Shirley Henderson, Allison Janney, Michael K. Williams, Michael Lerner, Ciarán Hinds, Paul Reubens, Charlotte Rampling, Ally Sheedy. Written and directed by Todd Solondz (Palindromes, Storytelling, Happiness, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Fear Anxiety & Depression).
This is a must-see, even for me. Todd Solondz is a total genius. Seriously.
A sequel of sorts to the fantastically funny and at the same time deeply disturbing Happiness, albeit with a completely different (and equally stellar) cast, Life Without Wartime is likely to be sharp, hilarious, moving and illuminating. It's what character film-making should be all about.
Can't wait to see Charlotte Rampling playing against type as a hard-faced old cow. What a treat this will be.
Seriously, see it. I know I will. On VoD sometime in the near-to-middle future, probably. But I'll definitely see it.
Watch these films almost right now:
Goddamn Amazon don't have Happiness on VoD. Miserable bastards. Sorry.
Friday 24 December 2010
Little Fockers
Ben Stiller, Robert de Niro, Teri Polo, Jessica Alba, Owen Wilson, Dustin Hoffman, Barbra Streisand, Blythe Danner, Harvey Keitel. Directed by Paul Weitz (American Dreamz, About a Boy, American Pie). Written by John Hamburg (I Love You Man, Along Came Polly, Safe Men), Larry Stuckey (Elling, no really, it's a film).
So, Meet the Parents was pretty good, right? Ben Stiller was great as always, and it had the lovely sense of discomfort that the best fish-out-of-water farces do. Even de Niro was okay in it, despite the fact that he is nowhere near as good at comedy as he is at drama (remember his crying jag in Analyze This? Just embarrassing. Not funny at all.)
And then Meet the Fockers was fine, too. It suffered from a lack of Owen Wilson, but Dustin Hoffman was his usual magic self and Barbra Streisand was quite good too.
But this. This. Am I the only one who thinks this looks absolutely dreadful? I'm only going by the trailer (natch) but really? Is that the best of the film? There was nothing else trailer-worthy? Oh dear.
I'm sure this'll show up on free-to-air TV some time over the next year and I'll watch it out of curiosity. Maybe. But otherwise I'll be skipping it. I'm sure there are way better comedies out there.
So, Meet the Parents was pretty good, right? Ben Stiller was great as always, and it had the lovely sense of discomfort that the best fish-out-of-water farces do. Even de Niro was okay in it, despite the fact that he is nowhere near as good at comedy as he is at drama (remember his crying jag in Analyze This? Just embarrassing. Not funny at all.)
And then Meet the Fockers was fine, too. It suffered from a lack of Owen Wilson, but Dustin Hoffman was his usual magic self and Barbra Streisand was quite good too.
But this. This. Am I the only one who thinks this looks absolutely dreadful? I'm only going by the trailer (natch) but really? Is that the best of the film? There was nothing else trailer-worthy? Oh dear.
I'm sure this'll show up on free-to-air TV some time over the next year and I'll watch it out of curiosity. Maybe. But otherwise I'll be skipping it. I'm sure there are way better comedies out there.
Gulliver's Travels
Jack Black, Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, Amanda Peet, Billy Connolly, Chris O'Dowd, TJ Miller, James Corden, Catherine Tate. Directed by Rob Letterman (Monsters vs Aliens, Shark Tale). Adapted from the book by Jonathan Swift (from my home town) by Joe Stillman (Planet 51, Shrek, Shrek 2, King of the Hill, Beavis and Butthead) and Nicholas Stoller (Get Him to the Greek, Yes Man, Fun With Dick and Jane).
I'm not sure what to make of this, to be honest. I like Jack Black. There, I said it. I do. I'm just not sure how I feel about mixing Jack Black with a 17th-Century children's classic, although he was fantastic in Peter Jackson's King Kong, possibly because of the director.
Then, I check out the trailer. First act looks reasonable enough, it's a combination of the original set-up from the book and the female lead's set-up from Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and lo, Jack finds himself a giant in the land of the tiny Lilliputians. And then he plays table soccer with some, so presumably he brings them back to America with him. Or something.
Despite the great supporting cast (James Corden excepted, of course), I have a terrible feeling about this one. So I'm not going to see it. Not that I'd have seen it if I'd thought it would be good, mind you, but at least this way I can feel like I'm making some sort of stand.
I'm not sure what to make of this, to be honest. I like Jack Black. There, I said it. I do. I'm just not sure how I feel about mixing Jack Black with a 17th-Century children's classic, although he was fantastic in Peter Jackson's King Kong, possibly because of the director.
Then, I check out the trailer. First act looks reasonable enough, it's a combination of the original set-up from the book and the female lead's set-up from Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and lo, Jack finds himself a giant in the land of the tiny Lilliputians. And then he plays table soccer with some, so presumably he brings them back to America with him. Or something.
Despite the great supporting cast (James Corden excepted, of course), I have a terrible feeling about this one. So I'm not going to see it. Not that I'd have seen it if I'd thought it would be good, mind you, but at least this way I can feel like I'm making some sort of stand.
Blue Valentine
Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams. Director: Derek Cianfrance (various documentaries). Written by Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis (two things I've never heard of) and Cami Delavigne.
If you're going to see one independent arthouse film with great performances and hand-held photography don't see Somewhere, see this, it looks a lot better as far as high-tedium-risk low-budget flicks go. The story of the rise and fall of a marriage, the really interesting thing about Blue Valentine is that it was shot six years apart, and we intercut between the beginning of a relationship and its end. Hard to see how that'll leave a warm and fuzzy feeling, but Irreversible managed it, so it's always possibly no matter what the subject might be.
Will I see this? Of course I won't. But if for some reason I do end up seeing it, on TV when the remote is out of my reach, for example, I suspect I'll quite like it.
If you're going to see one independent arthouse film with great performances and hand-held photography don't see Somewhere, see this, it looks a lot better as far as high-tedium-risk low-budget flicks go. The story of the rise and fall of a marriage, the really interesting thing about Blue Valentine is that it was shot six years apart, and we intercut between the beginning of a relationship and its end. Hard to see how that'll leave a warm and fuzzy feeling, but Irreversible managed it, so it's always possibly no matter what the subject might be.
Will I see this? Of course I won't. But if for some reason I do end up seeing it, on TV when the remote is out of my reach, for example, I suspect I'll quite like it.
Somewhere
Stephen Dorff, Elle Fanning. Written and directed by Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation, Marie-Antoinette).
Stephen Dorff plays a Hollywood actor living a soul-less party-heavy existence in Hollywood's Chateau Marmont hotel, when his eleven-year-old daughter shows up and presumably he has to re-examine what's important to him or something.
Pros: Lost in Translation, another aimless hotel-dweller movie, was really rather good, even if, when it came to the whispered phrase between the two main characters it was what a good ole harmless racist back in the day might have called a bit of a gyp. I'm all for letting the audience decide for themselves, but you do have to narrow it down a bit. Multiple choice, Sofia, that's all I'm saying.
Cons: While it's really nice to see Stephen Dorff doing something substantial again after filling the years since Backbeat with what can most kindly be described as complete and utter shite (apart from the odd decent supporting role in the likes of Public Enemies and World Trade Center, the latter of which I have, to nobody's surprise, yet to see), and I'm sure he puts in a nice performance, he isn't Bill Murray, and there is no Scarlett Johansson. Plus the music seems really miserable, although I'm only going on the trailer for this, I don't know much about the band Phoenix except that they're from Paris.
I'm putting this down as a miss, unless you're really into that kind of thing, and don't require that your films offer real entertainment as such. But then what the hell do I know? I see nothing these days.
Stephen Dorff plays a Hollywood actor living a soul-less party-heavy existence in Hollywood's Chateau Marmont hotel, when his eleven-year-old daughter shows up and presumably he has to re-examine what's important to him or something.
Pros: Lost in Translation, another aimless hotel-dweller movie, was really rather good, even if, when it came to the whispered phrase between the two main characters it was what a good ole harmless racist back in the day might have called a bit of a gyp. I'm all for letting the audience decide for themselves, but you do have to narrow it down a bit. Multiple choice, Sofia, that's all I'm saying.
Cons: While it's really nice to see Stephen Dorff doing something substantial again after filling the years since Backbeat with what can most kindly be described as complete and utter shite (apart from the odd decent supporting role in the likes of Public Enemies and World Trade Center, the latter of which I have, to nobody's surprise, yet to see), and I'm sure he puts in a nice performance, he isn't Bill Murray, and there is no Scarlett Johansson. Plus the music seems really miserable, although I'm only going on the trailer for this, I don't know much about the band Phoenix except that they're from Paris.
I'm putting this down as a miss, unless you're really into that kind of thing, and don't require that your films offer real entertainment as such. But then what the hell do I know? I see nothing these days.
Saturday 11 December 2010
The Social Network
Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake. Dir. David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Zodiac, Panic Room, Fight Club, The Game, Se7en, Alien 3). Writers: Aaron Sorkin (Charlie Wilson's War, The West Wing, The American President, Malice, A Few Good Men (from the book by Ben Mezrich).
Look, I'll be up front and say I'm not going to see this, even though I've heard good things about it, and I like David Fincher's work, and I think Aaron Sorkin's a genius, and Jesse Eisenberg was great in Zombieland, and the trailer looks really rather good. I just can't stand Zuckerberg. Even though I like Facebook. So I'll be watching something else.
Unless Mme Ignorante decides otherwise, of course.
Look, I'll be up front and say I'm not going to see this, even though I've heard good things about it, and I like David Fincher's work, and I think Aaron Sorkin's a genius, and Jesse Eisenberg was great in Zombieland, and the trailer looks really rather good. I just can't stand Zuckerberg. Even though I like Facebook. So I'll be watching something else.
Unless Mme Ignorante decides otherwise, of course.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World
Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Kulkin, Anna Kendrick, Aubrey Plaza. Dir. Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead). Written by Michael Bacall (two films I've never heard of) and Edgar Wright, from the graphic novel by Bryan Lee O'Malley.
In order to continue dating the gorgeous Ramona Flowers, Michael Ce... I mean Scott Pilgrim must do battle with her seven evil exes.
Apparently this didn't do as well as many thought it would, and it seems hard to tell why. It looks sharp, witty and stylish - Edgar Wright's two previous films were fantastically fresh (Shaun of the Dead has become a cult classic, and Hot Fuzz had me rolling around the place with its mix of Agatha Christie-style small-town English intrigue and horrific bloody violence), and the cast looks solidly likeable, especially Cera.
I have the flu and may download this to help me through. It looks awesome.
Why didn't people go see it? (Apart from me, I mean - I don't go see anything).
In order to continue dating the gorgeous Ramona Flowers, Michael Ce... I mean Scott Pilgrim must do battle with her seven evil exes.
Apparently this didn't do as well as many thought it would, and it seems hard to tell why. It looks sharp, witty and stylish - Edgar Wright's two previous films were fantastically fresh (Shaun of the Dead has become a cult classic, and Hot Fuzz had me rolling around the place with its mix of Agatha Christie-style small-town English intrigue and horrific bloody violence), and the cast looks solidly likeable, especially Cera.
I have the flu and may download this to help me through. It looks awesome.
Why didn't people go see it? (Apart from me, I mean - I don't go see anything).
Tuesday 7 December 2010
The Fighter
Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams. Dir. David O. Russel (I Heart Huckabees, Three Kings). Writers: Scott Silver (8 Mile, The Mod Squad), Paul Tamasy (Air Bud), Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington.
What a set THIS could have been! The authors of the two most famous Hollywood dummy-spits of noughties together. Betcha nothing happened. Betcha every time Christian Bale and David O. Russell got hot under the collar Mark Wahlberg's inherent, over-powering, all-consuming niceness stopped anything interesting happening at all.
IMDB says this is the story of the early years of boxer Irish Mickey Ward and his trainer brother, in the 1980s, but the trailer's pretty clear that it's much more about the boxer's comeback in his early 30s, which happened around the turn of the millennium. I'm going with the trailer. Has imdb.com turned into Wikipedia?
This looks pretty good, given that there are fewer and fewer great boxing stories, now that the sport has gone to pieces (name one great character since Tyson. Can't, can you?) Wahlberg's usually good, Christian Bale is generally good with a strong director, and David O. Russell is definitely that. Three Kings was great, even if it's more than a decade ago now, and I Heart Huckabees wasn't bad either. I don't know much about the writers, but David O. Russell generally puts his own clear mark on every script he shoots - although I notice he doesn't have a writer credit on this one (which means nothing - the way the Writers' Guild of America allocates writing credits can be mind-boggling convoluted and unfair).
Anyway, this looks fine, I guess, if maybe a little welterweight compared to the heavyweights of Raging Bull, Rocky and Cinderella Man (which I liked, despite the Ron Howardness of it), but that's fine. The big question is always "is this worth the price of the ticket and the two hours of my life?" and I'm sure in Russell's hands it's just that, without causing any earthquakes.
Yeah, sure, why not? Go on then. Fine.*
*This is good - the majority of movies aren't worth the money. Or the time.
Affiliate news: Haven't been able to find a reasonable replacement for Amazon, so rather than bother you with unethical temptations I'll ask you to just send me small but regular amounts of money. Email me for details.
What a set THIS could have been! The authors of the two most famous Hollywood dummy-spits of noughties together. Betcha nothing happened. Betcha every time Christian Bale and David O. Russell got hot under the collar Mark Wahlberg's inherent, over-powering, all-consuming niceness stopped anything interesting happening at all.
IMDB says this is the story of the early years of boxer Irish Mickey Ward and his trainer brother, in the 1980s, but the trailer's pretty clear that it's much more about the boxer's comeback in his early 30s, which happened around the turn of the millennium. I'm going with the trailer. Has imdb.com turned into Wikipedia?
This looks pretty good, given that there are fewer and fewer great boxing stories, now that the sport has gone to pieces (name one great character since Tyson. Can't, can you?) Wahlberg's usually good, Christian Bale is generally good with a strong director, and David O. Russell is definitely that. Three Kings was great, even if it's more than a decade ago now, and I Heart Huckabees wasn't bad either. I don't know much about the writers, but David O. Russell generally puts his own clear mark on every script he shoots - although I notice he doesn't have a writer credit on this one (which means nothing - the way the Writers' Guild of America allocates writing credits can be mind-boggling convoluted and unfair).
Anyway, this looks fine, I guess, if maybe a little welterweight compared to the heavyweights of Raging Bull, Rocky and Cinderella Man (which I liked, despite the Ron Howardness of it), but that's fine. The big question is always "is this worth the price of the ticket and the two hours of my life?" and I'm sure in Russell's hands it's just that, without causing any earthquakes.
Yeah, sure, why not? Go on then. Fine.*
*This is good - the majority of movies aren't worth the money. Or the time.
Affiliate news: Haven't been able to find a reasonable replacement for Amazon, so rather than bother you with unethical temptations I'll ask you to just send me small but regular amounts of money. Email me for details.
Sunday 5 December 2010
Monsters
Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able. Writer-director: Gareth Edwards.
Six years after aliens have landed, a journalist escorts a tourist through the "infected zone", a fenced-off swathe of northern Mexico.
A very different kind of monster movie, I'll bet. Trailer 1 sells this as a horror, a cousin, perhaps, to Cloverfield. Trailer 2 sells it as a bit more of a mystery.
With a reputed budget of Stg£500,000, Monsters is an independent feature that looks like a blockbuster - and the lower production budget gives it huge freedom from the studio-imposed MBA-driven bullshit that a film like this would normally suffer from. I'm hugely hopeful about this one - if it succeeds, and all the indications are that it is already succeeding, it may change the paradigm on how low-budget movies find success, and further erode the power of the studios.
The budget figure quoted fails to take into account the fact that the director is a visual effects artist of long standing, who did most of the VFX himself, in the same way as El Mariachi's reputed $7,000 budget was actually in the region of $60,000 when you add post-production expenditure after the film had been bought by the studio, but both figures are still very impressive indeed.
I'm excited about this, and I'd really like to go see it. Of course I probably won't, but such is life. Here's the trailers.
And while I'm here, if you go to the cinema, ever, you need to watch this and abide by these sensible rules. If they offend you and you think you should be exempt in some way, don't go to the cinema any more.
Lastly, I'm ditching the Amazon affiliate programme for various reasons, and I'm looking for some ideas on how to help support this blog. Got any requests or ideas?
Six years after aliens have landed, a journalist escorts a tourist through the "infected zone", a fenced-off swathe of northern Mexico.
A very different kind of monster movie, I'll bet. Trailer 1 sells this as a horror, a cousin, perhaps, to Cloverfield. Trailer 2 sells it as a bit more of a mystery.
With a reputed budget of Stg£500,000, Monsters is an independent feature that looks like a blockbuster - and the lower production budget gives it huge freedom from the studio-imposed MBA-driven bullshit that a film like this would normally suffer from. I'm hugely hopeful about this one - if it succeeds, and all the indications are that it is already succeeding, it may change the paradigm on how low-budget movies find success, and further erode the power of the studios.
The budget figure quoted fails to take into account the fact that the director is a visual effects artist of long standing, who did most of the VFX himself, in the same way as El Mariachi's reputed $7,000 budget was actually in the region of $60,000 when you add post-production expenditure after the film had been bought by the studio, but both figures are still very impressive indeed.
I'm excited about this, and I'd really like to go see it. Of course I probably won't, but such is life. Here's the trailers.
And while I'm here, if you go to the cinema, ever, you need to watch this and abide by these sensible rules. If they offend you and you think you should be exempt in some way, don't go to the cinema any more.
Lastly, I'm ditching the Amazon affiliate programme for various reasons, and I'm looking for some ideas on how to help support this blog. Got any requests or ideas?
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale
Jorma Tommila, Onni Tommila, Peeter Jakobi. Dir. Jalmari Helander. Writers: Jalmari Helander (screenplay) and Juuso Helander (idea).
The real legend of Santa Claus.
Based on two rather excellent short films from a few years back, Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a horror re-work of the Santa Claus myth.
Looks rather excellent, doesn't it? The only question is whether or not they can sustain the joke over an entire feature - although my feeling is that the story may take over, by the third act you may have forgotten about Christmas and be well into the horror narrative unfolding.
Not that I've seen it or anything. But you never know, it might fit the bill if the weather's difficult over the holidays and I need to distract two-year-old Ignoramus Junior for a couple of hours. She loves Christmas.
And here's the original short film:
The real legend of Santa Claus.
Based on two rather excellent short films from a few years back, Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a horror re-work of the Santa Claus myth.
Looks rather excellent, doesn't it? The only question is whether or not they can sustain the joke over an entire feature - although my feeling is that the story may take over, by the third act you may have forgotten about Christmas and be well into the horror narrative unfolding.
Not that I've seen it or anything. But you never know, it might fit the bill if the weather's difficult over the holidays and I need to distract two-year-old Ignoramus Junior for a couple of hours. She loves Christmas.
And here's the original short film:
Thursday 2 December 2010
The Switch
Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Patrick Wilson, Juliette Lewis, Jeff Goldblum, Todd Louiso. Dir. Josh Gordon and Will Speck (Blades of Glory). Writers: Allan Loeb (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, 21, Things We Lost in the Fire), from a short story by Jeffrey Eugenides.
I like Jennifer Aniston. She seems really nice, and she's a talented and courageous actress (she plays a 47-year-old in this, she's 41). Her films though, especially when she has the lead, are completely dreadful. Like J-Lo since about 2002. Or most of Sandra Bullock's films, ever.
In this one, she plays a 40-year-old who has a kid by a donor, but later her best friend... wait a goddamned minute! This isn't a Jennifer Aniston film! This is a Jason Goddamn Bateman film!
There is hope after all.
So, Jason Bateman is best friends with our Jen, gets drunk at the party she has to celebrate her artificial insemination (WTF?!) and... well, watch the trailer. So Jason finds out later he's the da.
I really hope this is good. Jason Bateman is a wonderful actor who really deserves a bit of lead success after his great turns supporting various other people in the likes of Up in the Air, Hancock, Mr. Magorium's Thingummy, Juno and so on.
And yet I'm suspicious. Aniston is top-billed, yet the trailer seems clear - Jason Bateman is the lead. Well, which is it? I'm going with Bateman, because I'm an optimistic soul.
The writing-directing team that made Blades of Glory is responsible, and while I haven't seen that (yeah, yeah, I know, you knew that already, right?) I've heard good things.
I won't be breaking down any doors to see this, but frankly it's the best bet I've seen in ages for a proper early-relationship date movie that might actually be good. The trailer cut might well reflect the movie (great first act, so-so second, rubbish third), but that's just me being cynical.
Also, "the most unexpected comedy ever conceived": Really?
I like Jennifer Aniston. She seems really nice, and she's a talented and courageous actress (she plays a 47-year-old in this, she's 41). Her films though, especially when she has the lead, are completely dreadful. Like J-Lo since about 2002. Or most of Sandra Bullock's films, ever.
In this one, she plays a 40-year-old who has a kid by a donor, but later her best friend... wait a goddamned minute! This isn't a Jennifer Aniston film! This is a Jason Goddamn Bateman film!
There is hope after all.
So, Jason Bateman is best friends with our Jen, gets drunk at the party she has to celebrate her artificial insemination (WTF?!) and... well, watch the trailer. So Jason finds out later he's the da.
I really hope this is good. Jason Bateman is a wonderful actor who really deserves a bit of lead success after his great turns supporting various other people in the likes of Up in the Air, Hancock, Mr. Magorium's Thingummy, Juno and so on.
And yet I'm suspicious. Aniston is top-billed, yet the trailer seems clear - Jason Bateman is the lead. Well, which is it? I'm going with Bateman, because I'm an optimistic soul.
The writing-directing team that made Blades of Glory is responsible, and while I haven't seen that (yeah, yeah, I know, you knew that already, right?) I've heard good things.
I won't be breaking down any doors to see this, but frankly it's the best bet I've seen in ages for a proper early-relationship date movie that might actually be good. The trailer cut might well reflect the movie (great first act, so-so second, rubbish third), but that's just me being cynical.
Also, "the most unexpected comedy ever conceived": Really?
Tuesday 30 November 2010
True Grit
Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Domhnall Gleeson, Hailee Steinfeld, Barry Pepper. Written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Blood Simple, and shit-loads of other great, great films) from the novel by Charles Portis.
This.
Is.
Going.
To.
Rule.
Look at it. Just look at it. The Coens, the cast, one of the great epic western myths of all time... this is going to be one of the greatest films ever made.
Right, enough slathering. As I wipe the saliva from my chin. Okay. Deep breaths. Right. So, not a remake of the John Wayne classic as such, but a new adaptation from the novel. Given the work the Coens did adapting No Country for Old Men, this version of True Grit is shaping up to be utterly legendary.
So much so I intend seeing it. If I see only one film this year (which is optimistic) I'll try to make it this one.
Can't goddamn wait.
This.
Is.
Going.
To.
Rule.
Look at it. Just look at it. The Coens, the cast, one of the great epic western myths of all time... this is going to be one of the greatest films ever made.
Right, enough slathering. As I wipe the saliva from my chin. Okay. Deep breaths. Right. So, not a remake of the John Wayne classic as such, but a new adaptation from the novel. Given the work the Coens did adapting No Country for Old Men, this version of True Grit is shaping up to be utterly legendary.
So much so I intend seeing it. If I see only one film this year (which is optimistic) I'll try to make it this one.
Can't goddamn wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)