Movie Review #6 - 007: Goldfinger (1964)

Bubbles

A few weeks ago, my girlfriend and I decided that we would watch a new 007 film once a week. For her, it introduced a sense of nostalgia, since she used to watch the films with her family. For me, it was a new experience. I had only ever seen one James Bond film (Shock, Horror!). Now we come to the third in the franchise, and to this point, the most enjoyable; Goldfinger

Godard reportedly said "all you need for a movie is a gun and a girl". Goldfinger is flowing with both, including a gold woman, and a golden gun. This is the film that Sean Connery seems truly relaxed in the role of the suave British spy. The jokes and one liners (shocking) fly thick and fast, and there is a cheeky charm to his delivery. He looks like he's having great fun with an assortment of women (who wouldn't?!), and he also really enjoys his Aston Martin.

The villain, Goldfinger himself, seems far more fleshed out than previous Bond villains. He is not a burly fighter or weapons expert, but rather a fat rich man who reminds me of Uter from The Simpsons. It is refreshing to see Bond pit his wits against a criminal mastermind, and not just slug it out blow for blow. Of course, he has his fights with the crazy henchman (Oddjob), and his frisbee hat. The girls, of course, are beautiful and flirtatious.

Even though I had not seen a James Bond film, you know what to expect. Guns, gadgets and girls. The premise of Goldfinger is that more is better and surprisingly it works, simply (take note Michael Bay), because it doesn't take itself to seriously. It knows that it is a ridiculous story, but the actors have fun. You enjoy taking a 2 hour ride with them. The film leaves you with warm, fun feeling, not shaken, but stirred.

4 Stars

Movie Review #5 - Brazil (1985)

It's not often I watch a film, consciously aware that I'm watching a masterpiece. Strangely though, this feeling often occurs when I watch science fiction films (consider Blade Runner, The Matrix, Alien, Phantom Menace). Well now I add another to the distinguished list. Gilliam's Brazil is an amazing feat of imaginative filmmaking, captivating from the opening frame.

I am actually at a loss as to how to explain the film, suffice to say that it is a complex mass of interweaving stories in a dystopian futuristic world. That is all I would say about the story. Don't read about the plot, just open your mind and enjoy the ride. Yes, it is complex, but it's linear; there is a distinct beginning, middle and end. The film is a dark, yet fantastically vibrant imagining of a corporate dictatorship. Paradoxical? Think of it as 1984, on LSD. Dark themes, with witty execution.

There is genius behind every single frame. It bursts with incredible production design (so many ducts!!), atmospheric music, and great sound design. Initially I thought the camera work was quite bland, but as the movie went on, I realised how it works perfectly (there are some excellent dolly shots). All the acting is superb, with even the tiniest roles perfectly cast. Indeed, every technical aspect of the film complements the brilliant storytelling present.

I haven't seen The Fisher King, which is apparently also very good, but this seems to be Gilliam's masterpiece. It doesn't have the slow moments that I have found with other his other films. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and 12 Monkeys (the other great ones I've seen) certainly have magical, zany moments, but they also have slow, dare I say, boring moments. They do not come together as perfectly as Brazil. I can do nothing but lavish praise on this film. Indeed, such was my annoyance that the rental DVD copy started skipping, I almost threw it across the room. I didn't want to be taken out of its magical world.

To lose an audience in gripping storytelling is what every filmmaker attempts. Gilliam succeeds with this film. I want to watch it again and again and again, and bask in its glory. I always thought Blade Runner was the sci-fi film of the 80s. This is as good. Go and watch it immediately. No Buttles.

5 Stars

Movie Review #4 - Paul

Going to drink your brains and steal your knowledge

The American road movie, immortalised by such greats as Easy Rider, Thelma and Louise, Roadtrip (?!), etc. has now been given the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost treatment. I must confess, I was a little sceptical to go and see this movie (no Edgar Wright?!), as the trailer made it seem a little lacklustre. When it was announced that Pegg and Frost were going to be at the cinema introducing an advanced screening of the film, I knew I should go. After all, these are the creators of two of the finest comedies of last 10 years. 

The story is really basic, which slightly hinders the film. The beauty of seeing Shaun of the Dead for the first time is that you have no idea what is going to happen. With this film, you can guess everything from the opening scene. What holds this movie together, however, is the joy of watching Pegg and Frost riff off each other. The running joke is that they are a gay couple, and there is never any doubt that they are the best of friends, on and off screen. The one-liners fly thick and fast, and the geek references and loveable homages fill almost every frame.

The film does, however, seem a little flat in parts. It certainly feels like the two have tried to 'Americanise' their humour. It is less subtle, and a lot of the jokes become cringeworthy, certainly the ones involving the incompetent law enforcement. Also, I found it very bizarre that Paul, the scrawniest alien ever, was voiced by Seth Rogan. I understand that it was probably an intentional casting joke, but Kung Fu Panda did that. Seth Rogan sounds like he should be the voice of a bear, not ET.

Paul is good fun whilst it lasts. It is nowhere near the calibre of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, but is enjoyable, nonetheless. Go and see it with some mates, have a laugh and enjoy some well written comedy. I'm sure that after you see it, you will want to find that Darwin t-shirt.

3.5 Stars

Movie Review #3 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Houston, we have a problem

I am not a fan of horror movies. I was petrified when Pinocchio’s friends turned into donkeys, and I don’t think I ever really adjusted to the horror genre. Call me a wuss, that’s fine. BUT, how can any self-respecting film lover disregard a genre that is so popular? Therefore, it would be remiss of me to not watch some of horrors most popular and well known films. 
This is one.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a film I first watched only a couple of years ago. I found it deeply unsettling, although sadistically brilliant. When a friend decided to put it on, on a nice and calm Sunday night (we had just watched Fantasia!!), I was a little dubious. I was quickly sucked in.

The film starts with a slab of text describing that it is based on true events, blah, blah, blah, etc. It is not. Whenever it starts, I always expect a Law & Order voiceover introducing it. “In 1970s Texas, 5 teenagers went on a road trip. These are their stories.” DUN DUN. But cheesy text aside, the film launches straight into it, picking up with 5 teenagers picking up a hillbilly on the middle of a highway. Bad move, but then again, they probably didn’t see Deliverance.

Soon after they ditch the whackjob, they come across 'The House'. And what a house it is, complete with animal heads, feathers, and furniture made out of bones. Human looking bones. As expected, the occupant is less than friendly, wielding a nasty chainsaw and wearing a lovely mask made out of skin. And so the teenagers meet their deaths, except for one poor soul who gets tortured for about 30 minutes. Watching somebody scream almost nonstop for 20 minutes is very, very, very unsettling. Combined with the extreme close-ups of her eyes, and the maniacal laughs of her captures, this part of the film is hard to watch. And so it should be, which is why Massacre has influenced the slasher genre so much.

It is an impressive feat. A film made for around $300, 000, that went on to gross over $30 million in the US. It is certainly one of the most successful independent films of all time, and has inspired many imitators. What is so great about the movie, however, is that the budget actually limited what they could show. Much of the violence is implied, most likely because they couldn’t afford to make it look incredibly realistic. This really helps the movie, because, yes it is very violent, but only because you can imagine the chainsaw cutting through the helpless kids. Ouch.

Watch Wolf Creek, Nightmare on Elm St, Friday the 13th, Saw, Hostel, etc. All of these films have been influenced by Massacre. It is a very powerful film, violent and scary, and well worth watching for any aspiring low budget filmmaker. The script is not great, but the idea and execution are, and sometimes that is all you need to announce your name. The sad thing is I’m sure that if you mention the Texas Chainsaw Massacre to most teenagers, they will think you are talking about a Jessica Biel film. Skip the remake, and watch this, it will give you yet another reason to avoid redneck America.

4.5 Stars

Movie Review #2 - Raising Arizona

“Edwina’s insides were a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase”

Yes, i love the Coen Brothers. Scorsese, Tarantino, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fincher, Nolan, I love all of these people. But the Coen Brothers are number 1. Watch this movie, and you may understand why.

With cracking wit, and exceptionally intelligent dialogue, Raising Arizona is a zany, whacky ride through the brother’s heads. Nicholas Cage, (not the world’s best actor, but nor the worst) has his crazy and manic trademark on display again, but with dialogue so great that it works. The characters are caricatures, completely over the top, and larger than life. But, and this is a thing many directors struggle with, they are still incredibly three-dimensional. 

But it’s not just the script, indeed, consider all the tiny little details in the fantastic production design. When Cage lambasts the country being run by Reagan, whose photo is seen in a tiny corner of his cell? JFK, of course!
Cinematography in this film is not amazing (hence, Roger Deakins has become a Coen collaborator), but it shows exactly what it needs to. The first 5 minutes, pre-credits, play out like a short film, with short little clips, cut tightly together that launch us straight into the enjoyable shenanigans to follow.

The Coen brothers are masters of genre, which seems paradoxical because their films are so whacky. How are they so? They have an inherent understanding of what makes a good story. They know exactly when to ramp up tension and build a thriller, when to ease into emotions and create drama, and when to send it completely looney and create comedy. Life cannot be separated into genre, and the Coen brothers understand this. They know enough about genre conventions to manipulate them and mould them into their own.

This movie is real life, with family drama, parenting troubles, strong morals, and a fearsome biker who drives around shooting bunnies. Life it seems, is like a box of chocolates. Assorted ones, that is.

5 Stars

Movie Review #1 - The Fighter

Here is a movie of two halves. The first half is absolutely brilliant, whilst the second becomes formulaic. For the first hour or so, we stick with Micky (Marky Mark) and, more importantly, Dicky (Bale) as we learn about their tough lives (c’mon it’s Boston!!). Christian Bale is incredible, a performance that is utterly plausible and compelling. It is easy to see what Aronofsky liked in the script. Dicky is certainly similar to “The Ram” with his self-destructive, yet heart-of-gold nature. Unfortunately, when he becomes more of the support in the third act, the film loses its legs. Marky Marky always looks like a lost kid, and he just can’t sustain the interest in the film, which becomes bogged down in predictability. Yes, we all know it’s real life, and what’s going to happen, but we need to care. Poor Wahlberg is not good enough to do this. Everybody else is good, but not phenomenal. Amy Adams does a decent job with a severely underwritten part. There is a jarring shot to her in lingerie, which you can tell Wahlberg wanted. 

The film is incredibly well shot, with the various cameras seamlessly intercutting and keeping us absorbed in the action. The music is very solid, with Led Zepp and the Stones highlights on the soundtrack. It is, a very well made film, hampered by the fact that we know where it’s going. The performances certainly contribute to it being an above average film, but i couldn’t help feeling that the story focused on the lesser character. After all that we witness, the question i asked was who does the title refer to? Micky? Perhaps not…

4 Stars