Thursday, August 20, 2009

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds D: Quentin Tarantino




Inglourious Basterds is the newest film from Quentin Tarantino. It's a WWII epic starring Brad Pitt. Tarantino basically describes Basterds as a men on a mission style movie. The basic premise is there's a group of Jewish-American soldiers in France, who lead a apache-resitance i.e. scalping the Nazis they meet, against the Germans. Eventually they get the opportunity of a lifetime, to blow up a cinema of leading Nazis who are attending a premiere of Goebbles' latest propogranda film. After the apparent flop of Death Proof, particulalrly here in England (I loved the film by the way) Tarantino said that he wanted to make a good movie before the decade was out. And, I think he's done it!

Inglourious Basterds is classic Tarantino. But what does that actually mean? Well, when I say that what I think I mean is a brilliant mix of lengthy yet quotable dialogue, conversations that seem to go nowhere for minutes on end, strange angles, slightly over-the-top characters and just - well - crazy violence. Now I guess that list could kind of sum up the film but - let's face it - who am I to sum up a 2 and a half hour long film with a stupid list like that. The point is, there's just something about Basterds that feels like a classic Tarantino film. It isn't so over the top it's completely ridiculous, at least I don't think so, but it's not a dead serious war movie. It's a movie movie. A Tarantino movie.

We hold on long conversations for unbelievable lengths of time that the suspense is almost unbearable. For me it almost got the point where I got, not bored, but started to question what the hell was going on untill - there you go, something happens and the dialogue and suspense pays off. You'll hopefully understand when you see it. There's so much suspense and anticipation that you start to enjoy and really relish the dialogue and listen intently, honing in - hoping and hoping that the suspense is somehow relieved. There's disgusting and often quick graphic violence and to me, everything that makes a awesome Tarantino movie. The 'dead guy' shot, the bare feet, didn't spot red apple cigarettes though. Just don't go in expecting action after action scenes because it's not like that at all. The action that you do see is very graphic and it's amazing what Tarantino gets you as the audience to laugh at! It's quite strange and surely shows what powerful cinema it is. Also, I would say don't go in expecting to see Brad Pitt all the time. He's only in a small portion of the film, as are the rest of the Basterds.

The film is sectioned up, like most Tarantino films, into seperate chapters. This kind of helps give a certain pacing and structure to the film that lets you know where you are and eases you in to what could be a complex story. We jump in time, and from France to England in the first three chapters, but it feels controlled.

So, yeah there's Brad Pitt. Also amongst the Basterds is the pyschotic Eli Roth, AKA the Bear Jew, Til Schweiger as Hugo Stiglitz and Omar Doom as Omar Ulmer. The scenes with the basterds are so Tarantino-ingly funny and grusome at the same time, it's just so fun to watch. The dialogue, the one liners, everything adds to that movie movie feel. By that I mean a movie that doesn't try to be overly clever or pretentious, it recognises the fact that it is a movie and exploits that, going to extremes and pushing the boundaries because... it's a movie. It can! Mike Myers plays British General Ed Fenech, sounds like strange casting but it works, and we're also treated (if you can say that) to seeing Goebbles and Hitler on screen! Diane Kruger plays a famous actress Bridget von Hammersmark and Mélanie Laurent stars as the French cinema owner Shosanna Dreyfus. Most notebly Christoph Waltz gives a spine-shilling but equally hillarious performance as Col. Hans Landa of the SS. This film really is about the characters and their exchanges and the diversity of characters and stories is interesting. For instance we start by seeing Shosanna narrowly escaping execution from Hans Landa only to find her owning a cinema next time we see her. The film essentially centers itself around a plot to blow up said cinema and kill the nazis inside, and there's something really cool about watching a film about this. Essentially it's world war two characters, in that WWII world but we're watching a film about a cinema and a propoganda film, and how a bunch of basterds are going to blow it up. It's brilliant.

Because of this diversity of characters a good chunk of Basterds isn't in English. Characters speak French, German and even Italian and are obviously subtitled. I'm not a huge fan of reading subtitles as it distracts from watching the action but it definietly gives the film an edge and a realism that stands out.

But that's about as real Basterds gets. This is a Tarantino film but set in the premise of WWII. It's not a telling of actual event or a realistic imagining of an event that could occur. It's a Tarantino story in the world of WWII. So just don't be expecting realism, okay?

For instance, David Bowie's in the soundtrack. Which clearly doesn't fit but just shows how this is supposed to be seen as movie movie - it doesn't have to fit or particualrly make sense. All of the soundtrack is taken from other films. I didn't recognise any of the score so from my perspective it just seemed like an orginal score. And it did everything a score should do.

Overall
So that's about it. I'm not quite sure how to round off other than by saying you really need to see this film! It's Tarantino doing his stuff in the realm of WWII and it's amazing. Hopefuly it will become a classic of cinema. It may just be his masterpiece.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince D: David Yates



Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the 6th film in the Harry Potter series. For the record I absolutely hated the last film, Order of the Phoenix, and was seriously scared for the last few films when I learned the same directed film direct the rest of the films. However I like the books - not a huge, huge fan - but enough so to be excited about this latest film which was originally supposed to be released last November!
So it's Harry, Ron and Hermione's second to last year at Hogwarts. I can say now that this film was a lot better than the last one. It's longer, yes, but at least we get to see some of the things from the original films that were so fun, Hagrid's in it for a while, there's a Quiddich match etc. Keeping with the progressions of the previous films, this one is a lot darker, but then again Voldemort is really getting quite powerful. Although at times it can seem like we are skipping through time quite quickly (often it seems like a montage or snippet of scenes from the book,) tension and anticipation of an impending Dark Lord attack is built successfully and it feels, at the end, like something big is going to happen, the big build up that we've been finally waiting for. It's amazing that that tension is built because, thinking back, not a whole lot happened in the first hour or so. There's definitely a focus on teenage issues in this one, emphasizing the fact that the three leads are growing up. If you've seen any sort of preview of the film they keep using the same, annoying clip over and over again "she's only interested in you because you're the chosen one..." "I am the chosen one." Yes, there's a lot like that. Love is in the air and at some points the film is genuinely funny - but sometimes I was sat there thinking "just do some bloody magic or something now, I'm getting bored."
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson all perform brilliantly in the film, each switching masterfully between the carefree teenage happy, happy, lovey dovey acting to the serious let's fight the dark bastards stuff. The film looks brilliant, although at time dark to match the subject matter some scenes were lit beautifully and the colours and grading made for a very unique look. Stuff like the Hogwarts Express (which takes a different route to the school every year, I might add) which travels through really yellow fields then within minutes we're in dark, green-lit castles and alleys. I like that sort of stuff. The opening shot is also superb, a brilliantly done fly through London. Loved that as well.
The music was almost non-existent. It must've been there but I didn't hear anything particularly striking or interesting. Visual effects - yes, nothing special but they looked good.

Overall
One of the best Harry Potter films so far. Yes, some things were missed out of the book. Namely the entire plot line concerning the Half-Blood Prince, the films title. But still a visually stunning and exciting fantasy film.

Public Enemies

Public Enemies D: Michael Mann



I went to see Public Enemies with high expectations. I wanted to see a well crafted, exciting and thoughtful insight into the mind of a criminal. To be honest what I saw was... okay.
Seriously, all the best bits are in the trailer. We hardly see Christian Bale, which is fine by me, but at least when we do see him he isn't doing his ridiculous Batman/John Connor voice. Johnny Depp plays the lead John Dilinger, but to be honest I found his character just boring. Obviously the film is attempting to stick to the truth, but there seemed to be no depth to his character, we're given no real back story or information about him, what people think of him... We're just expected to go along and watch him become more and more miserable. I just found it a little boring - there are long periods where nothing happens, as the amazingly incompetent FBI try to catch Dilinger... And that's really about it.
It looked good, the film was shot in HD video. However at some points it did go a little jerky and almost pixely on screen. At times I was blinded by the bright tommy gun flashes and there was some serious cases of 'too zoomed in, shaking the camera about in dark scenes' so half the time I couldn't tell what was going on.
Overall, good. But not brilliant.

Overall
Obviously trying to stick to the truth - but the truth was just a little too boring. Dilinger didn't seem that interesting in this film - we had no real reason to care for him and explanation as to his past or anything like that. It was okay - ish.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Terminator Salvation

Terminator Salvation D: McG



So I went to this film expecting to see a generic, all-out action flick. And that's basically what I saw. This 4th Terminator film is a complete change in pace from the tense, chase-like earlier films and a whole lot better than the awful 3rd film. The action sequences are perfectly executed and the story, although predictable (especially if you know your Terminator storylines) does have it's fair share of twists and turns. Essentially, with all the time traveling in the previous films we know from the get-go that John Connor, our hero played by Christian Bale, will not defeat the Cyberdyne corporation within the 115 minute running time.
That said Bale does kick his fair share of robot ass. If you're interested in this movie it's probably fair to say it's not entirely because of the story. There's some brilliant long-take fight scenes, stunning CG ships, sky-scraper high terminators, bike chases, car chases, explosions and tons more to feed action-film junkies. Terminator 4 is the one fans, apparently, have been waiting for. The all out war against the machines, and there's no doubt that the film delivers. The action is fast, clever and looks stunning!
I was excited to see Danny Elfman pop up as composer in amongst the boring opening credits. Yet throughout the film I failed to hear any particularly striking music, not even the original Terminator theme (bar the beating drums.) Perhaps this is because most of the music was drowned out by the awesome sounds of the Terminators themselves. The booming, electronic drones and grinding, eery metallic sounds of the robots themselves really selled a lot of the action sequences for me. There's just something about having your cinema chair actually shake with the sound of the film. That's real cinema!
Of course Terminator Salvation isn't all action action action. There is a genuinely interesting underlying idea behind the film focusing on the humanity of the characters and the reasons for fighting the war against machines. Helena Bonham Carter stars as a early Cyberdyne employee that helps Marcus Wright, played by Sam Worthington, get a second chance in life. Acting is great for the most part although for most characters it just involved sitting in scragily clothes and looking miserable. Of course, they had to do a bit of running as well... Oh and Bale's voice is getting beyond ridiculously low. I can hardly hear him! Additionally, Anton Yelchin will star as that guy that you know you've seen in something else recently but can't remember what. His actual character is Kyle Reese, John Connor's father. Knowing your Terminator stuff of course, John needs to meet his father to send him back in time to meet his mother so he can be born. Yes, it can be complicated but seriously, if you haven't seen the first 3, do so. Okay, maybe not the 3rd one. Either way the stories are interesting, engaging and perhaps confusing enough to justify the immense action sequences in what, I think, is a brilliant sci-fi actioner. And for the record, Yelchin is that foreign one in the new Star Trek film.

Overall
An exciting action-packed film that actually has an interesting story. With a fair share of twists, turns and surprises both in the plot and action-sequences, Terminator Salvation blows the 3rd film out of the water (or rather molten magma) whilst still keeping some of the tension, fear and cheesy one-lines from the first two.

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Man Who Wasn't There

The Man Who Wasn't There D: Joel Coen



I just can't get enough of that Coen brothers surreal movie gold. The Man Who Wasn't There is a perfectly crafted neo-noir crime drama about a man, Ed Crane, a barber who's life is a mish-mash of betrayals and other such awful situations. Remaining stoic and frank throughout, Ed narrates the story, providing contrast with his seemingly emotionless character on screen.
When Ed tries to make money by backing the new business of dry-cleaning he subsequently finds out about problems his "friend," played by the brilliant James Gandolfini, has encounted, and the film follows Ed's story as he twists and turns, covering up others and his own mistakes eventually attempting to find retribution by helping a young piano playing girl. Strange when written out like this, it just works. Ed is likeable despite his seeming lack of emotion and whilst others try to find justice or cover up events, he remains the same throughout the entire film, almost as if he wasn't there. He just continues to be a barber. It's clever.
The film is shot, as noir films are, in black and white, giving the coens a brilliant opportunity to show of their superb visual eyes. And by God they do! Every shot is carefully lit, there are creeping, waving shadows, portions of screen filled with entire darkness, brilliant contrasts, with slow-motion, mid shots to emotion close ones to sweeping wides shots where the locations engulf the characters.
I just loved it, and I can't write about it in a way that does it justice. The acting is brilliant, especially from the lead Billy Bob Thornton. Gandolifni, aka Tony Soprano, performs brilliantly and Tony Shalhoub returns from (previously "reviewed") Barton Fink to play the lawyer whoose brilliant monologues really did get me thinking. Frances McDormand has also recently become my favourite actress. Her performance in both this, Fargo, and Burn After Reading are both funny but she really gets across the different characters and is great at showing emotion without speaking.
Overall, I just love it. I really, really like films like this. They're just so arty, so much thought, so much detail, interesting characters, believable settings, quirky but different plots. Great!

Overall
A brilliantly well done noir film with a great story and a leading character that one can really relate to. Attention to techincal detail in lighting and camera make The Man Who Wasn't There not only an interesting story, but great to look at as well.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Donnie Darko

Donnie Darko D: Richard Kelly



A brilliant story about a troubled teen who hallucinates and sees a giant rabbit that tells him to perform a series of strange and dangerous tasks. Don't expect an entirely relaxing, enjoyable experience, Donnie Darko is surreal and strange throughout. A seemingly normal story of a boy making his way through school, meeting a girl, hanging with his friends and sub plots concerning parents and school teachers is present but is cleverly juxtaposed with almost alternate reality, dream-like sequences concerning our main character, who frequently visits a psychiatrist and is finding hidden meanings and connections in his life.
It's perfectly well done and the story is written in such a way that it is satisfying and enjoyable even though you're not quite sure what's going on half the time. It then ends in a way that is both confusing and explanatory for the strange happenings that happen previously.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays the title character of the 18 year old going on 25. Seriously, he looks a little old for his role. Either way his performance is brilliant, he switches scene by scene from a fairly normal if troubled teenager to a deranged, disturbed one with a real freaky manic smile. Other notable performances include one of Donnie's school teachers played by Drew Barrymore, or as my mother put it, the little girl from ET. The rest of the cast are brilliant and do their part in creating believable characters in this surreal and seemingly unbelievable world.
My only main criticism is the use of Mad World by Gary Jules as the closing track. Of course this film relaunched the song back in 2001 but now... Well, that song is just annoying.

Overall
An enjoyable and, not necessarily thought provoking, but thought warping and disturbing, film. If your looking for a teen/horror/thriller with an edge this is for you.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

The Birds

The Birds D: Alfed Hitchcock



A classic Hitchcock suspense thriller. Although at points the stuffed birds did make me laugh I really enjoyed this film, and was happy that it lived up to my expectations of being a strange, tense experience right from the very start.
Despite the film starting slowly and seeming to go nowhere for the first 30 minutes it soon picked up pace and I found myself really on-edge waiting for the foreboding bird attacks. We follow of woman, Annie, on her journey up to Bodega Bay near San Francisco. After being attacked by a gul on her way across the town's lake herself and the locals becomes suspicious of the local bird population. What follows is a fun game of anticipation and excitement as we wait and wait and wait for the birds to begin their full on war with the human race...
The suspense is masterfully built with a mix of sometimes long shots, holding on something seemingly irrelevant, or quick cuts of birds whoosing through the air or of terrified faces. There is a distinct lack of music that really helps sell a desolate, unescapeablele locale and emphaises the terrifying (and electronically created by Bernard Hermann) sounds of the birds. Expect shocks,long, drawn out suspense scenes and character flailing around as birds peck them to death.
The Birds, I think, is nothing more or less than a film designed to scare, disturb and nerve it's audience. The characters are vivid, the reckless leading leading, sarcastic man, emotional mother and vulnerable sister. All very interesting, but what is great about the birds is the brilliant way in which Hitchcock builds tension and although it is undoubtedly present, we don't really see the birds attacking that much. We're just waiting. And making a film that's fun to watch were nothing much happens, but you'r waiting and waiting is hard to do. Of course, it Hitchcock can't do it no one can!

Overall
A suspense-filled enjoyable film with it's fair share or scary scenes, grusome deaths and narrow escapes. I only wish it ended better and then the huge ammount of suspense and tension built would have payed off in a better way. I wanted more bird attacks!


Spoiler Section
Why did they leave the school? Surely it would've been easier to stay inside and just not get chased and attacked by the crows. And why did Annie, flailing and screaming whilst being attacked by the birds in the attic, lean against the door she was trying to open. That was a bit stupid.
End Spoilers

Friday, May 29, 2009

Barton Fink

Hello anyone reading. I'm Rob Frost, amateur film-maker and wannabe film student attempting to review, or at least spew my thoughts about films I've seen recently.

Barton Fink
D: Joel Coen



The first Coen brother film I saw was The Big Lebowski. I enjoyed it. I then saw Fargo. There was something about that film, whether it be the bleak locations or those vivid characters, that made me start to realise how awesome the Coen brothers were at this film-making stuff. Barton Fink is the 4th Coen brother film I've seen, Burn After Reading being the 3rd, and those brothers films are one of the reasons I wanted to join Lovefilm.com-so I could see every last one of their flicks!

Barton Fink is really hard to fit into a specific genre. There's elements of comedy, but I would say it was a crime thriller. We follow a struggling writer who moves to LA to write for a big Hollywood studio. He's tasked with writing a wrestling film and throughout the story becomes friends with a man, Charlie, nextdoor in his hotel. What follows is a series of strange and unforeseeable events Barton has to solve whilst simultaneously trying to write his film. It's complicated and, to be honest, I don't quite understand it.

All I know is that it is most definitely an enjoyable and engaging film! Despite the main character coming across as bleak and boring at first, the story soon picks up pace and with it's undefinable genre a certain amount of suspense is built and curiosity created about the characters and plot.

Technically the film looked pretty cool. With Kubrick-esque hotel shots and some memorable 'cool' shots where the camera winds around the set, Barton Fink is interesting to look at. The colours are all quite bleak and, and I admit I don't actually know anything about this sort of thing, all the shots seemed to be in focus, which made everything seem important and meant your interest wasn't drawn to anything. In a way, the shots were boring, steady and clear. Probably to represent the dull, bleak and lonely life of a writer...?

Josh Turturro of course appears again as Dude Lebowski with the Coen brothers and, quite obviously in a Coen brothers film, my favourite actor Steve Buscemi makes a brief appearance. John Goodman, who basically play any fat guy in any film ever is also the main supporting actor. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to the acting itself but the fact that I don't notice the acting as being particularly good or bad is good for the film... right? Thinking about it I did enjoy the very funny performance of Michael Lerner as the studio boss and Tony Shalhoub who, throughout the whole film, I was wondering what I had seen him in before. Turns out it was Spy Kids... *shudder*

Overall
A strange but very enjoyable film. If you've seen other Coen films or enjoy surreal stories I think you'd like it.


Whilst writing I omitted lots of things because I thought they'd spoil the film. I might make a habit out of leaving the bottom paragraph as left over ramblings about the film, it's meaning, my thoughts etc.

Spoilers Section
Barton Fink, for me, can be summed up in three letters: WTF. Seriously, Joel and Ethan are some messed up guys! This film, along with all other Coen films I've seen, really succeeds in creating a slightly surreal, alternate reality that's both intriguing and disturbing. Although we follow Barton we never get inside his head, and we never truly discover his brilliant masterpiece of writing at the end of the film. So that means it's not really about writing then, does it? I'm not sure. It seems Barton's constant struggle to find a suitable story for the studio but also fulfill his own goals of writing something that will change the world of cinema and theatre is only a small piece of the film's plot as a whole. There's this business with the picture on the wall, Barton's only window on the world? the peeling wallpaper, a result of the temperature foreshadowing the hotel on fire at the end? and the pipes, highlighting the fact everyone can hear what goes on in the rooms. Also, there's Charlie the nextdoor neighbour. I think it's very clever the way this character's change is revealed and I love the way he gets frustrated with Barton for not listening, but ultimately is trying to save everyone. Very clever.
End Spoilers

-----------------------------------

Anyway. Not quite sure how well the above paragraphs are as a review. I suppose a review is supposed to inform you about a film and give you an opinion as to it's quality. Hopefully I've done that, if not meticulously specifically perfectly well done, I hope this has at least made you think about watching it. Or watching it again.