Just a quick post to say that I've compiled a feature for OWF, which sees the site's staff of writer's telling us their personal favourite film scores and composers.
Go and check it out and leave a comment telling us your own choices!
Showing posts with label Obsessed With Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obsessed With Film. Show all posts
Monday, 17 May 2010
Thursday, 13 May 2010
'Lebanon' review and interview with Sam Maoz at OWF now!
Samuel Maoz's tough, award winning Israeli war film, 'Lebanon', has now been reviewed over at Obsessed With Film by yours truly. I was also lucky enough to interview Mr. Maoz back in late April and that too is now available to read on the site. There is also (and sorry if it's 'Lebanon' overkill over at OWF right now!) a podcast which covers the movie, with me and Jon also discussing 'Life During Wartime'.
Interested in 'Lebanon'? Here is the trailer:
'Lebanon' is out tomorrow (14th May) and is rated '15' by the BBFC.
Interested in 'Lebanon'? Here is the trailer:
'Lebanon' is out tomorrow (14th May) and is rated '15' by the BBFC.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Reversing my position, plus a new article, an interview and reviews at OWF
I have some new stuff up at Obsessed With Film as of today: a full interview with Lucy Bailey and Andrew Thompson (directors of the documentary 'Mugabe and the White African'), a review of the 'Caligula' Blu-ray release and a review of the documentary 'One Night in Turin', which is screening for one night only across the nation (11th May). Aside from this I also have a load of news stories up on the site and, of course, the podcast.
Speaking of which, Jon and I recorded no less than two new episodes the other night (Jon is going away for a week and we needed one in the bag for then). The first covers 'Life During Wartime' (which I still need to review for this blog since seeing it weeks back) and 'Lebanon', whilst the second was about 'Iron Man 2', 'The Avengers' and a nice Romanian film called 'The Happiest Girl in the World' (which I'll write a review for nearer the time of release).
Anyway, now to the bit about "reversing my position": I wrote this in my review of Chris Morris' excellent 'Four Lions':
"Where the film differs from the rest of the Morris oeuvre is that his work usually combines incisive satire of both form and content. The way things are said is always as rich and funny as what is being said. However, in ‘Four Lions’... this formal and generic parody is absent... stylistically there is none of the directorial wit and experimentation seen in Morris’ series ‘Jam’... there is a sizable portion of what makes Morris pioneering and unique that is clearly missing."
The more I have thought about that since I have begun to change my mind. I saw the film again last night and it confirmed that I was probably wrong about the lack of satire of the form of film itself. (Potential spoilers ahead) I think that actually Morris is playing with the structure of movies and the way in which they can manipulate audiences to sympathise with potentially nasty characters.
I a lot of films you follow a gangster, a bank robber or some other kind of violent criminal (or even violent anti-hero) and the film is constructed in a way which makes you identify with that protagonist. When the police almost catch the crook you get nervous. If the movie was about the police, however, you'd anxiously want them to best the crook.
In 'Four Lions' Morris sticks to a conventional structure where Omar (Riz Ahmed) faces a crisis of confidence just prior to the films third act. In typical movie style he is given a pep-talk by his wife and young son, who persuade him he should, in fact, destroy himself. It's a dark and disturbing scene and the more I think about it the more I think that Morris knows exactly what he is doing by combining that sort of scene with this sort of character. He is playing with convention and structure and highlighting, almost, the dangerous power of film to manipulate an audience. The home-life scenes with Omar are quite sweet and sometimes a little cheesy, but I now think this is part of the satire.
Of both form AND content.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it now.
On a side note, I saw Bogdanovich's 'The Last Picture Show' yesterday and it was amazing from start to finish. Here is the trailer... for no real reason.
Speaking of which, Jon and I recorded no less than two new episodes the other night (Jon is going away for a week and we needed one in the bag for then). The first covers 'Life During Wartime' (which I still need to review for this blog since seeing it weeks back) and 'Lebanon', whilst the second was about 'Iron Man 2', 'The Avengers' and a nice Romanian film called 'The Happiest Girl in the World' (which I'll write a review for nearer the time of release).
Anyway, now to the bit about "reversing my position": I wrote this in my review of Chris Morris' excellent 'Four Lions':
"Where the film differs from the rest of the Morris oeuvre is that his work usually combines incisive satire of both form and content. The way things are said is always as rich and funny as what is being said. However, in ‘Four Lions’... this formal and generic parody is absent... stylistically there is none of the directorial wit and experimentation seen in Morris’ series ‘Jam’... there is a sizable portion of what makes Morris pioneering and unique that is clearly missing."
The more I have thought about that since I have begun to change my mind. I saw the film again last night and it confirmed that I was probably wrong about the lack of satire of the form of film itself. (Potential spoilers ahead) I think that actually Morris is playing with the structure of movies and the way in which they can manipulate audiences to sympathise with potentially nasty characters.
I a lot of films you follow a gangster, a bank robber or some other kind of violent criminal (or even violent anti-hero) and the film is constructed in a way which makes you identify with that protagonist. When the police almost catch the crook you get nervous. If the movie was about the police, however, you'd anxiously want them to best the crook.
In 'Four Lions' Morris sticks to a conventional structure where Omar (Riz Ahmed) faces a crisis of confidence just prior to the films third act. In typical movie style he is given a pep-talk by his wife and young son, who persuade him he should, in fact, destroy himself. It's a dark and disturbing scene and the more I think about it the more I think that Morris knows exactly what he is doing by combining that sort of scene with this sort of character. He is playing with convention and structure and highlighting, almost, the dangerous power of film to manipulate an audience. The home-life scenes with Omar are quite sweet and sometimes a little cheesy, but I now think this is part of the satire.
Of both form AND content.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it now.
On a side note, I saw Bogdanovich's 'The Last Picture Show' yesterday and it was amazing from start to finish. Here is the trailer... for no real reason.
Friday, 7 May 2010
'Four Lions' review and interview with Nigel Lindsay
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
'Iron Man 2' review, plus a new Blu-ray review
I haven't updated on here for a few days (thanks in no small part to writing for Obsessed with Film), but I now have a double helping of Beames on Film action for you, with a link to a new Blu-ray review (of 'The Railway Children') and a new instalment of the podcast (in which Jon and I discuss our trip to a Disney trade expo and give our impressions of 'The Prince of Persia').
However, that is not all I present to you here today, as I have also gotten round to writing my impressions of one of this year's biggest blockbuster movies, 'Iron Man 2'. Here goes (don't read on if you are afraid of reading spoilers):
‘Iron Man 2’, Jon Favreau’s follow-up to his original 2008 Marvel comic adaptation, is probably the purest fun I have had in the cinema so far this year. There are some amazing set pieces (as in when War Machine and Iron Man team up to fight an army of robots), brilliant choreography (as in when Black Widow dispatches of a load of security goons with ease) and a great cast of actors (as in Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr and the incredible Sam Rockwell). All of these elements combine to make ‘Iron Man 2’ one of the most enjoyable super hero movies yet.
Downey Jr is again at his charismatic and cynical best as Tony Stark (the titular Iron Man). At the very end of last year he was brilliant in Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and he brings this fine form into this new instalment in the ‘Iron Man’ series. Mickey Rourke does exactly as well as you’d expect as a villain (Whiplash) and Scarlett Johansson is solid as Black Widow. The stand-out performer, however, must be Rockwell who is hilarious as Stark’s business rival, Justin Hammer. His delivery is terrific, though some may be fooled by how seemingly effortless he is, for me Rockwell’s reading of the dialogue is pitch-perfect and intelligent. Admittedly a lot of Rockwell’s comic power is helped by Justin Theroux’s script, which I probably the finest superhero movie screenplay not written by Christopher Nolan.
On the downside, Don Cheadle is no replacement for Terrence Howard as Rhodey (who becomes the War Machine in this instalment). Cheadle isn’t bad exactly. He just isn’t anything like as charismatic and, well, “cool” as Howard. When Howard eyes up the Iron Man suit in the first movie and says “Maybe next time”, you think “yeah!”. But honestly, Cheadle doesn’t inspire the same excitement in me (though the War Machine scenes are still awesome). Gwyneth Paltrow is also ever so slightly annoying as Pepper Potts (Stark’s assistant) and Jon Favreau (who had a cameo in the first movie) seems to have cynically given his character (Stark’s driver) a bigger role, including his own fight scene.
There is also the matter of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. It was ok when he played Fury in a post-credits “Easter egg” at the end of the first film, but Jackson, as an actor, just seems cheap. The days where he seemed to represent some form of liquid cool are long behind him and (especially with his eye patch) he just cheapens every scene he is in throughout this sequel. And there are probably too many of those as the film gears up towards Joss Wheadon’s 2012 ‘Avengers’ movie.
The liberal in me hates hearing Tony Stark gloat that he has "successfully privatized peace", but to take this to heart would be a step too far. In all the Stark character is just fantastic. It is refreshing to see a super hero movie without secret identities. Everyone knows who Stark is and they love it... and he loves it. This is the main element that makes Downey Jr's Iron Man so fun to watch on screen. Stark is enjoying being a super hero most of the time and he is cocky and egotistical (without needing to wear a venom suit too).
In all though, the film is great. Really good fun. The action scenes are exciting, the funny bits are funny and the things that are supposed to excite you about future projects (nods to Captain America and Thor are present) generally do. Like its predecessor, it is no ‘Dark Knight’. But it is in that next bracket down, reserved for (in my opinion anyway) Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’ and ‘The Incredibles’. It is certainly a lot better than ‘The Incredible Hulk’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’. For that matter it is better than ‘Clash of the Titans’ and ‘Prince of Persia’, making this the best movie of the blockbusting summer. At least until Nolan’s ‘Inception’ comes out in a few months!
'Iron Man 2' is playing wherever there are cinema screens and is rated '12a' by the BBFC.
However, that is not all I present to you here today, as I have also gotten round to writing my impressions of one of this year's biggest blockbuster movies, 'Iron Man 2'. Here goes (don't read on if you are afraid of reading spoilers):
‘Iron Man 2’, Jon Favreau’s follow-up to his original 2008 Marvel comic adaptation, is probably the purest fun I have had in the cinema so far this year. There are some amazing set pieces (as in when War Machine and Iron Man team up to fight an army of robots), brilliant choreography (as in when Black Widow dispatches of a load of security goons with ease) and a great cast of actors (as in Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr and the incredible Sam Rockwell). All of these elements combine to make ‘Iron Man 2’ one of the most enjoyable super hero movies yet.
Downey Jr is again at his charismatic and cynical best as Tony Stark (the titular Iron Man). At the very end of last year he was brilliant in Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and he brings this fine form into this new instalment in the ‘Iron Man’ series. Mickey Rourke does exactly as well as you’d expect as a villain (Whiplash) and Scarlett Johansson is solid as Black Widow. The stand-out performer, however, must be Rockwell who is hilarious as Stark’s business rival, Justin Hammer. His delivery is terrific, though some may be fooled by how seemingly effortless he is, for me Rockwell’s reading of the dialogue is pitch-perfect and intelligent. Admittedly a lot of Rockwell’s comic power is helped by Justin Theroux’s script, which I probably the finest superhero movie screenplay not written by Christopher Nolan.
On the downside, Don Cheadle is no replacement for Terrence Howard as Rhodey (who becomes the War Machine in this instalment). Cheadle isn’t bad exactly. He just isn’t anything like as charismatic and, well, “cool” as Howard. When Howard eyes up the Iron Man suit in the first movie and says “Maybe next time”, you think “yeah!”. But honestly, Cheadle doesn’t inspire the same excitement in me (though the War Machine scenes are still awesome). Gwyneth Paltrow is also ever so slightly annoying as Pepper Potts (Stark’s assistant) and Jon Favreau (who had a cameo in the first movie) seems to have cynically given his character (Stark’s driver) a bigger role, including his own fight scene.
There is also the matter of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. It was ok when he played Fury in a post-credits “Easter egg” at the end of the first film, but Jackson, as an actor, just seems cheap. The days where he seemed to represent some form of liquid cool are long behind him and (especially with his eye patch) he just cheapens every scene he is in throughout this sequel. And there are probably too many of those as the film gears up towards Joss Wheadon’s 2012 ‘Avengers’ movie.
The liberal in me hates hearing Tony Stark gloat that he has "successfully privatized peace", but to take this to heart would be a step too far. In all the Stark character is just fantastic. It is refreshing to see a super hero movie without secret identities. Everyone knows who Stark is and they love it... and he loves it. This is the main element that makes Downey Jr's Iron Man so fun to watch on screen. Stark is enjoying being a super hero most of the time and he is cocky and egotistical (without needing to wear a venom suit too).
In all though, the film is great. Really good fun. The action scenes are exciting, the funny bits are funny and the things that are supposed to excite you about future projects (nods to Captain America and Thor are present) generally do. Like its predecessor, it is no ‘Dark Knight’. But it is in that next bracket down, reserved for (in my opinion anyway) Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’ and ‘The Incredibles’. It is certainly a lot better than ‘The Incredible Hulk’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’. For that matter it is better than ‘Clash of the Titans’ and ‘Prince of Persia’, making this the best movie of the blockbusting summer. At least until Nolan’s ‘Inception’ comes out in a few months!
'Iron Man 2' is playing wherever there are cinema screens and is rated '12a' by the BBFC.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Review: 'The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time'
Today I reviewed the 'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time', which I saw at the Disney expo yesterday. The full review for the blockbuster (which isn't released until May 28th) can be found at OWF, here.
I also posted a news story on there about what Mike Newell said in his introduction to the film, here.
Just to round this orgy of 'Prince of Persia' coverage out, here is the trailer:
I also posted a news story on there about what Mike Newell said in his introduction to the film, here.
Just to round this orgy of 'Prince of Persia' coverage out, here is the trailer:
New podcast as the Splendor returns!!!
Just to contradict my earlier remarks, the Splendor Podcast has been re-born! Originally out new home at Obsessed with Film changed the name to "Barrenechea and Beames", but Jon smartly figured that name would be too difficult for those looking on iTunes to spell correctly. So we've gone back to calling it Splendor. The added bonus of this is that the Picturehouse website have agreed to keep putting it up there too! This is happy, happy news and I'm excited that we can continue to reach Picturehouse customers with our weekly film-based musings.
The latest episode, in which Jon and I review 'The Ghost', can be streamed now at OWF and I'm told it will soon be available on iTunes too (although old subscribers may have to subscribe all over again).
The latest episode, in which Jon and I review 'The Ghost', can be streamed now at OWF and I'm told it will soon be available on iTunes too (although old subscribers may have to subscribe all over again).
Monday, 26 April 2010
New at Obsessed with Film...
I promise I won't spam every single story I write for Obsessed with Film all over my blog, but as I'm still quite new writing for the site, here are two stories from the last two days which I have written:
'Monsters Inc 2' is revealed and 'Avatar' breaks Blu-ray records.
I hope you enjoy those and come back here soon for some proper content!
Also, I have just been told that I am going to host the popular Flick's Flicks film review program whilst titular host (Felicity "Flick" Beckett) is on maternity leave. I am really looking forward to the experience of writing and presenting the show for two months! I'll post the episodes here when they are available.
'Monsters Inc 2' is revealed and 'Avatar' breaks Blu-ray records.
I hope you enjoy those and come back here soon for some proper content!
Also, I have just been told that I am going to host the popular Flick's Flicks film review program whilst titular host (Felicity "Flick" Beckett) is on maternity leave. I am really looking forward to the experience of writing and presenting the show for two months! I'll post the episodes here when they are available.
Friday, 23 April 2010
'Dogtooth' review over at Obsessed with FIlm now!
Just a quick update to let y'all know that my review of the Greek film 'Dogtooth' is now up at Obsessed with Film. 'Dogtooth' is yet another winner of last year's Prix Un Certain Regard (as were the excellent 'The Father of My Children' and 'No One Knows About Persian Cats', as well as a Romanian film I am yet to see). Check it out!
Just so as to ensure that no one leaves my blog empty handed, here is the trailer for the film in question:
On an unrelated note, I just wrote my first news item for OWF too, which you can read here.
Just so as to ensure that no one leaves my blog empty handed, here is the trailer for the film in question:
On an unrelated note, I just wrote my first news item for OWF too, which you can read here.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Blu-ray reviews and the new podcast now up at Obsessed with Film
Obsessed with Film is the place to go right now to read a couple of new Blu-ray reviews I have written. Reviews of high-definition releases of both Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' and David Lynch's 'Inland Empire' can now be found there for your reading pleasure as of today.
As mentioned last week, Obsessed with Film is also the new home of Jon and I's regular movie podcast (previously Splendor Cinema, now apparently entitled 'Barrenechea and Beames'). Our maiden voyage for OWF features reviews of 'Dogtooth' and 'Whip It' (reviewed in textual form here last week), as well as a competition to win a copy of Mark Kermode's book "It's Only a Movie". The podcast itself is much the same: it's still hosted by Jon Barrenechea and myself and still recorded in the projection booth of the UK's oldest cinema (the Duke of York's in Brighton). So no cause for concern, gentle listener!
Anyway, I hope you follow the podcast to its new home and check out my reviews and Jon's brilliant article on piracy whilst you're there!
As mentioned last week, Obsessed with Film is also the new home of Jon and I's regular movie podcast (previously Splendor Cinema, now apparently entitled 'Barrenechea and Beames'). Our maiden voyage for OWF features reviews of 'Dogtooth' and 'Whip It' (reviewed in textual form here last week), as well as a competition to win a copy of Mark Kermode's book "It's Only a Movie". The podcast itself is much the same: it's still hosted by Jon Barrenechea and myself and still recorded in the projection booth of the UK's oldest cinema (the Duke of York's in Brighton). So no cause for concern, gentle listener!
Anyway, I hope you follow the podcast to its new home and check out my reviews and Jon's brilliant article on piracy whilst you're there!
Friday, 16 April 2010
'I Am Love' review, plus the new (and last?) Splendor podcast...
Regular readers (hello mum and dad) may have noticed that this blog has not really been updated with its usual frequency in the last week or so. This has been due to my work for Obsessed With Film, for whom I interviewed Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant and reviewed their latest film 'Cemetery Junction'. During that time I saw 'I Am Love', but have only just been able to take the time to review it here. It is a bit shorter than my usual reviews on here, but I wanted to get something down before I forgot everything about the film! On a seperate note: there is a new Splendor Cinema podcast up in the player at the side of this blog. It is labelled episode seven because whilst the 'Kick-Ass' episode got put up on iTunes, it was the victim of a staff holiday at the Picturehouse site and so seems to have been passed by. When the latest episode appears on iTunes it will (correctly) be number eight.
And number eight, in which Jon and I tackle the subject of the future of cinema and of piracy, may well be the last Splendor Cinema podcast... ever. But have no fear gentle listener! We are re-branding it the "Obsessed With Film" podcast and it will continue in the same vein, but hopefully reaching a larger audience. So keep on listening.
Anyway, here is the 'I Am Love' review:
‘I Am Love’ is an Italian film produced by (and starring) Tilda Swinton and directed by Luca Guadagnino. According to Swinton the film was conceived in part as a tribute to filmmakers “whose claim on the development of the cinematic language is unassailable”. ‘I Am Love’ is apparently “an attempt to honour this kind of bravado” from these great artists who so advanced film as an art form. But whereas the works of Hitchock, Huston and Kubrick (three of the filmmakers cited as influences) were always constructed to appeal to an audience and to provide entertainment, ‘I Am Love’ is content to pander to an art house crowd who will no doubt call it “a sumptuous and sublime work” and will remind us that “Swinton is superb!”. Guadagnino and Swinton may feel that they have paid a tribute to the greats in terms of their execution of the cinematic form as a “toolkit” (again Swinton’s words), but none of the excitement of ‘North by Northwest’ or ‘The Maltese Falcon’ or ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can be felt in this formal exercise in pretension.
Some individual scenes are truly excellent. The film expertly evokes the feeling of a late summer afternoon, with especially beautiful sunlit scenes depicted on Yorick Le Saux’s camera. Le Saux also worked with Swinton on ‘Julia’ and it is easy to see why she would have asked him back for this project: the cinematography is faultless. Similarly evocative is John Adams operatic score, which lends a level of grandeur to the occasion and renders the films visual elegance audible. I would also say that some key scenes and moments did affect me, with one of the film’s key revelations occurring in a purely visual way – surely the mark of the purest kind of cinema. Furthermore, I enjoyed the way in which Edo (Swinton’s favourite son) subtly mirrors his father (and the whole family) in his treatment of women throughout the film and also how the daughter’s homosexuality (an early plot development) is treated with tenderness and real love.
However, despite these admirable qualities the film generally kept me at arms length throughout. It feels like more of a showcase for Tilda Swinton’s undoubted talent, rather than a story that needed to be told. There was one brief chase sequence that alluded to the Hitchcockian influence with it’s pacing and sense of urgency. But the rest of film moves at a wearying pace, as the filmmakers hope that the undoubted visual splendor will keep you hooked. Long, well-composed shots of people sitting around nicely-lit tables can only hold my attention for so long and as early as twenty minutes into the films two hours I found myself bored, however much I really want to admire and applaud anyone who so earnestly celebrates the cinematic.
I can see how, in the age of ‘Transformers 2’ and ‘The Bounty Hunter’, this sort of ambitious and self-indulgent cinema might appeal to those who hunger for something with a bit of substance. But for me, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of the opposite extreme, for as much as ‘Transformers’ is so brazenly artless, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of art for arts sake - which to my mind is ultimately just as artless in the final analysis. Great art doesn’t (or shouldn’t) primarily aspire to be art. ‘I Am Love’ certainly sings of its artiness from the well-lit rooftops of its many splendid Milanese villas. But then maybe it is only fitting that a film entitled ‘I Am Love’ should be so enamored with itself.
'I Am Love' is still playing across the UK in selected screens, including Brighton's own Duke of York's Picturehouse. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.
And number eight, in which Jon and I tackle the subject of the future of cinema and of piracy, may well be the last Splendor Cinema podcast... ever. But have no fear gentle listener! We are re-branding it the "Obsessed With Film" podcast and it will continue in the same vein, but hopefully reaching a larger audience. So keep on listening.
Anyway, here is the 'I Am Love' review:
‘I Am Love’ is an Italian film produced by (and starring) Tilda Swinton and directed by Luca Guadagnino. According to Swinton the film was conceived in part as a tribute to filmmakers “whose claim on the development of the cinematic language is unassailable”. ‘I Am Love’ is apparently “an attempt to honour this kind of bravado” from these great artists who so advanced film as an art form. But whereas the works of Hitchock, Huston and Kubrick (three of the filmmakers cited as influences) were always constructed to appeal to an audience and to provide entertainment, ‘I Am Love’ is content to pander to an art house crowd who will no doubt call it “a sumptuous and sublime work” and will remind us that “Swinton is superb!”. Guadagnino and Swinton may feel that they have paid a tribute to the greats in terms of their execution of the cinematic form as a “toolkit” (again Swinton’s words), but none of the excitement of ‘North by Northwest’ or ‘The Maltese Falcon’ or ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can be felt in this formal exercise in pretension.
Some individual scenes are truly excellent. The film expertly evokes the feeling of a late summer afternoon, with especially beautiful sunlit scenes depicted on Yorick Le Saux’s camera. Le Saux also worked with Swinton on ‘Julia’ and it is easy to see why she would have asked him back for this project: the cinematography is faultless. Similarly evocative is John Adams operatic score, which lends a level of grandeur to the occasion and renders the films visual elegance audible. I would also say that some key scenes and moments did affect me, with one of the film’s key revelations occurring in a purely visual way – surely the mark of the purest kind of cinema. Furthermore, I enjoyed the way in which Edo (Swinton’s favourite son) subtly mirrors his father (and the whole family) in his treatment of women throughout the film and also how the daughter’s homosexuality (an early plot development) is treated with tenderness and real love.
However, despite these admirable qualities the film generally kept me at arms length throughout. It feels like more of a showcase for Tilda Swinton’s undoubted talent, rather than a story that needed to be told. There was one brief chase sequence that alluded to the Hitchcockian influence with it’s pacing and sense of urgency. But the rest of film moves at a wearying pace, as the filmmakers hope that the undoubted visual splendor will keep you hooked. Long, well-composed shots of people sitting around nicely-lit tables can only hold my attention for so long and as early as twenty minutes into the films two hours I found myself bored, however much I really want to admire and applaud anyone who so earnestly celebrates the cinematic.
I can see how, in the age of ‘Transformers 2’ and ‘The Bounty Hunter’, this sort of ambitious and self-indulgent cinema might appeal to those who hunger for something with a bit of substance. But for me, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of the opposite extreme, for as much as ‘Transformers’ is so brazenly artless, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of art for arts sake - which to my mind is ultimately just as artless in the final analysis. Great art doesn’t (or shouldn’t) primarily aspire to be art. ‘I Am Love’ certainly sings of its artiness from the well-lit rooftops of its many splendid Milanese villas. But then maybe it is only fitting that a film entitled ‘I Am Love’ should be so enamored with itself.
'I Am Love' is still playing across the UK in selected screens, including Brighton's own Duke of York's Picturehouse. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
'Cemetery Junction' review: Check it out at OWF
Monday, 12 April 2010
A Conversation with Gervais and Merchant...
As promised at the end of last weeek, here is a link to Obsessed With Film and my interview with Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, who talked to me to promote their new film 'Cemetery Junction'. My review will be up on the same site on Wednesday, so I'm told.
I won't publish the whole thing on here (I don't know that I'm allowed) but I'll put a taster here to encourage you to read the full article:
Robert Beames: Even though you obviously write these moments and you know Emily Watson is a really good actress so you’re not too surprised, but does it still surprise you at the end of the day when you’re watching dailies and you see your words…
Ricky Gervais: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Stephen Merchant: Those people always bring something extra.
RG: The way she does that and people like that underplay it. At the time you don’t think anything of it, but when you look back at it on a screen they fill your heart. Honestly, they’ve got something else, they’ve got an alchemy. It’s indescribable and I don’t know how they do it. And that’s the difference between a great actor and a film star and you can be both. There about fifty people in the world who are both.
SM: Well Ralph Fiennes turned up and I think the first thing he did was that big…
RG: Speech. Remarkable.
SM: Wasn’t it? That big monologue he’s giving the guy and [Merchant rhythmically slaps his hands] he came in word perfect, bam, there in front of two hundred extras, nailed it. We were embarrassed; we didn’t have any direction to give him… “do you want to do it again?”
Go and read the full article now!!!
I won't publish the whole thing on here (I don't know that I'm allowed) but I'll put a taster here to encourage you to read the full article:
Robert Beames: Even though you obviously write these moments and you know Emily Watson is a really good actress so you’re not too surprised, but does it still surprise you at the end of the day when you’re watching dailies and you see your words…
Ricky Gervais: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Stephen Merchant: Those people always bring something extra.
RG: The way she does that and people like that underplay it. At the time you don’t think anything of it, but when you look back at it on a screen they fill your heart. Honestly, they’ve got something else, they’ve got an alchemy. It’s indescribable and I don’t know how they do it. And that’s the difference between a great actor and a film star and you can be both. There about fifty people in the world who are both.
SM: Well Ralph Fiennes turned up and I think the first thing he did was that big…
RG: Speech. Remarkable.
SM: Wasn’t it? That big monologue he’s giving the guy and [Merchant rhythmically slaps his hands] he came in word perfect, bam, there in front of two hundred extras, nailed it. We were embarrassed; we didn’t have any direction to give him… “do you want to do it again?”
Go and read the full article now!!!
Thursday, 8 April 2010
T'was 'Cemetery Junction' day in Soho!
I don't know how much I can really say much about today as I need to give the articles to the website that kindly commissioned them: Obsessed With Film and their generous editor Matt Holmes. But what I can say is that I saw 'Cemetery Junction', the first film by the Gervais/Merchant comedy writing team, at Sony's Soho office (in the world’s most comfortable theatre and on a brilliant screen!) You can read my review shortly (and on OWF). Afterwards, I was lucky enough to be invited to the Soho Hotel where I saw Zach Braff milling around the lobby (and I also passed that guy Lizo from 'Newsround' in the street on the way in). Once at the hotel, I attended a press junket on the second floor, where I was lucky enough to snag a 10 minute interview with Gervais and Merchant themselves (which will also go up on OWF when it's done)!
It was basically like that scene in 'Notting Hill' where Hugh Grant tries to get into a junket as an excuse to talk to Julia Roberts again (only without the possibility of romance, sadly). I really enjoyed the whole experience greatly. Happily, the duo were nice enough to sign my copy of the press notes and a copy of this month's Total Film (which they have guest edited), which I shall treasure.
Anyway, stay tuned at OWF to read my thoughts when they are uploaded. I'll remind you again on here when they are anyway, but got to OWF all the same.
'Cemetery Junction' is rated '15' by the BBFC. It is released on the 14th of April in cinemas everywhere!
It was basically like that scene in 'Notting Hill' where Hugh Grant tries to get into a junket as an excuse to talk to Julia Roberts again (only without the possibility of romance, sadly). I really enjoyed the whole experience greatly. Happily, the duo were nice enough to sign my copy of the press notes and a copy of this month's Total Film (which they have guest edited), which I shall treasure.
Anyway, stay tuned at OWF to read my thoughts when they are uploaded. I'll remind you again on here when they are anyway, but got to OWF all the same.
'Cemetery Junction' is rated '15' by the BBFC. It is released on the 14th of April in cinemas everywhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)