Category Archives: 2000s

Reviews of and posts about films released between 2000 and 2009.

Ratatouille (2007)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #13
Brad Bird | 106 mins | DVD | U / G

RatatouilleMy 2007 catch-up continues with Pixar’s highly-praised and award-winning latest, which currently sits as that animation studio’s highest entry in the IMDb Top 250 (their only films not to feature are A Bug’s Life, Monsters, Inc. and Cars). It seems a bit unfair to begin this review on such a downbeat note, but I personally don’t find such a position deserved. As is all too frequently the case, Ratatouille has become another victim of hype.

It’s been pretty impossible to avoid the praise that’s been heaped upon Ratatouille, be it unanimously positive reviews in papers, magazines and online, or overheard conversations in public, or the numerous high-profile awards it’s garnered (most recently, the best animation Oscar, plus a nomination for original screenplay). I was left expecting to be blown away by the best Pixar film made thus far. Sadly, this was not to be. It’s not as funny as Finding Nemo, or Toy Story, or Toy Story 2, or probably The Incredibles. Nor is it as cute as many of them. Or quite as heartwarming, to be honest. And the characters aren’t really as lovable.

OK, this is getting too depressing. The thing is, Ratatouille is a good film, but it is also a flawed one. It’s not nearly funny enough for a kid’s movie — laughs are almost non-existent in the first half and hard to come by in the second — and it’s too long, needing a good chunk taken out of that duller first half. It’s a bit confused as to who the villain is, meaning there’s a lack of real menace from either of the candidates. Despite a professed aim to make rats lovable, they’re not really. Even the potential love story is lacklustre because they wind up together far too quickly.

There I go again with the negatives. I think it’s far too easy to spot the faults in Ratatouille because everyone else has done such a thorough job on the positives, so I’m stuck analysing why I was so disappointed. There’s no denying how gorgeous it looks though — I can’t think of another CG film that even comes close. The level of detail is stunning, not just in set design (which includes whole intricately designed locations just for seconds-long sequences) but also in terms of what’s going on in the background. Check out Remy’s first conversation with his dad at the rats’ new home in Paris, for example: a simple shot-reverse-shot dialogue scene with two characters, but there’s continuously other rats talking, moving past, and so on in the background — all out of focus, not trying to be showy, like natural background detail in a live action film. No other CG film with such attention to ‘pointless’ detail comes to mind. But it also allows itself to be what it is — for want of a better word, a cartoon. Linguini waves his arms about like rope when he’s out of control, the chase sequences are madness, the design of the humans, cars, and almost everything else are suitably stylised. And it all comes with a soft warm glow that is, frankly, beautiful.

Despite my criticisms, Ratatouille is nonetheless a four-star film as far as I’m concerned. I also think that, with its shortage of laughs and cute characters, and with the main areas of appreciation in facets such as cinematography, it’s more a movie for adult animation fans than children. It’s not Pixar’s best, but true to form it’s head and shoulders above most other CG animated fare. Approach it with lower expectations than most reviews would give you and perhaps you’ll enjoy it even more than I did.

4 out of 5

Ocean’s Thirteen (2007)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #11
Steven Soderbergh | 117 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13

Ocean's ThirteenLast year I reviewed Ocean’s Twelve, and came to the conclusion that it had been slightly harshly treated by critics — while not a patch on the first film, it was a decent enough heist romp. Now it’s the turn of last year’s threequel and, by contrast, I found it to be distinctly overrated.

In fact, I’d personally put Thirteen at about the same level as Twelve. The return to both a Las Vegas setting and the first’s glossy cinematography seem to have fooled many into thinking it’s more like Eleven, but the convoluted and over-long plot (needlessly complicated by some chronologically variable storytelling), relative lack of humour, over-abundance of under-used characters, and lacklustre finale belie the truth.

Thirteen is Twelve with Eleven’s sheen. Its critical success relative to its immediate predecessor is, I think, another of the gang’s expertly executed cons.

3 out of 5

Atonement (2007)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #7
Joe Wright | 118 mins | DVD | 15 / R

Atonement“The Most Nominated Film of the Year” proudly proclaims a sticker on the cover of Atonement’s newly released DVD. Well, not quite: according to IMDb, Atonement stands at 68 nominations while No Country For Old Men has made it to a whopping 108! Nonetheless, it’s received a near ridiculous amount of acclaim on its way to awards season, and now, having missed it at the cinema, I can finally offer my opinion, just before it does its best to sweep the board at tomorrow’s BAFTAs.

There are certainly a lot of things in Atonement that definitely warrant their nominations, and in many cases the award itself would not be badly placed either. James McAvoy gives a strong lead performance (he is, of course, up for Best Actor at the BAFTAs) and even more astounding is 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan as Briony, wise beyond her years as the over-imaginative girl who causes so much misery. In many ways she’s the lead character, but as she shares the role with two other, older actresses, it’s no surprise she’s up for Best Supporting Actress — she probably stands more of a chance there anyway. She’s certainly one to watch, and can next be seen in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lovely Bones, again as a leading character who’ll probably be designated supporting status because she’s so young. Keira Knightley’s performance, which has earned her a Best Actress nod, is certainly good, but if she wins it’ll be the strength of the film as a whole that carries her through against such tough competition. I should also mention the ever-excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, in a role too small to receive much recognition, yet central to the plot and well played.

Elsewhere at the BAFTAs, Atonement’s up for a slew of awards I’m not especially qualified to comment on in depth: production design, costume design, make-up & hair, sound, editing… Suffice to say the film looks luscious all round. The cinematography is certainly beautiful, capturing the lazy summer days of 1935 equally as well as the tumultuous wartime vistas. Arguably the stand-out sequence in this respect is the much heralded five-minute shot of the beach at Dunkirk. It’s perhaps over-hyped by this point but is still an impressive achievement, if not in the camerawork itself then in the staging of so many consecutive set pieces without a cut.

With all this considered, Joe Wright is a strong contender for Best Director, and also Christopher Hampton for Best Adapted Screenplay. The story jumps back and forth in time, occasionally to slight confusion but always clear enough to follow. The languid first half never drags, and the second half never feels weak despite the essential mystery already being solved. I won’t give away too much here, but the ending is also effectively pulled off, and the final twists feel more natural than tricksy. I haven’t read the novel so can’t compare it to that, but by all accounts it’s a very faithful adaptation. The only thing that really bothered me was that the dates didn’t seem to add up — apparently, World War Two had begun three-and-a-half years after the summer of 1935 (more like four-and-a-bit). A couple of other dates are unclear too, but that strikes me as the main one.

To digress to general BAFTA speculation for a bit (as if I haven’t already), for the directing win, Wright has to face (amongst others) last year’s winner, Paul Greengrass, though as (to my mind) United 93 was a stronger film than The Bourne Ultimatum, I don’t see him winning it again. In both of those awards it’s up against strong Oscar favourites No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood — when we’ve got our own film to praise, I’m not sure they’ll be able to stave off Atonement too much. The same goes for Best Film. But then there’s always Best British Film. In theory, if Atonement was good enough to take Best Film then it would take this too, but that’s often not the way — in effect, it’s a chance to reward two different movies. I can’t see Eastern Promises winning, but This is England, Control and The Bourne Ultimatum are all reasonable alternatives. If Atonement wins British Film I won’t be expecting it to go on to get Best Film as well. Of course, you can never be sure.

I appreciate this review has (quite deliberately) focused on Atonement’s BAFTA chances as much as its own merits, but hopefully that has still illuminated my thoughts on the film. It’s a very strong effort from all involved, with an unusually structured but no less engaging plot, beautiful cinematography, nice direction and admirable performances. All round, it’s just about enough to warrant 2008’s second

5 out of 5

Calendar Girls (2003)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #6
Nigel Cole | 103 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

Calendar GirlsHelen Mirren and Julie Walters lead a cast of recognisable British actresses in this popular comedy drama about the true story of a group of Women’s Institute members who posed nude for a charity calendar. The film could so easily have been quite a lowly, cheap TV movie effort, what with its apparently farcical premise, worthy cause and older characters. But instead the filmmakers have crafted a movie that is both utterly hilarious and deeply moving — even for this younger male viewer.

Balancing comedy and drama, and making both work, is quite a feat — as someone once said, most comedy-dramas are so called because they’re neither very funny nor very dramatic — so it’s always impressive to see it pulled off so well. It’s surprisingly fast-paced, the central story supported by a number of well-chosen subplots that help shed light on the motivations of the women, making them more than just some older ladies who decided to strip off. Penelope Wilton is especially worthy of mention, as the downtrodden housewife who uncovers her husband’s affair. Of all the supporting cast she gets probably the largest role, even if it would seem to be the least heralded, and does an excellent job with it.

When I sat down to watch Calendar Girls I was expecting a pleasant bit of fluff that would make a lazy afternoon pass by amiably enough, even if it made an hour-and-three-quarters feel like two-and-a-quarter. I was surprised on most fronts: funnier, pacier, more dramatic, and more affecting than I had any reason to expect. Recommended, especially if you didn’t think it was for you.

4 out of 5

Churchill: The Hollywood Years (2004)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #4
Peter Richardson | 84 mins | TV | 15

Churchill: The Hollywood YearsWhat if the Americans made a movie of Winston Churchill’s life, prone as they are to re-write World War 2 history to show they won it all by themselves?

This is ostensibly the premise of this spoof from some of the team behind Channel 4’s The Comic Strip. I say ostensibly, because the film is bookended (for padding, I suspect) with scenes that suggest that the real Churchill was an American GI, and the British simply re-wrote history using a somewhat chubby actor called Roy Bubbles. Sadly, the joke was funnier when it was riffing on those US historical re-writes.

The problem with killing that joke is, it’s the best one the film’s got. It’s also just about suitable for a five-minute comedy sketch, or, at a stretch, a series of sketches. The strategy for drawing this out to movie-length seems to have involved those bookends, as well as bunging some outtakes at the end and including a bunch of ridiculous, irritating, and unfunny subplots with Hitler and his entourage. It’s a shame to see the talents of actors such as Antony Sher and Miranda Richardson frittered away on such material.

This is all being a tad harsh, because Churchill actually has its fair share of amusing moments. The supporting cast of British TV comedians are mostly very good, Neve Campbell’s posh English accent (usually such a stumbling block for Americans-as-Brits) is as good as anything a British actress could have delivered, and Christian Slater and Romany Malco make for a likeable pairing. But, again, most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding.

In that respect it’s quite a shame, because there’s a good idea, good potential, and some good laughs in here.

2 out of 5

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (2003)

Posted on by
1
2008 #3
Kenneth Bowser | 113 mins | DVD | 15

Easy Riders, Raging BullsDocumentary, based on the best-selling acclaimed book by Peter Biskind, about the decade in Hollywood between the death and effective re-birth of the studio system.

It’s a broad story, with many threads, which means this film has a tendency to sprawl all over the place as it attempts to take an overview of it in chronological order. Consequently it’s short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period — that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster (a method which still more or less exists), via a brief period where directors truly had auteur-level control.

There are numerous interesting interviewees to help the story along, all of them people who were actually there, who lived through it and helped create it. This makes for a refreshing change, as most documentaries of this ilk seem to be full of film historians and journalists. Of course, there are many big names notable by their absence, so when the film makes its rambling way onto the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that familiar sense of historic detachment does begin to creep in.

All told, it gives a good overview of the shape of what happened in this period, and how Hollywood became what we know today. Anyone after deeper explorations (of the period, the people, or the films themselves) will want to look elsewhere. I suspect the book may be a good place to start.

3 out of 5

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Posted on by
Reply
2008 #1
David Silverman | 83 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13

The Simpsons MovieAnd so 2008 begins with one of last summer’s biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America’s most well-known family. I’m not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem — I like the show, undoubtedly, but I’ve never watched it regularly and haven’t sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).

This might explain why the movie didn’t feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that’s fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I’m sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn’t do it justice.

It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn’t the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.

4 out of 5

Piglet’s Big Movie (2003)

Posted on by
Reply
2007 #129
Francis Glebas | 72 mins | TV | U / G

Piglet's Big MovieI used to enjoy the Disney Winnie the Pooh series when I was younger. I also used to love the original books by A.A. Milne. In fact, I still enjoy the books — they’re witty, knowingly written, and often sweet. Sadly, Disney’s interpretation seems to have faired less well.

In this case it’s largely down to the first half, where the mostly original storyline and weak & randomly inserted songs simply aren’t up to scratch. However, things improve massively with a couple of fairly straight adaptations of Milne’s original tales.

Mildly amusing at times and with a positive (if predictable) message about friendship and self-worth, this would undoubtedly entertain young children — which, to be fair, is its intended audience. While it initially seems to fall far short for older audiences, it turns out to be not all bad.

3 out of 5

Telling Lies (2001)

Posted on by
Reply
2007 #127a
Simon Ellis | 4 mins | DVD

A simple idea, very well executed: as we listen to a series of phone conversations, the speakers’ dialogue appears on screen… except instead of transcribing their exact words, it reveals their true thoughts. At only a few minutes long this doesn’t outstay its welcome, instead maintaining the basic idea well and crafting a neat and amusing little story with it. Worth checking out if you have a chance.

4 out of 5

Telling Lies is available on the DVD Cinema16: British Short Films or can be watched on Vimeo for free.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Posted on by
Reply
2007 #127
Paul Greengrass | 110 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

The Bourne UltimatumThis final instalment in the action-thriller trilogy was recently announced as Empire magazine’s film of the year, following wide praise on release that dubbed it the best action movie in a long time. Unfortunately, I fear it may’ve become a victim of its own hype.

It’s certainly a good film for many reasons: its appropriately unrelenting momentum, even in dialogue scenes; several stunning action sequences; a mostly decent plot. But it’s also flawed: despite the globe-hopping, complex plot, it feels somehow slight; several villains and plot devices seem tacked on to create an over-arching plan for the trilogy, when Bourne had really dealt with all these matters in the first two.

Ultimately, it simply didn’t feel as entertaining as the first two instalments, though I had an odd sense that I should be liking it more. Perhaps future re-viewings will aid my appreciation.

4 out of 5