically Lynchian. Obscure images and overlaying moments, discordant sounds and frantic editing. It all jars against the antiquated feel of the rest of the film, yet feels right for a nightmare sequence.
But then, Lynch always does excellent dreams.
The fact that these nightmare sequences are the exception rather than the norm means that this is the most accessible of Lynch’s films.
It is, however, also the saddest. The film includes a series of elements which combine into a heartbreaking depiction and story.
Firstly, the whole notion of freak shows are horrible. Films like Tod Browning's Freaks made the brotherhood of circus freaks feel somewhat glamorous, or at least a loving family. Carnivale makes it all seem a bit like a struggle but essentially an adventure. However, this film shows the freak circuit for what it is. Exploitation. The dirt, the squalor, the abuse, the cages. The depiction is really quite horrific and quite distressing. It is made all the more worse when you begin to relate with the character of Merrick. This is down entirely to John Hurt in a phenomenal performance.
I mean look at John Hurt. Now look at his character. He is 90% facial make up. In fact, probably more than that because they've expanded so much on the size of his head. And yet, despite the vast amount of make up or prosthetics, his performance is really moving. See the point where John Merrick speaks to the wife of Dr Treeves for the first time. After a polite conversation he bursts into tears. Surprised and moved that a lady has been so kind to him. The single scene encapsulates both the delicate nature of Merrick but also the abuse he has suffered in the past. It is a very moving scene and a fantastic performance, showing Hurt's skill at creating emotion from quite an emotionless mass of tumor.
I've been a huge fan of Hurt for quite some time and this film shows why. It is such a deep and all encompassing performance showing the resignation, fear and latterly anger towards his mistreatment but also his love and joy and excitement as he becomes involved with high society. Again, look at the rapturous joy when he first reads Shakespeare or first goes to the theatre. Truly moving.
The final, and most traumatic, aspect of the film is the behaviour of 75% of the rest of the characters. When compared with the delicacy and quiet dignity of Merrick the other characters come off as quite detestable. Anthony Hopkins' Dr Treeves fears that what he is doing is just another form of the spectacle and exploitation that Merrick had been exposed to. But at least he shows Merrick respect. At least he treats Merrick as an equal. It is in scenes with Bytes, the freakshow owner, or Michael Elphick's hospital porter that you see the real evil of people.
It is this element that makes me want to read the book, because it can't be that horrible.
Of course, the people of Victorian times would not be so kind to people they saw as different. Specially not so horrific an illness as Merrick's condition. However whilst I'm aware he would have been treated poorly, I'd hate to think that people really did used to sneak to his hospital rooms to exploit and abuse him.
In all these films it is impossible to know what is based on truth and what is based on the myth, or expanded upon for the sake of the story.
However, even if we take away the 'based on a true story' element, we are faced with a beautiful and moving tale of a Victorian gentleman dealing with impossible odds.
If it turns out to be true, it is heartbreaking.
Director – David Lynch
There are two things in particular which I intend to focus on in this blog. Firstly, my surprise that this is a David Lynch film, secondly the fact that John Merrick was a real person (though he was actually called Joseph Merrick fact fans) and that therefore this story is based in truth.
I have a John Merrick biography which I attempted to read over the summer. I found it a bit too intense, too heavy and sad to read on a poolside in France. However as the winter months draw in it might be worth crack it out and reading up on the poor man.
However, first things first. I wish to talk about Lynch and the visual style of this film. I have a bit of a confused relationship with David Lynch, the first film I saw of his was Eraserhead which scared me to pieces. Ever since then, his films have left me feeling confused and uncomfortable. Yet with Elephant Man we have a fairly normal story. A story with a clear overarching plot, with a linear story and with only the merest hint of midgets.
What I loved was the feel of the film. It felt like an old film. This is more than merely being in black and white. There is something that ekes out of every element of the film. The lighting, the framing, the way that characters talk, the grainy stock footage. It is difficult to put your finger on the exact reason but the film feels old. It feels like the kind of films that were made in the 40s and are now shown on BBC2 or Channel 4 on a weekday afternoon.
It is a very unusual visual aesthetic, I’m pretty sure that it was filmed entirely in a studio, even the few outdoor shots feel like they were in a studio. The way that the film was made means it never looks or feels like a film made in 1980. It feels much older, and it is only the occasional nightmare sequence which brings back the disturbing horror that is so classically Lynchian. Obscure images and overlaying moments, discordant sounds and frantic editing. It all jars against the antiquated feel of the rest of the film, yet feels right for a nightmare sequence.
But then, Lynch always does excellent dreams.
The fact that these nightmare sequences are the exception rather than the norm means that this is the most accessible of Lynch’s films.
It is, however, also the saddest. The film includes a series of elements which combine into a heartbreaking depiction and story.
Firstly, the whole notion of freak shows are horrible. Films like Tod Browning's Freaks made the brotherhood of circus freaks feel somewhat glamorous, or at least a loving family. Carnivale makes it all seem a bit like a struggle but essentially an adventure. However, this film shows the freak circuit for what it is. Exploitation. The dirt, the squalor, the abuse, the cages. The depiction is really quite horrific and quite distressing. It is made all the more worse when you begin to relate with the character of Merrick. This is down entirely to John Hurt in a phenomenal performance.
I mean look at John Hurt. Now look at his character. He is 90% facial make up. In fact, probably more than that because they've expanded so much on the size of his head. And yet, despite the vast amount of make up or prosthetics, his performance is really moving. See the point where John Merrick speaks to the wife of Dr Treeves for the first time. After a polite conversation he bursts into tears. Surprised and moved that a lady has been so kind to him. The single scene encapsulates both the delicate nature of Merrick but also the abuse he has suffered in the past. It is a very moving scene and a fantastic performance, showing Hurt's skill at creating emotion from quite an emotionless mass of tumor.
I've been a huge fan of Hurt for quite some time and this film shows why. It is such a deep and all encompassing performance showing the resignation, fear and latterly anger towards his mistreatment but also his love and joy and excitement as he becomes involved with high society. Again, look at the rapturous joy when he first reads Shakespeare or first goes to the theatre. Truly moving.
The final, and most traumatic, aspect of the film is the behaviour of 75% of the rest of the characters. When compared with the delicacy and quiet dignity of Merrick the other characters come off as quite detestable. Anthony Hopkins' Dr Treeves fears that what he is doing is just another form of the spectacle and exploitation that Merrick had been exposed to. But at least he shows Merrick respect. At least he treats Merrick as an equal. It is in scenes with Bytes, the freakshow owner, or Michael Elphick's hospital porter that you see the real evil of people.
It is this element that makes me want to read the book, because it can't be that horrible.
Of course, the people of Victorian times would not be so kind to people they saw as different. Specially not so horrific an illness as Merrick's condition. However whilst I'm aware he would have been treated poorly, I'd hate to think that people really did used to sneak to his hospital rooms to exploit and abuse him.
In all these films it is impossible to know what is based on truth and what is based on the myth, or expanded upon for the sake of the story.
However, even if we take away the 'based on a true story' element, we are faced with a beautiful and moving tale of a Victorian gentleman dealing with impossible odds.
If it turns out to be true, it is heartbreaking.
Monday, 16 November 2009
You wanna be a big cop in a small town? Fuck off up the model village
No 374 - Hot Fuzz
Director - Edgar Wright
I feel like I let Baz Luhrmann down. I tried to blog about Romeo and Juliet but Big Train was playing in the background.
Hot Fuzz seems like the most fitting film to watch for a number of reason.
1) I've already watched The Wicker Man and this is the only film I own with Edward Woodward in and I felt that I should watch something to salute such a great man.
2) Big Train ballsed up my last blog and this has many key members of the Big Train cast.
3) Sandford's amateur dramatics company put on a show of Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. So there is a connection...
Hot Fuzz is the second film in Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright's Blood and Ice Cream trilogy. Where Shaun was a horror, this is the action film. It also shares a lot of jokes and sly nods to the Shaun. Most notably with the repetition of jokes such as the shortcut over garden fences and the cornetto punchline. Most amusingly though, the DVD of Shaun of the Dead is seen in Somerfield's bargain basement. Though under the Spanish title of Zombie's Party.
However, the problem with referencing Shaun so frequently and heavily is that Hot Fuzz is not as good a film as Shaun of the Dead. Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg seem much more comfortable writing horror. Whilst Shaun was a funny film, it was also a generally freaky zombie film and follows the important horror rules from Romero.
Whereas Hot Fuzzis a film of many parts. The first half of the film is the strongest as it fluctuates between a comedic bromance and a genuinely dark and 'wicker man' slasher film. It is once we hit the action section that the film seems to become a spoof. Shaun was strong because the horror was genuinely scary. But action is so ridiculous already, that by following the rules in a comedy, it feels like an action spoof.
Don't get me wrong, I love this film. For many reasons. I just feel that the majority of the action set piece is the film's weakest part. With one exception. The final fist fight in the model village. It is gritty and it is dirty and it is brilliant. It would be perfect, however Nick Frost doesn't have the emotional range needed to really convey the Point Break pastiche.
So..... that is my main chagrin with the film. Let me talk about what I love. Mainly, the cast. The film’s real strength comes in the excellent casting. Like Shaun (I must stop referring to Shaun), this film has the great and the varied stars of British comedy. Everybody from small, almost extra roles by Robert Popper through to bastions of our generation such as Bill Bailey and the criminally overlooked Kevin Eldon. But, what this film really surpasses with are the number of big names. Bill Nighy returns for a mere cameo and is joined by other pillars of British cinema. The late Edward Woodward is pompous and proud and a bit of a busy body and does so with great relish and gusto and the ever fantastic Jim Broadbent plays up to his warm and cuddly side, eventually showing a darker side than usual as he becomes a snarling gun toting villain.
But there are 2 (well technically 3) roles which truly steal the show. Firstly Timothy Dalton, on fine form. This is the best role I have ever seen him in. Slimy, self important and entirely untrustworthy. His is he/isn’t he possible villain is the pinnacle of the film and his horrific church based injury provides (in my opinion) the biggest laugh. It shows what a fantastic actor he is. It shows that he still has all the suave expected from a man who played Bond, and yet when he pulls out the charm he just comes off as cheesy and sinister.
A brilliant character in a brilliant supermarket kingdom where he is surrounded by equally sinister and odd looking store staff and the fabulous Alice Lowe. Who, despite (or worryingly, maybe because) playing a common white trash hussy, I find her quite hot.
The second (and third) role which steals the show are the Andy’s. Rafe Spall (Son of Tim and brought into the public eye by his shit-eating grin in Shaun of the Dead) is joined by the mighty Paddy Considine as a couple of lazy, violent, sarcastic detectives sporting matching aviators and fantastic moustaches which bristle with spite towards Pegg’s Angel.
Whilst the film focuses on the relationship between Nick Angel and Danny Butterman (and despite any characterisation, Pegg and Frost change back into their trademark homoeroticism whenever they share the screen), the most interesting bromance is that between Andy and Andy. Already there is the mystery of what do they do all day… it seems they just sit in their little office. Alone. Together.
Then I draw your eye to the scene where they attack the supermarket and Paddy Considine’s face is covered in Dolmio. Rafe Spall’s horror and love when he thinks his partner has been shot. That is the true display of Guy Love.
These roles are all fantastic and the film is littered with cameos and small roles that you’ll recognise from TV and film. The film’s increased budget and the increased cinematic respect for Pegg and Wright is clearly there to see. In the huge set pieces and the great casting. But what truly impresses are the subtle little uncredited cameos.
Namely Peter Jackson as a homeless man dressed as Santa and Cate Blanchett as Angel’s ex (ingeniously hidden behind forensic dust suits and face masks), however the cameos aren’t all on the screen. Listen to the 46 second piece of music as Angel arms up to attack the village. That tune is called Avenging Angel and is composed and performed by none other than Robert Rodriguez.
This film has a lot of excellent moments and a lot of wonderful pop culture references (‘by the power of Gray skull’ being a particular favourite), however whilst it is very enjoyable, it doesn’t feel as clever as their first film.
It is easier to follow the rules of horror and make something both amusing and scary (see Scream as another example). Action films are normally ridiculous anyway, and prone to ridicule. It is almost impossible to make a serious action film, let alone a serious action segment within a comedy.
It just comes off as a parody. But a brilliant well written and well characterised parody. And if that is the biggest criticism I can find, then it must be a ruddy good film.
Director - Edgar Wright
I feel like I let Baz Luhrmann down. I tried to blog about Romeo and Juliet but Big Train was playing in the background.
Hot Fuzz seems like the most fitting film to watch for a number of reason.
1) I've already watched The Wicker Man and this is the only film I own with Edward Woodward in and I felt that I should watch something to salute such a great man.
2) Big Train ballsed up my last blog and this has many key members of the Big Train cast.
3) Sandford's amateur dramatics company put on a show of Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. So there is a connection...
Hot Fuzz is the second film in Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright's Blood and Ice Cream trilogy. Where Shaun was a horror, this is the action film. It also shares a lot of jokes and sly nods to the Shaun. Most notably with the repetition of jokes such as the shortcut over garden fences and the cornetto punchline. Most amusingly though, the DVD of Shaun of the Dead is seen in Somerfield's bargain basement. Though under the Spanish title of Zombie's Party.
However, the problem with referencing Shaun so frequently and heavily is that Hot Fuzz is not as good a film as Shaun of the Dead. Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg seem much more comfortable writing horror. Whilst Shaun was a funny film, it was also a generally freaky zombie film and follows the important horror rules from Romero.
Whereas Hot Fuzzis a film of many parts. The first half of the film is the strongest as it fluctuates between a comedic bromance and a genuinely dark and 'wicker man' slasher film. It is once we hit the action section that the film seems to become a spoof. Shaun was strong because the horror was genuinely scary. But action is so ridiculous already, that by following the rules in a comedy, it feels like an action spoof.
Don't get me wrong, I love this film. For many reasons. I just feel that the majority of the action set piece is the film's weakest part. With one exception. The final fist fight in the model village. It is gritty and it is dirty and it is brilliant. It would be perfect, however Nick Frost doesn't have the emotional range needed to really convey the Point Break pastiche.
So..... that is my main chagrin with the film. Let me talk about what I love. Mainly, the cast. The film’s real strength comes in the excellent casting. Like Shaun (I must stop referring to Shaun), this film has the great and the varied stars of British comedy. Everybody from small, almost extra roles by Robert Popper through to bastions of our generation such as Bill Bailey and the criminally overlooked Kevin Eldon. But, what this film really surpasses with are the number of big names. Bill Nighy returns for a mere cameo and is joined by other pillars of British cinema. The late Edward Woodward is pompous and proud and a bit of a busy body and does so with great relish and gusto and the ever fantastic Jim Broadbent plays up to his warm and cuddly side, eventually showing a darker side than usual as he becomes a snarling gun toting villain.
But there are 2 (well technically 3) roles which truly steal the show. Firstly Timothy Dalton, on fine form. This is the best role I have ever seen him in. Slimy, self important and entirely untrustworthy. His is he/isn’t he possible villain is the pinnacle of the film and his horrific church based injury provides (in my opinion) the biggest laugh. It shows what a fantastic actor he is. It shows that he still has all the suave expected from a man who played Bond, and yet when he pulls out the charm he just comes off as cheesy and sinister.
A brilliant character in a brilliant supermarket kingdom where he is surrounded by equally sinister and odd looking store staff and the fabulous Alice Lowe. Who, despite (or worryingly, maybe because) playing a common white trash hussy, I find her quite hot.
The second (and third) role which steals the show are the Andy’s. Rafe Spall (Son of Tim and brought into the public eye by his shit-eating grin in Shaun of the Dead) is joined by the mighty Paddy Considine as a couple of lazy, violent, sarcastic detectives sporting matching aviators and fantastic moustaches which bristle with spite towards Pegg’s Angel.
Whilst the film focuses on the relationship between Nick Angel and Danny Butterman (and despite any characterisation, Pegg and Frost change back into their trademark homoeroticism whenever they share the screen), the most interesting bromance is that between Andy and Andy. Already there is the mystery of what do they do all day… it seems they just sit in their little office. Alone. Together.
Then I draw your eye to the scene where they attack the supermarket and Paddy Considine’s face is covered in Dolmio. Rafe Spall’s horror and love when he thinks his partner has been shot. That is the true display of Guy Love.
These roles are all fantastic and the film is littered with cameos and small roles that you’ll recognise from TV and film. The film’s increased budget and the increased cinematic respect for Pegg and Wright is clearly there to see. In the huge set pieces and the great casting. But what truly impresses are the subtle little uncredited cameos.
Namely Peter Jackson as a homeless man dressed as Santa and Cate Blanchett as Angel’s ex (ingeniously hidden behind forensic dust suits and face masks), however the cameos aren’t all on the screen. Listen to the 46 second piece of music as Angel arms up to attack the village. That tune is called Avenging Angel and is composed and performed by none other than Robert Rodriguez.
This film has a lot of excellent moments and a lot of wonderful pop culture references (‘by the power of Gray skull’ being a particular favourite), however whilst it is very enjoyable, it doesn’t feel as clever as their first film.
It is easier to follow the rules of horror and make something both amusing and scary (see Scream as another example). Action films are normally ridiculous anyway, and prone to ridicule. It is almost impossible to make a serious action film, let alone a serious action segment within a comedy.
It just comes off as a parody. But a brilliant well written and well characterised parody. And if that is the biggest criticism I can find, then it must be a ruddy good film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)