My Top Ten… Films

I’ve been deliberating over what, exactly, to write about this week. There are several things I could write about, including the situation in Libya, but I don’t have enough to say about those things at this stage to make a fully fledged blog post out of them. With any luck further developments in the next week or so will give me something more to say. In the meantime, it’s been a while since I did a top ten, so here’s a list of my favourite films, again, in no particular order.

• Inception: This is only the first of several Christopher Nolan films on this list. See my review for reasons why it’s awesome. A brilliantly written, brilliantly filmed, mind-bogglingly complex, character-driven sci-fi. Really incredible, deserving of the Oscar it didn’t win

• Shawshank Redemption: A classic. Really good study of the life of a prisoner and the problems facing them after they get out of jail, combined with a fantastic story of the dedication of one man to break out of prison. Wonderfully understated and subtle. Shame about the narration, but I guess we can forgive a few faults.

• The Dark Knight: Another Christopher Nolan film, possibly the best superhero film to come out in recent years. Incredible performance by the late Heath Ledger. See my review of this one for details (jeez, that’s going back a long way, I was a horrible person back then). I cannot wait for the next Batman film to come out. With Nolan directing, I expect it to be excellent.

• Lucky Number Slevin: One of the very few films in which Brice Willis in not trying to kill everything. He actually does a really good job in this one. Slevin is a fantastic Noir film that has a brilliant twist in the tale. Well written, beautifully stylish and really well acted by all involved.

• Lord of the Rings: Return of the King: One of the best book-to-film adaptations I can remember. The whole trilogy is a really good interpretation of the original work, stripping out a lot of the superfluous bits (Bombadil is awesome, but not needed), but keeping the essence of the work intact. The Return of the King in particular is a suitably epic finale. Outstanding film making on Peter Jackson’s part.

• The King’s Speech: I reviewed this one a matter of weeks ago. Absolute triumph of film making. Wonderful feel-good story that dealt with some fascinating characters and issues. Deserving of the Oscar in any ordinary year (but Inception still should have won it this year)

• The Prestige: Another Christopher Nolan film. A much older work, but still fantastic. Alternative History about magicians in the 19^th century. More brilliant twists and interesting characters. Typically dark and very stylish. I need to see Memento; another Nolan film. I’ve heard it’s also awesome.

• The Matrix: A truly incredible idea. One of those stupid ‘what ifs’ that kept on being explored until an idea for a film emerged. A superb existential idea, questioning the very existence of existence as we know it. From that, a piece of Sci-fi that is as bleak as it is far-reaching. Add in some interesting and deeply flawed characters and some inspired cinematography, and you have a really fantastic film. Shame they never made any sequels.

• V for Vendetta: If only for two of the most awesome speeches ever committed to film. Another brilliant superhero film, driven by the enigmatic V and his fascinating back-story. I have to say it, I’m a massive fan of dystopia and the one created in the graphic novel and faithfully reproduced in this film is wonderful. Another brilliantly shot film – parliament exploding to the 1812 overture? Incredible. Excellent philosophical points, as well.

• Fight Club: More Noir. One of those strange little mind-fuck films that leaves you reeling. One of Brad Pitt’s best performances to date. Really well written and really stylish. The twist isn’t quite as neat or as subtle as in Slevin, but it certainly changes the very essence of the film a lot more. It turns from a study of violence and violent protest into a character study of a deeply troubled man and his inner battles. Awesome.

The Green Hornet/The Tourist

People who tend to become superheroes usually fall into one of three categories; nerds (like Spiderman), dark, gritty individuals who have suffered personal tragedy (like Batman) and aliens from another world (like Superman). It is not often that a frat boy who spends most of his time partying and doing stupid things because they think it’s cool becomes a superhero. Well Seth Rogen seems keen to change this with his portrayal of Britt Reid, a rich frat boy who spends his youth partying and witling away his father’s considerable fortune, before inheriting his wealth and turning vigilante, mostly by accident.

Thus he becomes the Green Hornet, possibly the least capable superhero ever to have donned a mask (well maybe apart from Kick Ass, but that was the whole point). If not for his martial arts expert, coffee making genius, weapons designer and mechanical maestro Chinese sidekick, the Green Hornet would have been dead within a week of starting his new job. Still it’s nice to have a superhero who is most certainly human; without the power to sling webs, or have a utility belt that means he can do anything. Although that does raise the question of what makes him terribly super. A mask does not a superhero make. If anything his sidekick is much more of a superhero, given that he can slow time, but then the film isn’t really about him is it.

As I’m sure you’ve guessed I’m reviewing The Green Hornet today. I know! A film review! Stop the presses! Two film reviews actually, because I’ll find some way of segwaying onto The Tourist once I’m done with the Green Hornet.

The astute reader will have noticed from my previous reviews of films that I really don’t like action films and with that in mind allow me to say that The Green Hornet is a very good action film. There is lots of the fun explosions and car chases and absurd fight scenes, just as you might expect from an action film, however it is actually held together by a decent story and some well rounded, if a little unsophisticated characters. Both of these elements are given enough time to be developed so that they form a competent support for the action.

I’ve said on a number of occasions that there is nothing wrong with a film being more than an hour and a half long. If you needed any proof of this assertion, watch The Green Hornet. Were it only an hour and a half, rather than two hours I would most likely be slamming it as a typical action film in which the plot is simple a very thin window-dressing. As it is I’m giving it a cautiously positive review. The luxury of time allows the film to have all the high energy, very expensive and usually gratuitous action sequences that define the genre, as well as dedicating plenty of time to develop the characters of both the protagonists and the antagonists, and giving the plot enough to meat to carry it all along.

While the protagonist were mostly fairly dull caricatures who were predictable and rather bland (although somewhat amusing), the antagonist stood out for me as a really interesting and well thought out character. I love my villains to have an element of the crazies about them – in turn I really hate villains who are just evil for evil’s sake – and Chudnofsky (played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz) was a fantastic psychopath. In fact I’d love to have seen a lot more attention paid to the villain, because frankly the protagonists got a little dull after a while. I suppose that, as with many superheroes (especially Batman), the villains are often more interesting that the heroes.

Some of you might be wondering why I’ve insisted on calling The Green Hornet an action film, rather than a superhero film. I went into the film expecting and hoping to see a superhero film focusing on the character of the superhero and his attempts to thwart the efforts of some criminal or other. Instead I got a rather fun but not particularly serious action film in which the heroes wore masks. I suppose this is why I was somewhat disappointed with the film. As a big fan of superhero films I was expecting the wrong thing. Superhero films are character studies of the hero in question, usually from their genesis, through their initial errors and to their eventual victory and coming of age as the hero. There were only the vague trappings of this in the Green Hornet; a thin veneer of character development masking a fun, but unsophisticated action film.

If you want a superhero movie than I suggest waiting for Thor to come out, because that looks like it might be a bit better in terms of actually being a superhero film. In the meantime re-watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, because that’s how it’s done. If you want an action film then go watch the Green Hornet; it’s exactly how a good action film should be. 2 hours of really good, clean fun that actually works as a film. Do not, however watch The Tourist if you want an action film. Do watch The Tourist is you want a really stylish, slow-boiling, slightly Noir thriller.

Set in Venice, The Tourist follows a woman (Angelina Jolie) following mysterious instructions from a former lover and wanted criminal trying to shake off the police sting operation on her and a gang of Russians lead by the English Gangster from whom he stole several billion pounds so that they can be reunited. Part of this evasion is to try to convince the police that someone else is actually the man they want. That someone else is an American tourist (Jonny Depp), who, inevitably falls in love with the woman. And I’m sure most of you can guess what the big twist was.

Luck Number Slevin this film is not, but I don’t think it was trying to be. The twist is fairly obvious, but the way in which the story is told is a real strong point. I mentioned stylish a while ago and that really is the word. The Tourist is beautifully filmed in a really majestic setting (I really need to go back to Venice some day; my 11 year old self was too young to appreciate it). The story is told so well that it makes up for some of the writing deficiencies.

There are writing deficiencies though. For example it is made pretty obvious that Depp’s character has fallen in love with Jolie’s, so we don’t need to have him say it to no-one in particular. Less is more when it comes to films like this; the more you can show visually, the better. Jonny Depp was an interesting pick for the male Protagonist as well, although I can hardly blame him for trying to associate his name with something other than the train wreck that is the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. His style of acting is not exactly suited to the role and Captain Jack Sparrow did make the odd unwelcome appearance. That being said Jolie does a fantastic job, as she usually does.

There’s really very little else to say about The Tourist. It’s a victory of style over substance. There’s really not much to the film or the characters, but all of that can be overlooked because it’s just executed so well. Usually I’d be criticising the lack of deep characterisation and the somewhat predictable plot, but there’s just enough of both of these for the film to work.

So if you want a strong story with a focus on characters, go watch a Christopher Nolan film, because neither of these films will satisfy your desires. If, however, you fancy the best action film made in recent years, go watch The Green Hornet; it’s a lot of fun. If you’re looking for something a bit more reserved with some fantastic examples of good film making, go see The Tourist.

But if you want to enjoy some really good stories from the comfort of your own home for absolutely free, then you should try listening to some podcasts. You don’t even have to go to the effort of reading these stories because they’re wonderfully narrated to you. If you’re a fan of Sci-fi, Fantasy or Horror stories (or even if you’re not) then check out Escape Pod, Pod Castle and Pseudopod for weekly short story podcasts. You will not regret it.

Ocean’s 11 retrospective

Ocean’s Eleven was originally made in 1960, but I’ve not seen that version and until a couple of days ago I’d not seen the remake from 2001. I’ve often heard good things about the film from people whose opinions I respect, but sadly I was disappointed. You might wonder why I’m reviewing a film of 9 years ago rather than one that came out recently – like say, Tron – but that would requite dragging myself to the cinema rather than watching from the comfort of my own bed.

So Ocean’s Eleven is about 11 people robbing three large Casinos in Las Vagas. The leader of this motley crew of miscreants and criminals is Danny Ocean, who was recently released on bail from jail – proof, I suppose, that the criminal justice system is worse than useless. Ocean has a personal vendetta against the owner of these casinos because, well I’m not actually sure why, the film never really made this terribly obvious. There was something about Ocean’s wife, but then if your husband was a convicted criminal you could be forgiven to jumping ship and screwing some rich guy instead.

Anyway the crew meticulously plan and execute the robbery perfectly, without any blemish or difficulty. Everyone gets on just fine (apart from one staged fight) and everything goes to plan. The bad guy gets his money stolen and the good guys drive off into the sunset, loot and woman in hand. Or do they?

The film only unconvincingly shows us that the casino owner is the ‘bad guy’ – apparently he’s pretty harsh on people he doesn’t like, which seems more like a tragic flaw than decent set up for an antagonist. Even more criminal however is the film’s failure to actually characterise the protagonists as ‘good guys’ at all. We are given no reason to like any of the eleven thieves; most of them are set up as hardened criminals, gamblers or petty thieves, none of which are likable character traits. These might be forgiven as something of a gritty dark side to their personalities if they weren’t the only things we are actually shown about the characters. Ocean does at least seem to rather like his ex-wife, but he mostly just comes across as clingy and unable to move on, especially given that the relationship is not really given any context.

This might seem to be taking the wrong approach to a film which is supposed to be admired for its fun action, stylish presentation and hunky actors, but I’m afraid all of that does not a good film make. I have nothing against well shot films and with good action sequences and attractive actors, but these should be extras that embellish the core of a film – the plot and the characters. If you remember my review of the Expendables I’m probably sounding like a stuck record at the moment, but bear with me.

Compelling characters are one thing, but I’ve spoken about why we need them before. The other thing Ocean’s Eleven lacked was conflict; the most important thing in any plot. At no point during the heist did it seem as though the team were going to fail. Ok there was one point, but by then they’d already mostly succeeded and it was pretty obvious that some ingenious solution had been devised and already enacted before the ‘SWAT Team’ arrived. The eleven members of the team never seemed to come into conflict major with one another; everything went smoothly, there was only one fight, but there didn’t seem to be much of a fall out from that.

The reason why a story needs conflict is that conflict creates tension. Once we have gained an emotional attachment to the character, causing us to want them to succeed, we then need to have those emotions tested. We need to feel the fear that the hero might die, we need to feel the excitement as we wonder how they’re going to get out of this mess. Ocean’s Eleven had no such fear or excitement because there was no reason to fear that they might not succeed. The difficulty of their task was made abundantly obvious early on, but that difficulty was never actually exploited once the heist actually began.

The other important part of conflict is conflict between characters. People fight, that’s a fact of life. When you assemble a team for a heist, especially a big team, egos are going to be at odds. You are going to have arguments and disagreements; some people are bound to dislike each other. I don’t want to keep referring back to Inception, but look at the disagreements there between the members of the team. The only time there was genuine and interesting conflict was when the sub plot between Ocean, the casino owner and Ocean’s ex-wife took centre stage. This made for some interesting conversations that actually made me want to keep watching, something that the rest of the film failed to do.

I think Ocean’s Eleven was trying, on some level, to be noir. There was some attempt to throw in a big twist and deception, but it was all very half hearted. Good noir films, like Luck Number Slevin or Fight Club have the big twist built and foreshadowed from the very start, but it still seems to come out of nowhere and shock you. There was no real built up to the twist at the end of the film and it didn’t change the nature of the story enough to be effective.

Ocean’s Eleven is a bad film with priorities in all the wrong places. But I’m guessing. Given that it’s nine years old already, my opinion is unlikely to change yours. I suppose this might also be a good time to tell you that I don’t like Snatch by Guy Richie either. Sorry if I’ve ruined your Christmas by saying that. On that subject, next week’s blog will be either late or early because there’s no way I’m blogging on Christmas Day!

Australia

Happy New Year everyone! It’s now 2009 and doesn’t feel any different from 2008, but there’s still time. Anyway I was thinking of starting this year with a preview of 2009, but I don’t think there’s any room on that particular bandwagon. I was also going to introduce a project that I will be working on in the early part of this year, but I have something much more interesting for you today.

Last night my parent and I went to see the film ‘Australia’, mostly because my mum had read that it had some nice scenery and Hugh Jackman, and I wanted something to review. Anyway I have to say that it is without a doubt, the best film I’ve seen all year… it actually took my dad about a minute and a half to get that joke.

Joking aside (just for a minute) it was a really good film and well worth watching. The story was absolutely fantastic and the characters actually changed during the course of the film, something that is lacking from most films you see around! Character development and plot are things that seem to have been sacrificed at the altar of modern technology and replaced by impressive CGI and high tempo action sequences in recent time. As I said in my James Bond review, CGI and high tempo action sequences are a poor replacement for a good story. Australia proves me right. This film will retain its class long after modern technology becomes obsolete because it doesn’t rely upon it. The story and the themes are timeless.

However, it was not perfect. I know I complain about films being too short and I have said that there is nothing wrong with long films, but Australia was a little too long. While the storyline remained very compelling and my interest was retained right to the end, it still felt like it was dragging on. This was probably not helped by the ‘false ending’ half way through, when everyone seemed to be living happily ever after, but then a plot twist sparked off a whole other storyline. It almost felt like two film in one. The false ending meant that you were expecting the credits to role and when you’re then subjected to a sequel it feels like the film is shamefully delaying. It takes a while to realise that you’re only half way through the film and need to get comfortable again. It might have been better to split the film in two and made each section a little longer, although then the temptation to make a trilogy out of it would probably be too strong and that has been the downfall of far too many films.

Moving seamlessly onto my next complaint: one of the apparent plus points of the film was the sunning scenery and, to be fair, it was truly amazing. You have to watch it in the cinema to fully experience the sheer beauty of it. It was actually a little bizarre; occasionally the film would sort of stop at an appropriate place and panoramic views of random parts of Australia would be shown over soothing music with very little relevance to the actual film. It just felt like they were showing off, or maybe just trying to distract you from the film with the scenery. I suppose, were the film a bit shit, it would be a clever tactic to make the visit to the cinema worthwhile, but since the film was so good in its own right, it just felt unnecessary.

Now onto the acting in a transition as seamless as the last one. Actually there’s not much to say, it was a really good, especially the little Aboriginal boy. He played the part really well and managed to pull off the little bits of narration, which I would normally denounce as poor storytelling. Generally narration only really works in Film Noir and I suppose Australia had some elements of that in it, especially in the beginning, so the narration worked extremely well.

Overall, very good, worth watching in the cinema if only to make the panoramic scenery seem like it serves a purpose.

Before plans to go to the cinema decided what this blog was about, I was going to introduce something that I’ll be working on over the next few week/months. It is something that I’ve inventively named ‘the Youtube Project’. I’ll introduce it next week as well as talking about the new laptop that will be being delivered in the next few day, I hope.