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.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
'Life During Wartime' review: Honest, devastating, non-judgemental black comedy…
‘Life During Wartime’ is Todd Solondz sequel to 1998’s ‘Happiness’, albeit a sequel with a completely different cast of actors. Solondz makes some unusual but ingenious casting switches too, as he replaces the white Phillip Seymour Hoffman with the black Michael K. Williams, the genius who played Omar in HBO’s ‘The Wire’. Paul Reubens comes in for Jon Lovitz, whilst Allison Janney replaces Cynthia Stevenson. These are clever choices on the part of Solondz, as the film doesn’t feel like a ‘Happiness’ B-team picture, with smaller stars, but rather it feels as though he has chosen to make some interesting changes. Even though the actors have changed completely, the characters somehow remain the same in terms of mannerisms. It’s very cleverly done.
‘Life During Wartime’ reminded me of the Coen Brother’s ‘A Serious Man’ in it’s portrayal of suburban life, with a dash of Woody Allen whenever we meet Jane Adams’ character (Joy), with her east-coast intellectual neurosis. In terms of form, I always enjoy when a director employs a still camera with very composed, stylised shots and this is exactly what we get from Solondz. It is also beautiful to look at in terms of the cinematography; ‘Life During Wartime’ (Edward Lachman) is almost totally distinct from ‘Happiness’ (Maryse Alberti) with a brighter, less dowdy colour palette, which in its own way actually heightens the darkness of the film by contrasting with it. The difference between the look of the two films is clear and especially evident if you compare scenes set on the same locations.
All the performances are good, with Ciaran Hinds able to bring a kind of quiet dignity, as well as a potentially dangerous edge, to his role as the convicted paedophile father, whose past crimes cast a shadow over much of the movie. His unbearably tense and fraught meeting with his (now grown-up) son, Billy (Chris Marquette) is able to convey so many emotions, all of them complicated, some of them contradictory. As in ‘Happiness’, Solondz is able to make Bill a rounded character and not just a figure primed for reactionary moralising and self-righteous indignation. ‘Life During Wartime’ is (like many of my favourite films) deeply humanistic and also offers no easy answers to complicated problems. Solondz doesn’t judge his characters and we don’t either. We are just forced to bare complicit witness the tragedy of their lives.
By far the best reason to see ‘Life During Wartime’ (aside from the performances, the drama and the directorial precision) is for the riotous black comedy. As with Chris Morris’ ‘Four Lions’, some may squirm uncomfortably in their chairs, but I personally found it struck the right note throughout. Solondz never pulls back, never flinches. We are always taken right to the dark core of his chosen subject matter and we laugh along the way. It is often said that if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry – that laughter is the best medicine. In Solondz case this is true, as he examines difficult social problems which, without his wonderfully comic writing, might prove too much to bear.
‘Life During Wartime’ is an excellent film of the very highest calibre. If you can find it still playing, a few weeks into its UK run, then go off and see it immediately. Maybe in a double-bill with ‘Four Lions’, if you can take your comedy without being patronised or cuddled. You owe it to yourself to see both of these films.
'Life During Wartime' came out a few weeks ago and if you can still find it, it 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)