So, on Monday night, I undertook the second double movie session of the year (first was The Muppets and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, for new readers and to clarify, I do choose which two movies I want to watch if time is on my side for two). Even though I usually go in the morning for cinema releases, neither of these films was feasible for a day-time showing (one of them was a film I had planned to see on its opening day until it became apparent I would need to wait for a night off), so I chose to go last night since I had it off from work.
The second film will be covered in my next blog, but first, here's the latest Clint Eastwood film, the biopic J. Edgar.
I've never known much about J. Edgar Hoover, and I'm unsure as to whether or not any biographies have been written about him (though I'm going to assume so, he seems to be a very controversial person, even to this day, and we all know how much controversy sells), but even I know that some of what's on display will have to be taken with a grain of salt. So, we'll have to see if the film can balance out being relatively truthful, portraying the subject realistically and also being entertaining.
J. Edgar covers several points in the man's life, going back and forth through time as it needs to. From his final days (not a spoiler) and getting his memoirs done, to his starting up the FBI, and various cases along the way like taking on gangsters and trying to solve the Lindbergh kidnapping. All the while, the film also shows what J. Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) was like in private and his relationships with his second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer) and his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench).
Of all the films I've seen recently, this is perhaps the most uneven and mixed. Is it bad? Not at all, but there a few things I found myself questioning and thinking about.
Let's start with something small: the time skips. Now, being a biopic in which the subject himself is narrating, obviously most of the film is going to be in flashback form. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But seeing as how we bounce all over the place, and sometimes when we cut back to the present there are new people we weren't introduced to before, it gets a bit confusing and we shouldn't have to play catch-up (more on the new people later).
Also, despite one scene early on, Naomi Watts really doesn't add that much to the film as Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy. It's a scene in which Hoover and Gandy are on a date and he proposes marriage to her after impressing her with his skills in locating a book in a little over a minute, using a card catalog system. They're on their third date and Gandy declines, citing her desire for work over marriage. Hoover is impressed with such a reaction and offers her a position as his personal secretary. While this scene works well to establish how she came to be in his employ, after this, her role is reduced to simply being... well, a secretary. I'm not going to fault the movie for that, but since all she does is announce things over an intercom (up until the very end anyway), I fail to see why you needed Naomi Watts for a thankless role. You could have just gotten someone on the production crew to do it, or left it voice only. It's almost like, if the movie itself was Hoover, like the living, physical embodiment, the film is punishing her for refusing his proposal. It's like “Turn me down? Well, to Hell with you, hussy! I'll banish you to a less than adequate supporting role!”
No, for the significant female role, we turn to Judi Dench as Hoover's mother. Now, she plays the role quite well, as we expect, though I wonder if I'm the only one who kept thinking of Norman Bates' mother whenever she spoke. Big difference here is that whereas Mrs. Bates was an abusive monster... Anna Marie was just abusive, though emotionally so. Unlike Mrs. Bates, she did love her son but she was one of those “I will not accept deviation from the norm and you will climb to the top or else kill me now because you're breaking my heart” type of people. And in her mind, not being white and heterosexual was deviating from the norm. So, when she does die (again, not a spoiler, she lingers on for a while and each time you keep thinking “aaaaand now she's dead” before the umpteenth time jump), it's hard for us to feel sorry. Or, it was for me, since she was racist and homophobic. I don't care if they were the values of the time, they've always been pathetic values since their inception and it doesn't help when later, Hoover's wearing one of his mother's dresses and breaks down crying (the only time that Hoover's reported cross-dressing is even brought up).
Now, let's go into some good: Leonardo DiCaprio is once again showing he's breaking away from the “pretty boy” phase he once went through. OK, he's been out of that for a while but it's nice to know he's not going back and his role as Hoover is filled with confidence and poise and he is the best thing about it.
Also of note, Arnie Hammer as Tolson is both extremely sympathetic and witty. Of course, the dialogue helps, but out of all the people who are portrayed as people we're meant to be sympathetic to, he is perhaps the only one who is worthy of such sympathy.
But here's the thing: throughout the film, you can see them together, while not being “together” together and while it is taken seriously for the most part, I can't help but feel Eastwood was taking the piss with some of the moments with just the two of them. For example, when Hoover announces to Tolson that he's considering marrying his current partner, Tolson loses it. Hoover tries to calm him down but Tolson will have none of it and smashes anything he can find. The two fight, before Tolson kisses him square on the lips, leading Hoover to throw him out and whispers “I love you” to himself, before bursting into tears.
What problem do I have with the scene? Well, besides all the innuendo leading up to it seemingly being played for comedy, the physical portion of the fight looks more like they're play-fighting and it kind of demeans the film. I mean, I get the feeling that Hoover was a self-hating homosexual but the film can't make its mind up if it wants to mock the two of them or be sympathetic to the two of them. When you contrast the rest of the film, showing Hoover's efforts in law enforcement, its like Eastwood was told he had to have a comedy subplot or the film wouldn't be shipped and someone thought this should be treated with humor. Seeing as how the fight is never brought up again, it feels like it should have been a verbal confrontation only, seeing as how that's handled with better judgment.
That being said, the parts of the film that do handle the law enforcement aspect are very well done, especially the section that covers the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. I have to wonder how much of this Hoover had a personal hand in, when it comes to the forensics, but it's still impressive and if you don't know the story of the child, it's actually quite gripping.
But, if there is one thing, above all else, that drags the film down, it is this one fact: the film itself decides to show J. Edgar Hoover in a largely sympathetic light. I know his legacy in real life, about how he many presidents tried to get rid of him, about all the measures he took, but rather than lay out events, the ill deeds, along with the good, and let him be judged accordingly, the film largely feels like it was written by Hoover himself, glorifying him whenever possible. As I mentioned with DiCaprio's portrayal, he's confident, always has an answer (his relationship with his mother is perhaps the one time he's portrayed as being somewhat weak) and he stonewalls everyone who gets in his way. But he still looks like the good guy doing so.
He goes through at least three different typists for his memoirs, most likely because they'll ask a question or two and his response is to just be rid of them and put someone new in. It could also be down to paranoia but the truth is, he just wanted things to go his way and didn't like defiance, even when the people in power sometimes need to be defied, like Hoover himself had done in the past.
He only gets called out for his exaggerations towards the end, by Tolson, but that never leads to anything, since Hoover dies not long after. In the end, he was as stubborn as he ever was.
In a nutshell, the film is too sympathetic to a controversial figure and I have to wonder what Eastwood is trying to say.
Still, for all its faults, it still manages to entertain and the performances are noteworthy. Weighing all the factors up, I award the film 3.5/5
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Worst. Armour. EVER
I think it's time I confess something when it comes to me and video gaming. Now, I've been playing games for over two decades now (Hell, I think Mario's only slightly older than me!) and I have several consoles, old and new, at my disposal. But, despite all that...
I haven't completed that many games.
When it comes to games, I buy them when they're cheap (or when I see something I've been eagerly awaiting, like Batman: Arkham City, though I paid for mine in advance) so that when I have more free time, I'll get around to them. My reasoning for that is if I waited until I had a couple nights off work, with no new DVD's to watch, the games I wanted might not be there anymore and I might lose out on some rare treasures in the meantime (like I did with Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I didn't want to dip into my savings to buy it, so I waited until I got paid next and by that time, it had been sold. OK, I got Super Smash Bros. Melee to make up for it but that's not the point. And for anyone who asks, I have played the game several times but that was while I was living at home with my younger brother, who owns that copy of the game).
Speaking of my brother, he's the opposite: he buys tons of games and completes them seemingly instantly. The amount of games he has would be enough to kill a man if you kept piling them on top of him. And he's completed a Hell of a lot of them.
Though, we both have different ideas about completing games. His is mostly “beat the final boss, do all the interesting stuff, done”. Mine is usually just beating the final boss, most likely because I've either gotten the interesting stuff as I've gone along or the game was average and I didn't care for all the collectibles.
But the point of today's blog is (provided no one's taken away my gamer card) to talk about the games of the NES that between me and my brother, we never completed. The games of the NES were among the hardest little bastards in all of gaming (that's why the trope is called “Nintendo Hard” and not “Dreamcast Hard”) and despite our many attempts at these games, we've never completed them (well, my brother might have through an emulator, I'll have to ask him).
Now, in order to make this list, the following applies:
We have to have owned the game or rented it frequently to count, so don't say “Metroid was way harder, your list is stupid!” or “What about Zelda 2: The Adventure Of Link?” We never owned those and we only rented Zelda 2 a couple times so we couldn't really get much play out of it (and especially don't ask about Contra, I don't even know if we GOT Contra over here, I do remember a game almost exactly the same called Probotector, which had robots instead of the two guys, but that was a long time ago)
If we could get up to, but couldn't beat, the final boss, it doesn't count because while it's a game uncompleted, I'm focusing on the games so hard we could barely make it halfway. So, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Arcade Game won't make it because we would constantly make it to Shredder but always be defeated by him and we were so disillusioned that we just played something else and kept trying over and over on other days
I'm focusing solely on the NES because most of our uncompleted games were on that console, we had more games than on most others and by the time the more advanced ones came around, higher focus on schooling and other aspects meant we wouldn't be completing games anyway.
We never had Game Genies or anything like that, so don't ask. Not that we would have used them, most likely.
Even though some games had special conditions for winning, in the mind of me and my brother, if we beat the final boss, that counted (biggest example I can think of is Bubble Bobble)
Now, much like my last blog, this will not be a top ten list and there will not be rankings (though, again, the final entry will be what would essentially be a number one)
So, what games frustrated us the most?
Battletoads
This one's first up since this is one we rented a few times, and every time, we got stuck on the third level (the one with the jetski-things). Now, the first level was tons of fun and hilarious, with some interesting gameplay choices, though the second level was hard. That third level? Forget it, you kept crashing into the walls. From what I hear, the game is unwinnable in two player mode anyway so what the Hell?
Bart V.s The Space Mutants/Bart Vs. The World
Tied because the gameplay was similar, difference being we had to rent the latter. Space Mutants, geez that was hard! The first level is annoying as all Hell with those useless items (what's with the whistle that summons a dog that hurts Bart?), you can't jump on most of the enemies and you have no real weapons to defend yourself. The second level has what I believe was wet cement. That pretty much broke it for me, we never got further than that. I don't even know what the rest of the game looks like!
Bart Vs. The World was a little kinder, and gave you a weapon, but most of the jumps were ridiculous and that ice level... ugh.
Adventure Island 2
While this game had some hilarious death sequences and was generous with the dinosaur buddies who would provide some extra power and provide another “hit point”, they weren't enough in the late stages. I can't remember where we got stuck on but I do remember a snow world and my brother somehow bypassing to one of the later worlds and not getting far. A prime example of how NES games were more difficult than the later consoles, due to most characters being one hit-point wonders.
The Flintstones: The Rescue Of Dino And Hoppy
Yeah, we had our share of licensed games, so what? A Hell of a lot of fun, it's one of those “frustrating but you're still enjoying yourself” kind of games, with a neat soundtrack and good graphics. The first boss is a cakewalk, the second was a little trickier but I put that down to my brother and I just wanted to speed through him and just clobber him with Fred's club, but otherwise he's not too hard. The next boss is a vampire and that's where things fall apart. I remember him being the most tricky part for a while. Sometimes we would conquer him, only to fail miserably on the next level.
The Incredible Crash Dummies
Yeah, we loved that one episode of the Crash Dummies and had some of the toys, so getting the video game was natural. And it too was very fun. Great music, good graphics and an actual attempt at varying the playable characters. That being said, using the white Dummy on the unicycle (can't remember the names, it's been years, people!) could be bothersome and again, we only got a couple levels in and I don't think there were passwords. There were so save states, which is what most games should have had, so that didn't help. In fact, the lack of save states, infinite continues and passwords were often the reasons why these games were so hard.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Surprisingly, we DIDN'T have trouble with the dam level, that was easy (why does everyone think it's so hard? It was annoying, yes, but not hard. Level 3 had several jumps that I call bullcrap on (why is that ledge preventing me from jumping that long distance to the next part of the stage?! I don't want to fall in the water that a turtle can swim in anyway!) and by the time you reached the next level, you had probably lost two of the Turtles anyway. Again, I had no idea what the endgame held, until I saw the Angry Video Game Nerd's video in which he revisited several games that he couldn't get past and we saw the Technodrome. Yeah, it looked impossible.
Ghosts 'N' Goblins
One of the earliest games I can remember playing. As a kid, it kind of freaked me out (mostly the eyes on the zombies and that sound effect but also the intro music). As I got older, it was one of the games that pissed me off the most. Arthur can only sustain two hits. On that second hit, he goes down for the count. And after the first, he loses his armour. What kind of knight loses their armour after something as simple as a zombie touch?! And several of the minions took several hits to kill and some could fly! Also, sometimes you would accidentally pick up a new weapon that replaced your never-ending javelin/spear supply. You had knives, which were pointless since they were basically the same as his regular weapon and fire, which rarely hit its target without major effort. I think we only got up to Level 3 and that's when they added ladders and such to make it harder because you'd take a leap of faith only to end up in the water. One of the absolute hardest for the NES.
The Legend Of Zelda
Unlike the other games listed, this did have a save state. But after Level 5, it was easy to get lost, in the labyrinths or out of them and too easy to get overwhelmed. Really, we just ended up replaying the early dungeons over and over because that's what we were good at.
Now, before we get to the final entry, I must admit this one bends one of the rules slightly, the one about “games that we couldn't get halfway on” but I saved this for last because this will probably cause the most uproar and bring my gamer status into question. Well, here goes...
Super Mario Bros.
Yes, that's right, the original. The two NES sequels, completed. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 3 we completed several times over (even my mother, who has never been much of a gamer, has defeated Bowser a few times!) and even done so on the ports like in Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES. But the original? Nope. I attribute that to the hit point factor again. Something they fixed in the third game and since then was giving Mario an extra hit if he loses his current power like the Fire Flower or the Hammer Suit. He'll go back to Super Mario, no worries. But if you lost the Fire Flower here, tough luck, you go back to regular Mario. And in a game where the Hammer Brothers are actually competent and the Bullet Bills waiting to get you (not to mention only one way to kill off a Buzzy Beetle. Or were they the red winged ones from the third game... damn my aging memory!), you need every bit of power you can get. Now, we did know of the cheats to get to the final Warp Pipes but I'm someone who likes to play through the whole game and get the whole experience. Also, that first level in World 8 is frickin' impossible! A great game but I doubt I'll ever complete it, at least not in the foreseeable future.
So, that was my list of tough NES games my brother and I struggled on. How about the rest of you, what NES games made you pull your hair or throw your controllers against the wall?
I haven't completed that many games.
When it comes to games, I buy them when they're cheap (or when I see something I've been eagerly awaiting, like Batman: Arkham City, though I paid for mine in advance) so that when I have more free time, I'll get around to them. My reasoning for that is if I waited until I had a couple nights off work, with no new DVD's to watch, the games I wanted might not be there anymore and I might lose out on some rare treasures in the meantime (like I did with Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I didn't want to dip into my savings to buy it, so I waited until I got paid next and by that time, it had been sold. OK, I got Super Smash Bros. Melee to make up for it but that's not the point. And for anyone who asks, I have played the game several times but that was while I was living at home with my younger brother, who owns that copy of the game).
Speaking of my brother, he's the opposite: he buys tons of games and completes them seemingly instantly. The amount of games he has would be enough to kill a man if you kept piling them on top of him. And he's completed a Hell of a lot of them.
Though, we both have different ideas about completing games. His is mostly “beat the final boss, do all the interesting stuff, done”. Mine is usually just beating the final boss, most likely because I've either gotten the interesting stuff as I've gone along or the game was average and I didn't care for all the collectibles.
But the point of today's blog is (provided no one's taken away my gamer card) to talk about the games of the NES that between me and my brother, we never completed. The games of the NES were among the hardest little bastards in all of gaming (that's why the trope is called “Nintendo Hard” and not “Dreamcast Hard”) and despite our many attempts at these games, we've never completed them (well, my brother might have through an emulator, I'll have to ask him).
Now, in order to make this list, the following applies:
We have to have owned the game or rented it frequently to count, so don't say “Metroid was way harder, your list is stupid!” or “What about Zelda 2: The Adventure Of Link?” We never owned those and we only rented Zelda 2 a couple times so we couldn't really get much play out of it (and especially don't ask about Contra, I don't even know if we GOT Contra over here, I do remember a game almost exactly the same called Probotector, which had robots instead of the two guys, but that was a long time ago)
If we could get up to, but couldn't beat, the final boss, it doesn't count because while it's a game uncompleted, I'm focusing on the games so hard we could barely make it halfway. So, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Arcade Game won't make it because we would constantly make it to Shredder but always be defeated by him and we were so disillusioned that we just played something else and kept trying over and over on other days
I'm focusing solely on the NES because most of our uncompleted games were on that console, we had more games than on most others and by the time the more advanced ones came around, higher focus on schooling and other aspects meant we wouldn't be completing games anyway.
We never had Game Genies or anything like that, so don't ask. Not that we would have used them, most likely.
Even though some games had special conditions for winning, in the mind of me and my brother, if we beat the final boss, that counted (biggest example I can think of is Bubble Bobble)
Now, much like my last blog, this will not be a top ten list and there will not be rankings (though, again, the final entry will be what would essentially be a number one)
So, what games frustrated us the most?
Battletoads
This one's first up since this is one we rented a few times, and every time, we got stuck on the third level (the one with the jetski-things). Now, the first level was tons of fun and hilarious, with some interesting gameplay choices, though the second level was hard. That third level? Forget it, you kept crashing into the walls. From what I hear, the game is unwinnable in two player mode anyway so what the Hell?
Bart V.s The Space Mutants/Bart Vs. The World
Tied because the gameplay was similar, difference being we had to rent the latter. Space Mutants, geez that was hard! The first level is annoying as all Hell with those useless items (what's with the whistle that summons a dog that hurts Bart?), you can't jump on most of the enemies and you have no real weapons to defend yourself. The second level has what I believe was wet cement. That pretty much broke it for me, we never got further than that. I don't even know what the rest of the game looks like!
Bart Vs. The World was a little kinder, and gave you a weapon, but most of the jumps were ridiculous and that ice level... ugh.
Adventure Island 2
While this game had some hilarious death sequences and was generous with the dinosaur buddies who would provide some extra power and provide another “hit point”, they weren't enough in the late stages. I can't remember where we got stuck on but I do remember a snow world and my brother somehow bypassing to one of the later worlds and not getting far. A prime example of how NES games were more difficult than the later consoles, due to most characters being one hit-point wonders.
The Flintstones: The Rescue Of Dino And Hoppy
Yeah, we had our share of licensed games, so what? A Hell of a lot of fun, it's one of those “frustrating but you're still enjoying yourself” kind of games, with a neat soundtrack and good graphics. The first boss is a cakewalk, the second was a little trickier but I put that down to my brother and I just wanted to speed through him and just clobber him with Fred's club, but otherwise he's not too hard. The next boss is a vampire and that's where things fall apart. I remember him being the most tricky part for a while. Sometimes we would conquer him, only to fail miserably on the next level.
The Incredible Crash Dummies
Yeah, we loved that one episode of the Crash Dummies and had some of the toys, so getting the video game was natural. And it too was very fun. Great music, good graphics and an actual attempt at varying the playable characters. That being said, using the white Dummy on the unicycle (can't remember the names, it's been years, people!) could be bothersome and again, we only got a couple levels in and I don't think there were passwords. There were so save states, which is what most games should have had, so that didn't help. In fact, the lack of save states, infinite continues and passwords were often the reasons why these games were so hard.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Surprisingly, we DIDN'T have trouble with the dam level, that was easy (why does everyone think it's so hard? It was annoying, yes, but not hard. Level 3 had several jumps that I call bullcrap on (why is that ledge preventing me from jumping that long distance to the next part of the stage?! I don't want to fall in the water that a turtle can swim in anyway!) and by the time you reached the next level, you had probably lost two of the Turtles anyway. Again, I had no idea what the endgame held, until I saw the Angry Video Game Nerd's video in which he revisited several games that he couldn't get past and we saw the Technodrome. Yeah, it looked impossible.
Ghosts 'N' Goblins
One of the earliest games I can remember playing. As a kid, it kind of freaked me out (mostly the eyes on the zombies and that sound effect but also the intro music). As I got older, it was one of the games that pissed me off the most. Arthur can only sustain two hits. On that second hit, he goes down for the count. And after the first, he loses his armour. What kind of knight loses their armour after something as simple as a zombie touch?! And several of the minions took several hits to kill and some could fly! Also, sometimes you would accidentally pick up a new weapon that replaced your never-ending javelin/spear supply. You had knives, which were pointless since they were basically the same as his regular weapon and fire, which rarely hit its target without major effort. I think we only got up to Level 3 and that's when they added ladders and such to make it harder because you'd take a leap of faith only to end up in the water. One of the absolute hardest for the NES.
The Legend Of Zelda
Unlike the other games listed, this did have a save state. But after Level 5, it was easy to get lost, in the labyrinths or out of them and too easy to get overwhelmed. Really, we just ended up replaying the early dungeons over and over because that's what we were good at.
Now, before we get to the final entry, I must admit this one bends one of the rules slightly, the one about “games that we couldn't get halfway on” but I saved this for last because this will probably cause the most uproar and bring my gamer status into question. Well, here goes...
Super Mario Bros.
Yes, that's right, the original. The two NES sequels, completed. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 3 we completed several times over (even my mother, who has never been much of a gamer, has defeated Bowser a few times!) and even done so on the ports like in Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES. But the original? Nope. I attribute that to the hit point factor again. Something they fixed in the third game and since then was giving Mario an extra hit if he loses his current power like the Fire Flower or the Hammer Suit. He'll go back to Super Mario, no worries. But if you lost the Fire Flower here, tough luck, you go back to regular Mario. And in a game where the Hammer Brothers are actually competent and the Bullet Bills waiting to get you (not to mention only one way to kill off a Buzzy Beetle. Or were they the red winged ones from the third game... damn my aging memory!), you need every bit of power you can get. Now, we did know of the cheats to get to the final Warp Pipes but I'm someone who likes to play through the whole game and get the whole experience. Also, that first level in World 8 is frickin' impossible! A great game but I doubt I'll ever complete it, at least not in the foreseeable future.
So, that was my list of tough NES games my brother and I struggled on. How about the rest of you, what NES games made you pull your hair or throw your controllers against the wall?
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Film Wonders From Down Under
Despite the fact that it's the day after Australia Day here, it is still January 26th for a large part of the world, so I'm posting this today instead (plus work has been hectic and draining and I wanted to be in a good place when I did this blog). Now, I'm not going to post a history of the day, or what I'm proud of in Australia, because the truth is, while the country itself is one of the most beautiful, I'm not much for Australian history (if there were knights in it, maybe) and I don't care much for a lot of the people. Basically, if I don't know them, I don't care. It may sound harsh but then, they don't care about me and I'm fine with that. Plus, a lot of them tend to piss me off anyway.
So what to blog about that's related to my country? Well, I don't feel like ranting so it won't be on retired tennis player Margaret Court's homophobic rantings (Margaret, you are wrong. It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong and that's a fact, so go to Hell already you bigot.) or how four fire trucks and assorted rescue crew were called out to rescue a silly bird that got its leg stuck (what, was it a slow day? No one owned it either, but you required four fire trucks?)
No, instead, I will stay on one of my favourite topics and list some of my favourite Australian films.
Now, Australia's film industry and I have a love-hate relationship. They love to provide me with crap and I love to see their crappy movies fail. Despite that, every now and then, we are capable of making magic happen and a great film is born. Unlike some of my previous lists, these films will not be ranked (though I will save my absolute favourite for last) and there may not necessarily be a specific number in mind.
So, without further adieu, I present some of my favourite films that my country has provided the world with.
Red Hill (Patrick Hughes)
The most recent film on this list that I have seen, the film stars Ryan Kwanten (you overseas viewers know him best as Jason Stackhouse in True Blood) as rookie cop Shane Cooper, who has moved to the town of Red Hill with his pregnant wife, Alice (Claire Van Der Bloom). On his first day (as opposed to being one day from retirement), he learns that a convicted killer by the name of Jimmy Conway (Tom E. Lewis) has broken out of prison and is heading into town to claim his vengeance against the police force.
A quiet little action thriller, it's good to see Ryan back at home and delivering a very good performance (yes, I still think True Blood is the finest thing he's ever done but that's not here or there) and the film maintains a strong balance between delivering enough exposition to keep the story going while letting the silence do the talking (so to speak), and shows off the Australian landscape to great effect, while not letting it overtake the movie's focus (something a lot of Australian films are guilty of, Lantana especially. Basically, a lot of our movies amount to scenery porn).
Another great factor comes with the mystery of the antagonist. He barely speaks, he's determined in his goal, he's not to be underestimated and there's more to his backstory than we're lead to believe.
Like I said, it's the most recent film on this list and probably the best we've offered lately (and probably the best we will be offering for some time).
Animal Kingdom (David Michod)
If there's one genre Australia manages to do well exceptionally well in, it's the crime genre. Loosely based on Melbourne's Pettingill family, it's a story about a young man, Joshua (James Frecheville) growing up in a household in which most of his family are dealing in criminal activities. He finds himself torn between family loyalty and the letter of the law.
I have to admit, this will be a little short since it's been a little while since I've seen it (a refresher course sometime soon might be in order) but this 2010 film (Red Hill was also a 2010 release, so a better year for Australian film all round) is still worth watching. Joel Edgerton perhaps gave the best performance, to me, and was the most likable character, which can be hard when most of the family are irredeemable at best. And it always kept you guessing, never telegraphing its punches.
The King (Matthew Saville)
A telemovie biopic, this spans from the early career of one of our greatest entertainers, Graham Kennedy (Stephen Curry) to his later years.
Stephen Curry has long played comedic characters in feelgood comedies like Take Away and Thunderstruck but despite Graham Kennedy being one of the biggest jokers in the business, Stephen goes above and beyond in portraying his tortured side, the offscreen dramatic persona. Stephen rarely plays the leading role and it's about damn time he got the recognition he deserves.
And as an added bonus, Australian treasures like Shaun Micallef and Angus Sampson lend their considerable talents to this picture. I will admit I am not all that familiar with Kennedy's body of work but with a movie like this, it makes me want to learn more.
Chopper (Andrew Dominik)
Another biopic, this time about a notorious crime figure (told you we do the crime films really well) Mark Brandon “Chopper” Read. Based on the books written by Chopper himself, it's mostly about a stretch in Chopper's life in and out of prison.
Easily Eric Bana's best role to date (and this includes Hanna, which places second), he escapes into this role with ease and he looks like he's having so much fun. Chopper is equal parts intimidating, complex and hilarious (in one scene, Chopper is being questioned by police about a shooting, after the man has ended up in hospital and responds with “Why would I shoot a bloke BANG, then drive him to the bloody car and wizz him off to the hospital at a hundred miles an hour? It defeats the purpose of having shot him in the first place.” I love that scene). Might just be Vince Colosimo's best role, too and the film even adapts one of my favourite anecdotes from the first book (been a while since I've read those, though I am pretty sure it's the first book. It's not in one of the later books, since it was around the fifth of sixth that Chopper turned the series into a fictional one).
Not for the squeamish but for everybody else, an absolute must see.
The Castle (Rob Sitch)
One of the most well known Australian efforts. Darryl Kerrigan (Michael Caton) and his family have carved out their little piece of paradise but developers want to take that away by expanding on the airport the family lives near. Darryl won't take this sitting down and vows to fight them off and keep his home.
When Australians talk about “the little Aussie battler”, the Kerrigans are often considered to be the quintessential battlers. A modest, quiet and funny Australian film, with a fantastic cast (Eric Bana and Stephen Curry show up here too) and lovable characters, it really makes me wish we could be more like the Kerrigans. Enthusiastic, full of fighting spirit, loyal and loving to our families. A must watch.
But now, for not only my favourite Australian film but one that's in my top 100 films of all time (I'll probably get to that list somewhere down the track):
Suburban Mayhem (Paul Goldman)
Katrina Skinner (Emily Barclay) is interested only in the superficial things in life like cars and manicures and commits petty crimes for the Hell of it. Whatever she wants, she gets and if she can't get it, she'll make you regret denying her pleasures. So when her father plans on getting her daughter removed from her care, she puts into motion the biggest crime she can think of.
There is so much to love here. Emily Barclay is a triumph as the manipulative Katrina, who disappears into this role so easily, you wonder how Emily shook it off when filming finished. Despite knowing how it ended, the plot still managed to shock. And the soundtrack? Frickin' awesome! Little Birdy's This Is A Love Song, Suzi Quatro's 48 Crash, The Spazzy's Paco Doesn't Love Me, the list goes on. Kickarse songs by kickarse women.
Also, this movie has Mia Wasikowska in it, so you have this to thank.
I could go on with more films (like BoyTown, Bad Eggs and Crackerjack) but to make up for it, I will review them somewhere down the track. And possibly some of our great TV shows too. But for now, go out and seek some Australiana for yourself!
So what to blog about that's related to my country? Well, I don't feel like ranting so it won't be on retired tennis player Margaret Court's homophobic rantings (Margaret, you are wrong. It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong and that's a fact, so go to Hell already you bigot.) or how four fire trucks and assorted rescue crew were called out to rescue a silly bird that got its leg stuck (what, was it a slow day? No one owned it either, but you required four fire trucks?)
No, instead, I will stay on one of my favourite topics and list some of my favourite Australian films.
Now, Australia's film industry and I have a love-hate relationship. They love to provide me with crap and I love to see their crappy movies fail. Despite that, every now and then, we are capable of making magic happen and a great film is born. Unlike some of my previous lists, these films will not be ranked (though I will save my absolute favourite for last) and there may not necessarily be a specific number in mind.
So, without further adieu, I present some of my favourite films that my country has provided the world with.
Red Hill (Patrick Hughes)
The most recent film on this list that I have seen, the film stars Ryan Kwanten (you overseas viewers know him best as Jason Stackhouse in True Blood) as rookie cop Shane Cooper, who has moved to the town of Red Hill with his pregnant wife, Alice (Claire Van Der Bloom). On his first day (as opposed to being one day from retirement), he learns that a convicted killer by the name of Jimmy Conway (Tom E. Lewis) has broken out of prison and is heading into town to claim his vengeance against the police force.
A quiet little action thriller, it's good to see Ryan back at home and delivering a very good performance (yes, I still think True Blood is the finest thing he's ever done but that's not here or there) and the film maintains a strong balance between delivering enough exposition to keep the story going while letting the silence do the talking (so to speak), and shows off the Australian landscape to great effect, while not letting it overtake the movie's focus (something a lot of Australian films are guilty of, Lantana especially. Basically, a lot of our movies amount to scenery porn).
Another great factor comes with the mystery of the antagonist. He barely speaks, he's determined in his goal, he's not to be underestimated and there's more to his backstory than we're lead to believe.
Like I said, it's the most recent film on this list and probably the best we've offered lately (and probably the best we will be offering for some time).
Animal Kingdom (David Michod)
If there's one genre Australia manages to do well exceptionally well in, it's the crime genre. Loosely based on Melbourne's Pettingill family, it's a story about a young man, Joshua (James Frecheville) growing up in a household in which most of his family are dealing in criminal activities. He finds himself torn between family loyalty and the letter of the law.
I have to admit, this will be a little short since it's been a little while since I've seen it (a refresher course sometime soon might be in order) but this 2010 film (Red Hill was also a 2010 release, so a better year for Australian film all round) is still worth watching. Joel Edgerton perhaps gave the best performance, to me, and was the most likable character, which can be hard when most of the family are irredeemable at best. And it always kept you guessing, never telegraphing its punches.
The King (Matthew Saville)
A telemovie biopic, this spans from the early career of one of our greatest entertainers, Graham Kennedy (Stephen Curry) to his later years.
Stephen Curry has long played comedic characters in feelgood comedies like Take Away and Thunderstruck but despite Graham Kennedy being one of the biggest jokers in the business, Stephen goes above and beyond in portraying his tortured side, the offscreen dramatic persona. Stephen rarely plays the leading role and it's about damn time he got the recognition he deserves.
And as an added bonus, Australian treasures like Shaun Micallef and Angus Sampson lend their considerable talents to this picture. I will admit I am not all that familiar with Kennedy's body of work but with a movie like this, it makes me want to learn more.
Chopper (Andrew Dominik)
Another biopic, this time about a notorious crime figure (told you we do the crime films really well) Mark Brandon “Chopper” Read. Based on the books written by Chopper himself, it's mostly about a stretch in Chopper's life in and out of prison.
Easily Eric Bana's best role to date (and this includes Hanna, which places second), he escapes into this role with ease and he looks like he's having so much fun. Chopper is equal parts intimidating, complex and hilarious (in one scene, Chopper is being questioned by police about a shooting, after the man has ended up in hospital and responds with “Why would I shoot a bloke BANG, then drive him to the bloody car and wizz him off to the hospital at a hundred miles an hour? It defeats the purpose of having shot him in the first place.” I love that scene). Might just be Vince Colosimo's best role, too and the film even adapts one of my favourite anecdotes from the first book (been a while since I've read those, though I am pretty sure it's the first book. It's not in one of the later books, since it was around the fifth of sixth that Chopper turned the series into a fictional one).
Not for the squeamish but for everybody else, an absolute must see.
The Castle (Rob Sitch)
One of the most well known Australian efforts. Darryl Kerrigan (Michael Caton) and his family have carved out their little piece of paradise but developers want to take that away by expanding on the airport the family lives near. Darryl won't take this sitting down and vows to fight them off and keep his home.
When Australians talk about “the little Aussie battler”, the Kerrigans are often considered to be the quintessential battlers. A modest, quiet and funny Australian film, with a fantastic cast (Eric Bana and Stephen Curry show up here too) and lovable characters, it really makes me wish we could be more like the Kerrigans. Enthusiastic, full of fighting spirit, loyal and loving to our families. A must watch.
But now, for not only my favourite Australian film but one that's in my top 100 films of all time (I'll probably get to that list somewhere down the track):
Suburban Mayhem (Paul Goldman)
Katrina Skinner (Emily Barclay) is interested only in the superficial things in life like cars and manicures and commits petty crimes for the Hell of it. Whatever she wants, she gets and if she can't get it, she'll make you regret denying her pleasures. So when her father plans on getting her daughter removed from her care, she puts into motion the biggest crime she can think of.
There is so much to love here. Emily Barclay is a triumph as the manipulative Katrina, who disappears into this role so easily, you wonder how Emily shook it off when filming finished. Despite knowing how it ended, the plot still managed to shock. And the soundtrack? Frickin' awesome! Little Birdy's This Is A Love Song, Suzi Quatro's 48 Crash, The Spazzy's Paco Doesn't Love Me, the list goes on. Kickarse songs by kickarse women.
Also, this movie has Mia Wasikowska in it, so you have this to thank.
I could go on with more films (like BoyTown, Bad Eggs and Crackerjack) but to make up for it, I will review them somewhere down the track. And possibly some of our great TV shows too. But for now, go out and seek some Australiana for yourself!
Monday, 23 January 2012
Don't Think About Batman, Don't Think About Batman...
So, I finally saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows over the weekend. After organizing to go see it with friends, all the stars aligned, plans were made and good times were had by all.
But you don't want to read about that. No, you want to know my thoughts on the movie (well, I assume that's the reason you're here. If you came here by accident, I apologize for boring you and leave you to go on your way). And while I was going to watch a couple more new releases before I got to this movie, as it turns out, one didn't show up at my local cinema and the other is only playing in the evenings, which is when I'm sleeping before I work (midnight starts, in case you were wondering), so they've been postponed for the moment, until I get a night off and possibly see the one in the evening or DVD release.
Alright, let's get started. You may recall a little while ago, I did a blog on the first Sherlock Holmes film, as I had rewatched it in anticipation for the sequel, and complimented the acting and having Sherlock be more action-orientated. Well, lets see if A Game Of Shadows can expand on that.
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is doing his best to thwart the plans of Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) but finds himself being outmaneuvered at every turn. But with attempts being made on the lives of his faithful-yet-snarky companion Dr. Watson (Jude Law), the good doctor's blushing new bride, Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Simza (Noomi Rapace), a woman targeted because her brother works for Moirarty, the game just became more serious and Sherlock must use all his wits to overcome the evil machinations of the man he dubs “the Napoleon of crime”.
Now, much as I hate to compare it to something Batman related (and yes, obviously I acknowledge that without Sherlock, Batman would have turned out drastically different), A Game Of Shadows reminds me of The Dark Knight, in the sense that the arch nemesis was saved for the sequel and hinted at with the ending of the first film. This was a great move, as it increases the tension and it allows the hero to establish themselves before taking on a greater threat, thus making the antagonist that much more impressive when they lock horns and adds an air of credibility (though unlike The Dark Knight, Sherlock had already been operating before the events of the first movie, though the film is our first to see how the Sherlock of this universe operates). Jared and Robert play off each other well, with neither one disrespecting the other, both in-character and as actors. Jared manages to be menacing while remaining calm and relatively sociable, rarely if ever raising his voice.
And he has own aide in Col. Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson), who serves as a foil for Watson in his own way, both men being members of the army, though Moran was dishonourably discharged and became a mercenary for hire. Paul Anderson is great and I'm really hoping we haven't seen the last of Moran in this series.
If Jared and Paul were great additions in a villainous capacity, then Stephen Fry is a huge bonus for the heroic side. He's dry and witty, much like Stephen Fry offscreen. I imagine that in playing Mycroft Holmes, all Stephen has to do is put on clothes from a different era and he's good to go. Like Paul, I'm hoping for a return in future installments.
Much like the previous film, Robert and Jude were great and further developed their love-hate relationship onscreen, mostly based on Sherlock's interference in Watson's honeymoon (and seriously, don't hurt his wife or else your neck will suddenly have hands around it) and have great banter between them. Bickering like an old married couple, as the saying goes.
Noomi Rapace was certainly interesting. This is the first role I've seen her in (she'd be best known for originating the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original adaptations of the Millennium Trilogy, which I actually picked up before seeing the movie. Funny how these things work out) and I think she did pretty good. The character is impressive with her knives and I'm glad they didn't force a romance between her and Sherlock, but made her almost like a second sidekick, like Sherlock is The Doctor.
Wait... that would make sense, Moriarty does look like a form the Master would take. His plan is something the Master would instigate, given the time period. Sherlock is almost always right, has amazing abilities, has a companion, has eccentricities and quirks, survives the impossible time and time again, remains cool under pressure... maybe Sherlock IS The Doctor? Hmm. Must investigate further.
But seriously, she is a nice addition and isn't just slotted in to replace the void left by Rachel McAdams, who does appear in this, albeit briefly, but makes good use of the time she has.
Much like the previous film, the action is fast-paced and frantic. Good ol' fisticuffs, with some gunplay in the second half (and a cannon. Yeah, that scene is frickin' sweet) and Holmes once again narrating his moves internally (and he's not the only one...) makes for some interesting fight choreography. His timing is impeccable and his deductive skills while fighting remain ever sharp, noticing weakness he can exploit (like Batman! Damn it, I promised myself I wasn't going to do too many comparisons to Batman).
The dialogue too is as sharp as to be expected, with the mind games between Moriarty and Holmes the highlights. Dialogue is even lifted from the Holmes story The Final Problem, the story that first introduced Moriarty and thus, one of fiction's earliest supervillains was born. And the finale, without spoilers, also refers to that story.
There's really not much, if anything, to fault here. Guy Ritchie's done another solid film, with an excellent cast and crew. We may have to wait a while for the next one (and even longer for The Real Rock'N'Rolla, unfortunately) as Guy is possibly preparing to do his own take on The Man From U.N.C.L.E but I'm a (mostly) patient man. As for this film, a solid 4/5.
But you don't want to read about that. No, you want to know my thoughts on the movie (well, I assume that's the reason you're here. If you came here by accident, I apologize for boring you and leave you to go on your way). And while I was going to watch a couple more new releases before I got to this movie, as it turns out, one didn't show up at my local cinema and the other is only playing in the evenings, which is when I'm sleeping before I work (midnight starts, in case you were wondering), so they've been postponed for the moment, until I get a night off and possibly see the one in the evening or DVD release.
Alright, let's get started. You may recall a little while ago, I did a blog on the first Sherlock Holmes film, as I had rewatched it in anticipation for the sequel, and complimented the acting and having Sherlock be more action-orientated. Well, lets see if A Game Of Shadows can expand on that.
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is doing his best to thwart the plans of Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) but finds himself being outmaneuvered at every turn. But with attempts being made on the lives of his faithful-yet-snarky companion Dr. Watson (Jude Law), the good doctor's blushing new bride, Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Simza (Noomi Rapace), a woman targeted because her brother works for Moirarty, the game just became more serious and Sherlock must use all his wits to overcome the evil machinations of the man he dubs “the Napoleon of crime”.
Now, much as I hate to compare it to something Batman related (and yes, obviously I acknowledge that without Sherlock, Batman would have turned out drastically different), A Game Of Shadows reminds me of The Dark Knight, in the sense that the arch nemesis was saved for the sequel and hinted at with the ending of the first film. This was a great move, as it increases the tension and it allows the hero to establish themselves before taking on a greater threat, thus making the antagonist that much more impressive when they lock horns and adds an air of credibility (though unlike The Dark Knight, Sherlock had already been operating before the events of the first movie, though the film is our first to see how the Sherlock of this universe operates). Jared and Robert play off each other well, with neither one disrespecting the other, both in-character and as actors. Jared manages to be menacing while remaining calm and relatively sociable, rarely if ever raising his voice.
And he has own aide in Col. Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson), who serves as a foil for Watson in his own way, both men being members of the army, though Moran was dishonourably discharged and became a mercenary for hire. Paul Anderson is great and I'm really hoping we haven't seen the last of Moran in this series.
If Jared and Paul were great additions in a villainous capacity, then Stephen Fry is a huge bonus for the heroic side. He's dry and witty, much like Stephen Fry offscreen. I imagine that in playing Mycroft Holmes, all Stephen has to do is put on clothes from a different era and he's good to go. Like Paul, I'm hoping for a return in future installments.
Much like the previous film, Robert and Jude were great and further developed their love-hate relationship onscreen, mostly based on Sherlock's interference in Watson's honeymoon (and seriously, don't hurt his wife or else your neck will suddenly have hands around it) and have great banter between them. Bickering like an old married couple, as the saying goes.
Noomi Rapace was certainly interesting. This is the first role I've seen her in (she'd be best known for originating the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original adaptations of the Millennium Trilogy, which I actually picked up before seeing the movie. Funny how these things work out) and I think she did pretty good. The character is impressive with her knives and I'm glad they didn't force a romance between her and Sherlock, but made her almost like a second sidekick, like Sherlock is The Doctor.
Wait... that would make sense, Moriarty does look like a form the Master would take. His plan is something the Master would instigate, given the time period. Sherlock is almost always right, has amazing abilities, has a companion, has eccentricities and quirks, survives the impossible time and time again, remains cool under pressure... maybe Sherlock IS The Doctor? Hmm. Must investigate further.
But seriously, she is a nice addition and isn't just slotted in to replace the void left by Rachel McAdams, who does appear in this, albeit briefly, but makes good use of the time she has.
Much like the previous film, the action is fast-paced and frantic. Good ol' fisticuffs, with some gunplay in the second half (and a cannon. Yeah, that scene is frickin' sweet) and Holmes once again narrating his moves internally (and he's not the only one...) makes for some interesting fight choreography. His timing is impeccable and his deductive skills while fighting remain ever sharp, noticing weakness he can exploit (like Batman! Damn it, I promised myself I wasn't going to do too many comparisons to Batman).
The dialogue too is as sharp as to be expected, with the mind games between Moriarty and Holmes the highlights. Dialogue is even lifted from the Holmes story The Final Problem, the story that first introduced Moriarty and thus, one of fiction's earliest supervillains was born. And the finale, without spoilers, also refers to that story.
There's really not much, if anything, to fault here. Guy Ritchie's done another solid film, with an excellent cast and crew. We may have to wait a while for the next one (and even longer for The Real Rock'N'Rolla, unfortunately) as Guy is possibly preparing to do his own take on The Man From U.N.C.L.E but I'm a (mostly) patient man. As for this film, a solid 4/5.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
The Cool And The Crazy Shapiro
Did you ever have one of those movies that you watched, enjoyed it, didn't think about it much for a while but then it comes back full force, compels you to watch it again and suddenly you love it? Well, that's what I had with the movie for today's blog, Hey Good Lookin'.
Directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also wrote and produced it, Hey Good Lookin' is set in the 50's and explores the typical things protagonist Vinnie (Richard Romanus) and his aptly named friend, Crazy Shapiro (David Proval) do with their time. Vinnie leads a gang called the Stompers, who are in constant conflict with rival gang the Chaplins. Vinnie wanders through life, not quite knowing what to do with himself, pursuing and also being pursued by Rozzie Featherschneid (Tina Romanus). Eventually, his ways bring forth a rumble between his gang and the Chaplins, with Vinnie struggling to decide where he wants to go in life.
Up until the third act, the film is largely a collection of set pieces, connected by its characters, with the rumble acting as the climax of the film and the culmination of what Vinnie's been heading towards since he got into the life he did. Actually, I should point out, the film has a framing device: a mysterious man tells a middle aged woman about where he got a jacket from, one he presents to her. This is what leads into the story of Vinnie.
Now, usually I would warn about spoilers at this point, but I think I can safely say what I need to without giving too much away. However, I do want to discuss the ending so I will put up an appropriate warning when we get to that.
As I mention in my introduction, I thought very highly of this film when I first watched it but after watching it again, I've been able to not only see things in a different way and understand them but also put my finger on what it is that brings me back.
First, the animation. Originally, the film was supposed to be a blend of live action and animation, much like Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be. Instead, it ended up being mostly animation (I say mostly, there were some live action shots with the animated characters). And it's amazing. It's very Looney Tunes-esque in places, while still being for mature audiences. Very mature audiences. The character designs, the little imperfections, the variance, it all works.
One scene in particular has some of the most amazing animation I've ever seen, in anything. Before the big rumble, several Chaplins are dancing and mocking the Stompers and the animation on the gang members is like another world unto itself. Even the trippy scenes have great attention to detail and certainly are memorable.
The characters themselves can prove to be quite complex, Vinnie in particular. Despite cultivating a tough guy image, inwardly he seems to be hesitant to actually be violent. He cares more about maintaining his looks (always seems to have a comb at the ready) and staying out of trouble than he does about anything gang related, despite being its leader. He kind of goes between a self-absorbed putz and a gentle, almost worldly fellow, particularly with Rozzie. One of his more positive traits is that he seems to be very respectful to women (usually), like in the scene in which he, Rozzie, Crazy and Crazy's girlfriend Eva (Jesse Welles) are at a hamburger joint and Vinnie insists that Crazy spend a little more time intimately with Eva. That could just be so he can have some privacy with Roz, but I'd like to think he has a code of honour when it comes to women (again, usually. I say that because he and Crazy do visit some prostitutes early on, though Vinnie seems to be unaware of this at first, with Crazy leaping right into it).
Throughout the film, evidence is dropped that indicates Vinnie's more of a talker than a fighter. He talks a big game but when the pressure's on to deliver on what he promised, he finds new excuses to weasel out of it. There's a scene in which he and Crazy have slept on a beach, and when they wake up, they find that the local mafia have all gathered, completely oblivious to the two. After Crazy goes off to ogle some of the women, Vinnie finds a corpse in the sand. His first reaction? Scream. Which brings both of them to the attention of said mafia. While Crazy's getting the crap beat out of him, Vinnie's hightailing it out and runs into the Chaplins, since its their turf. When Chaplins leader Boogaloo (Phillip Michael Thomas) suggests a rumble, Vinnie actually swallows his cigarette before regaining his composure and taking the offer up.
Crazy, on the other hand, shouldn't be called Crazy. He should be renamed Clinically Insane. I compared the animation to the Looney Tunes up above. Well Crazy could very well be the forgotten Looney Tune. He's always doing something wild, madcap. As is noted by Roz later, he might just have more balls than Vinnie, for its his actions that help bring the plot to the ending it reaches. Had he not been so hotheaded, things would have turned out differently.
In fact, early on, he's talking to Vinnie about how he loves going up to the roof of his place at night and looking at the stars and he feels like painting a picture. This hints at a deeper level of character, much like Vinnie, though it doesn't get explored all that much.
And for Roz, I feel kind of sorry for her (this will be addressed in the spoiler section) but she's still a pretty strong character in her own right.
One criticism I have for the film: now, I don't hate Eva but she's clearly the odd one out of the four of them. Dressed like she's in training to be a librarian, she doesn't seem like the type of girl to go for what Crazy's got going for him. But what's really weird is that she just disappears after the scene at the hamburger joint. She's never mentioned again, either. Uh, movie, did you forget something? Or someone?
(It is here that the spoilers will occur. If you wish to see this film and don't want to know the ending, skip ahead to my penultimate paragraph on the soundtrack.)
Remember the mysterious man and the woman he's telling the story to? As it is revealed in the final minutes of the film, it's actually Vinnie and Roz, neither of whom have aged very well. If you're wondering how it wasn't revealed at the start, it's because Vinnie's voice has aged and Roz doesn't speak at that point. Roz blasts Vinnie, saying he let her down by leaving and chickening out of the rumble but says he has a second chance to win her back now by fighting her husband who's going to walk through the door of the bar they're in at any moment. In his mind, Vinnie dismisses it and makes a crude remark about the female gender. However, he comforts Roz and makes it seem like he's going to stick around this time.
I'm not exactly sure of the intent, but I believe that while Vinnie's tempted to cut and run again, he ignores this impulse because that's all he's done in his life and he's tired of it. He's not getting any younger and he can't keep it up forever. Adding on to that, when he sweet talks Roz, he holds her like a lover would, suggesting he may just settle down after all.
Of course, that could just be me being foolish, but with the scene playing out the way it does, the evidence is there.
And this is where I go back to what I was saying about how I felt sorry for Roz. Just before Vinnie finishes his story, we see Roz going to a phone booth, barely containing her tears, wanting to make a dedication on the radio to Vinnie, who she believes died in the rumble. The emotion in that scene, emanating from the voice actress, really sells the whole thing and despite her own indiscretions and her tough girl attitude, she really felt something for the guy and I can't help but be a little moved by that.
(This ends the spoiler section.)
But one of the most memorable things is the soundtrack, which is probably the film's trump card. Oh my God, I love these songs! From the opening track baring the film's title, which sounds like it really was a song from the 50's, to Crazy's Theme, which is just as erratic and infectious as his character is, to the slick and stylish Burnin'. I'll often be humming along to Hey Good Lookin' or thinking of Burnin' and the soundtrack has just taken over my mind on occasion, as has this whole film. I really want a copy of this soundtrack, I am that obsessed with it.
I understand that this film is extremely hard to come by, no doubt in part because Bakshi himself has come to be displeased with it. Well, I say if you can find it, GRAB IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN! One of the greatest animated films I've ever seen, easily in the top five.
An easy 4.5/5 for this gem, and this will be the first of many Bakshi films I review (if not all of them but I'll save them for another time).
Directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also wrote and produced it, Hey Good Lookin' is set in the 50's and explores the typical things protagonist Vinnie (Richard Romanus) and his aptly named friend, Crazy Shapiro (David Proval) do with their time. Vinnie leads a gang called the Stompers, who are in constant conflict with rival gang the Chaplins. Vinnie wanders through life, not quite knowing what to do with himself, pursuing and also being pursued by Rozzie Featherschneid (Tina Romanus). Eventually, his ways bring forth a rumble between his gang and the Chaplins, with Vinnie struggling to decide where he wants to go in life.
Up until the third act, the film is largely a collection of set pieces, connected by its characters, with the rumble acting as the climax of the film and the culmination of what Vinnie's been heading towards since he got into the life he did. Actually, I should point out, the film has a framing device: a mysterious man tells a middle aged woman about where he got a jacket from, one he presents to her. This is what leads into the story of Vinnie.
Now, usually I would warn about spoilers at this point, but I think I can safely say what I need to without giving too much away. However, I do want to discuss the ending so I will put up an appropriate warning when we get to that.
As I mention in my introduction, I thought very highly of this film when I first watched it but after watching it again, I've been able to not only see things in a different way and understand them but also put my finger on what it is that brings me back.
First, the animation. Originally, the film was supposed to be a blend of live action and animation, much like Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be. Instead, it ended up being mostly animation (I say mostly, there were some live action shots with the animated characters). And it's amazing. It's very Looney Tunes-esque in places, while still being for mature audiences. Very mature audiences. The character designs, the little imperfections, the variance, it all works.
One scene in particular has some of the most amazing animation I've ever seen, in anything. Before the big rumble, several Chaplins are dancing and mocking the Stompers and the animation on the gang members is like another world unto itself. Even the trippy scenes have great attention to detail and certainly are memorable.
The characters themselves can prove to be quite complex, Vinnie in particular. Despite cultivating a tough guy image, inwardly he seems to be hesitant to actually be violent. He cares more about maintaining his looks (always seems to have a comb at the ready) and staying out of trouble than he does about anything gang related, despite being its leader. He kind of goes between a self-absorbed putz and a gentle, almost worldly fellow, particularly with Rozzie. One of his more positive traits is that he seems to be very respectful to women (usually), like in the scene in which he, Rozzie, Crazy and Crazy's girlfriend Eva (Jesse Welles) are at a hamburger joint and Vinnie insists that Crazy spend a little more time intimately with Eva. That could just be so he can have some privacy with Roz, but I'd like to think he has a code of honour when it comes to women (again, usually. I say that because he and Crazy do visit some prostitutes early on, though Vinnie seems to be unaware of this at first, with Crazy leaping right into it).
Throughout the film, evidence is dropped that indicates Vinnie's more of a talker than a fighter. He talks a big game but when the pressure's on to deliver on what he promised, he finds new excuses to weasel out of it. There's a scene in which he and Crazy have slept on a beach, and when they wake up, they find that the local mafia have all gathered, completely oblivious to the two. After Crazy goes off to ogle some of the women, Vinnie finds a corpse in the sand. His first reaction? Scream. Which brings both of them to the attention of said mafia. While Crazy's getting the crap beat out of him, Vinnie's hightailing it out and runs into the Chaplins, since its their turf. When Chaplins leader Boogaloo (Phillip Michael Thomas) suggests a rumble, Vinnie actually swallows his cigarette before regaining his composure and taking the offer up.
Crazy, on the other hand, shouldn't be called Crazy. He should be renamed Clinically Insane. I compared the animation to the Looney Tunes up above. Well Crazy could very well be the forgotten Looney Tune. He's always doing something wild, madcap. As is noted by Roz later, he might just have more balls than Vinnie, for its his actions that help bring the plot to the ending it reaches. Had he not been so hotheaded, things would have turned out differently.
In fact, early on, he's talking to Vinnie about how he loves going up to the roof of his place at night and looking at the stars and he feels like painting a picture. This hints at a deeper level of character, much like Vinnie, though it doesn't get explored all that much.
And for Roz, I feel kind of sorry for her (this will be addressed in the spoiler section) but she's still a pretty strong character in her own right.
One criticism I have for the film: now, I don't hate Eva but she's clearly the odd one out of the four of them. Dressed like she's in training to be a librarian, she doesn't seem like the type of girl to go for what Crazy's got going for him. But what's really weird is that she just disappears after the scene at the hamburger joint. She's never mentioned again, either. Uh, movie, did you forget something? Or someone?
(It is here that the spoilers will occur. If you wish to see this film and don't want to know the ending, skip ahead to my penultimate paragraph on the soundtrack.)
Remember the mysterious man and the woman he's telling the story to? As it is revealed in the final minutes of the film, it's actually Vinnie and Roz, neither of whom have aged very well. If you're wondering how it wasn't revealed at the start, it's because Vinnie's voice has aged and Roz doesn't speak at that point. Roz blasts Vinnie, saying he let her down by leaving and chickening out of the rumble but says he has a second chance to win her back now by fighting her husband who's going to walk through the door of the bar they're in at any moment. In his mind, Vinnie dismisses it and makes a crude remark about the female gender. However, he comforts Roz and makes it seem like he's going to stick around this time.
I'm not exactly sure of the intent, but I believe that while Vinnie's tempted to cut and run again, he ignores this impulse because that's all he's done in his life and he's tired of it. He's not getting any younger and he can't keep it up forever. Adding on to that, when he sweet talks Roz, he holds her like a lover would, suggesting he may just settle down after all.
Of course, that could just be me being foolish, but with the scene playing out the way it does, the evidence is there.
And this is where I go back to what I was saying about how I felt sorry for Roz. Just before Vinnie finishes his story, we see Roz going to a phone booth, barely containing her tears, wanting to make a dedication on the radio to Vinnie, who she believes died in the rumble. The emotion in that scene, emanating from the voice actress, really sells the whole thing and despite her own indiscretions and her tough girl attitude, she really felt something for the guy and I can't help but be a little moved by that.
(This ends the spoiler section.)
But one of the most memorable things is the soundtrack, which is probably the film's trump card. Oh my God, I love these songs! From the opening track baring the film's title, which sounds like it really was a song from the 50's, to Crazy's Theme, which is just as erratic and infectious as his character is, to the slick and stylish Burnin'. I'll often be humming along to Hey Good Lookin' or thinking of Burnin' and the soundtrack has just taken over my mind on occasion, as has this whole film. I really want a copy of this soundtrack, I am that obsessed with it.
I understand that this film is extremely hard to come by, no doubt in part because Bakshi himself has come to be displeased with it. Well, I say if you can find it, GRAB IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN! One of the greatest animated films I've ever seen, easily in the top five.
An easy 4.5/5 for this gem, and this will be the first of many Bakshi films I review (if not all of them but I'll save them for another time).
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
From Hell's Heart, I Snark At Thee
And now, for another edition of “Australians Being Complete Dumbarses”. If you recall, I once blogged about a boy who bought drugs overseas, got caught, was arrested and the story was being shopped around. Well today, about a week before my nation's national day even, I bring another story of my country's people making complete arses of themselves. So, in short, it's rant time again.
I'm fairly sure overseas readers won't be familiar with this oceanic incident (especially not with the current incident at sea, with the cruise ship hitting rocks off an Italian coast. And my thoughts on that are the sooner the captain is behind bars and getting beaten with sticks, the better) so I'll go into a little background: as is common knowledge, there has been considerable controversy on the Japanese whaling ships. In retaliation, protesters have taken their own ships out there to combat the whalers (one celebrity protester being Isabel Lucas, though I use the term celebrity loosely in her case. As if I didn't already have a reason to hate her, either. And on behalf of Australia, I apologize to the rest of the world for her existence. And Sophie Monk's, too).
Now, before I get into the main focus of this blog, I want to go on record and say I have no opinion on what the Japanese are doing out there. On the one hand, the protesters and activists aren't exactly being subtle with their campaigns and are making themselves look like the villains they're trying to paint the Japanese whalers as. On the other, what exactly can you learn from whales that you hunt and kill?
But what my blog is focusing on today is the behaviour of some of these protesters. A little while ago, three protesters got the idea into their heads that boarding a whaling vessel and forcing the whalers to stop was a stroke of genius. Armed only with a sign saying “Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters”, they boarded and remained on board for some time. Upon being rescued, it was established that this would end up costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for this rescue.
OK, where to start on how pissed off this entire thing makes me.
First off, I don't know much about law in the ocean and where one country's jurisdiction begins and another ends but I'm pretty sure boarding another ship is not only illegal in that your entry is unauthorized but by the fact that you may not even be in your own waters. I don't know if this happened in international waters but I'm sure several laws were broken.
Next, how arrogant do you have to be to assume that between three people, you were going to stop the whalers on your own? What, were they supposed to be awesomed by your presence? “Oh no, three Australians! Clearly we are no match for you, we should pack up and go, lest we incur your wrath!” I mean, I didn't think protesters would go packing heat but what did your strategy involve? Was there even a strategy?
Speaking of strategies, what was your exit strategy? Did you expect dolphins would show up at the convenient moment and whisk you back to Australia like you were in a 90's children's film? Did you think you were guests aboard the ship and that the Japanese would take a right and drop you off even though it was out of their way? Bet you wouldn't put in for gas if that was the case, lousy freeloaders.
The obvious fact that you are protesters already pisses me off, because you're part of the stereotype ones, the ones that think you're so high and mighty and better than the rest of us because you're defending the Earth. Newsflash: a lot of the animals you go out of your way to protect? They will eat you if given the chance. They won't go “Hey, are you that one dude that saved all the dancing bears? Sorry bro, didn't mean to bite at you, you're a hero! Can I have your autograph?” Most animals will not recognize the difference between good and bad human when they're hungry or on a rampage. So, your actions are for naught. Now, if you were content with merely stopping animal testing or protesting fur, more power to you, provided you don't act like dicks about it. But you guys missed that class didn't you?
No, I think what pisses me off most isn't the fact that this is coming out of our pockets, even though that is frustrating, or that you're making us look bad to other countries by showing them we're bullies who go where we please. No, it's the fact that you show no remorse for anything you've done and have not apologized.
I may be paraphrasing or misremembering slightly but I believe one of them said something to the effect of “everyone's entitled to one free rescue”. Being rescued from a burning building or crashed plane is more than acceptable, especially since it wouldn't be the fault of any passengers and probably not of crew. Being rescued from a boat you boarded, illegally I remind you, does not entitle you to the same privilege. Your general attitude towards the whole thing is immature and I liken it to a kid who has done something wrong, been picked up by their parents and not understood or cared about what has just transpired.
There. That's it in a nutshell. You are children. You're acting childish towards citizens from another country, you believe your way is right and you loudly announce so, you go where you please and you can't admit you've done wrong. Exactly like bad children. You owe not just the whaling ships an apology, but all of us too, for shaming us, costing us money in an already unstable economy and for acting like you've done the right thing.
Right, I'd better end this before I get too frustrated. And yes, I know I changed styles from talking about these idiots to talking to them but that's what happens when you rant, trains of thought go to all sorts of stations.
Bottom line, you want to protest, do it right and be smart about it. It's not about proving you're right by demeaning your opponent or lying, it's about using what you have to say “Well, this is my argument, here are my facts to back it up”. Bullying is not the way to do it. And again, I remind you all I am not defending the whalers. Sometimes, a conflict can have two villains. I'm not saying the whalers are but I do know they are least acting with more dignity than this trio of tosspots.
I'm fairly sure overseas readers won't be familiar with this oceanic incident (especially not with the current incident at sea, with the cruise ship hitting rocks off an Italian coast. And my thoughts on that are the sooner the captain is behind bars and getting beaten with sticks, the better) so I'll go into a little background: as is common knowledge, there has been considerable controversy on the Japanese whaling ships. In retaliation, protesters have taken their own ships out there to combat the whalers (one celebrity protester being Isabel Lucas, though I use the term celebrity loosely in her case. As if I didn't already have a reason to hate her, either. And on behalf of Australia, I apologize to the rest of the world for her existence. And Sophie Monk's, too).
Now, before I get into the main focus of this blog, I want to go on record and say I have no opinion on what the Japanese are doing out there. On the one hand, the protesters and activists aren't exactly being subtle with their campaigns and are making themselves look like the villains they're trying to paint the Japanese whalers as. On the other, what exactly can you learn from whales that you hunt and kill?
But what my blog is focusing on today is the behaviour of some of these protesters. A little while ago, three protesters got the idea into their heads that boarding a whaling vessel and forcing the whalers to stop was a stroke of genius. Armed only with a sign saying “Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters”, they boarded and remained on board for some time. Upon being rescued, it was established that this would end up costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for this rescue.
OK, where to start on how pissed off this entire thing makes me.
First off, I don't know much about law in the ocean and where one country's jurisdiction begins and another ends but I'm pretty sure boarding another ship is not only illegal in that your entry is unauthorized but by the fact that you may not even be in your own waters. I don't know if this happened in international waters but I'm sure several laws were broken.
Next, how arrogant do you have to be to assume that between three people, you were going to stop the whalers on your own? What, were they supposed to be awesomed by your presence? “Oh no, three Australians! Clearly we are no match for you, we should pack up and go, lest we incur your wrath!” I mean, I didn't think protesters would go packing heat but what did your strategy involve? Was there even a strategy?
Speaking of strategies, what was your exit strategy? Did you expect dolphins would show up at the convenient moment and whisk you back to Australia like you were in a 90's children's film? Did you think you were guests aboard the ship and that the Japanese would take a right and drop you off even though it was out of their way? Bet you wouldn't put in for gas if that was the case, lousy freeloaders.
The obvious fact that you are protesters already pisses me off, because you're part of the stereotype ones, the ones that think you're so high and mighty and better than the rest of us because you're defending the Earth. Newsflash: a lot of the animals you go out of your way to protect? They will eat you if given the chance. They won't go “Hey, are you that one dude that saved all the dancing bears? Sorry bro, didn't mean to bite at you, you're a hero! Can I have your autograph?” Most animals will not recognize the difference between good and bad human when they're hungry or on a rampage. So, your actions are for naught. Now, if you were content with merely stopping animal testing or protesting fur, more power to you, provided you don't act like dicks about it. But you guys missed that class didn't you?
No, I think what pisses me off most isn't the fact that this is coming out of our pockets, even though that is frustrating, or that you're making us look bad to other countries by showing them we're bullies who go where we please. No, it's the fact that you show no remorse for anything you've done and have not apologized.
I may be paraphrasing or misremembering slightly but I believe one of them said something to the effect of “everyone's entitled to one free rescue”. Being rescued from a burning building or crashed plane is more than acceptable, especially since it wouldn't be the fault of any passengers and probably not of crew. Being rescued from a boat you boarded, illegally I remind you, does not entitle you to the same privilege. Your general attitude towards the whole thing is immature and I liken it to a kid who has done something wrong, been picked up by their parents and not understood or cared about what has just transpired.
There. That's it in a nutshell. You are children. You're acting childish towards citizens from another country, you believe your way is right and you loudly announce so, you go where you please and you can't admit you've done wrong. Exactly like bad children. You owe not just the whaling ships an apology, but all of us too, for shaming us, costing us money in an already unstable economy and for acting like you've done the right thing.
Right, I'd better end this before I get too frustrated. And yes, I know I changed styles from talking about these idiots to talking to them but that's what happens when you rant, trains of thought go to all sorts of stations.
Bottom line, you want to protest, do it right and be smart about it. It's not about proving you're right by demeaning your opponent or lying, it's about using what you have to say “Well, this is my argument, here are my facts to back it up”. Bullying is not the way to do it. And again, I remind you all I am not defending the whalers. Sometimes, a conflict can have two villains. I'm not saying the whalers are but I do know they are least acting with more dignity than this trio of tosspots.
Monday, 16 January 2012
Should Have Taken Platform Nine-And-Three-Quarters
And to start off a new week, we have another 2012 release (by Australian standards, at least, like the last two movies I've reviewed) that I ventured out to see (still not Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, and there will probably be a couple more films before that). This time around, I saw the latest Martin Scorsese picture, Hugo.
Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.
Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.
When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.
Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.
Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).
If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.
Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.
Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.
It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.
Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.
Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.
When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.
Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.
Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).
If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.
Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.
Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.
It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)