Russian Ark (2002)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

aka Russkiy Kovcheg

2008 #98
Alexander Sokurov | 96 mins | DVD | U

Russian Ark has received boundless praise from some quarters, and not just for being shot in a recording-smashing single take — to cite one review in particular, “anyone with an eye for beauty, a yearning for the past or a passion for pure cinema is going to be spellbound.”

Apparently some sort of artistic documentary on the history of Russia, told via a fantastical time-travelling-ish tour of a Russian museum, Russian Ark is certainly ‘artistic’. Unfortunately, it doesn’t teach you much and is at no point clear about what it’s covering. Perhaps a more detailed knowledge of Russian history would lend some meaning to the tableaus that are half-glimpsed as the Steadicam drifts by, though it spends as much time meandering down empty corridors in search of something to film as it does actually showing anything. When it does alight on something, the staging is occasionally spectacular, especially considering the self-imposed technical restrictions, but I gained little from this alone.

I freely admit this may say more about me than the film itself, but the most interesting parts were when the character whose point-of-view we inhabit and the French historian he encounters begin to discuss something that almost (almost) resembles a plot — how did they get there, how can the Frenchman speak Russian, can others see them, and so on. Sokurov merrily raises all these questions, in the process throwing a sci-fi dimension into his artistic-documentary-fantasy, but are there any answers offered? No, of course not — that’s not the point. Which does rather make you wonder why they’re vocalised at all…

Watching Russian Ark is a little like doing what the nominal lead characters do: wander aimlessly around an unfamiliar museum without any guide to what they see. Undoubtedly impressive, and worth seeing for the audacity of the single take, but I, unlike others, was far from spellbound.

(Originally posted on 30th January 2009.)

The Green Mile (1999)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #78
Frank Darabont | 181 mins | DVD | 18 / R

This review contains major spoilers.

Five years after making The Shawshank Redemption — somewhat ignored at the time, but now incredibly popular and constantly bidding for acknowledgement as The Best Film Ever — writer-director Frank Darabont returned to the Stephen King Non-Horror Well (quite a shallow one, I should think) to film this tale of a man on death row in the ’30s. Darabont writing & directing a three-hour adaptation of a Stephen King story set in a prison in early 20th Century America? But Shawshank 2 this is not; in fact, I would argue that, due to one key difference amid those similarities, it’s actually the anti-Shawshank.

The key difference, I should rush to point out, is not the presence of the supernatural. While obviously a major element of the film, the level of realism dedicated to it, plus the overall tone of the piece, means that it still doesn’t feel too far removed from its predecessor. Nonetheless, where Shawshank was very much a real-world story, The Green Mile gradually draws the viewer into believing that miracles may be possible. It’s a whole hour before Michael Clarke Duncan’s near-silent John Coffey (“like the drink, only not spelled the same”) does his healing thing, at which point what was apparently a straightforward period prison drama gains a new dimension.

The fact that this occurs so late, after a lot of effort has been spent establishing the normal real-world setting, means it is firmly grounded in reality. Where most supernatural-focused films ask the viewer to accept, “in this world, this is real”, The Green Mile forces us to ask, “in the real world, what is this power? where does it come from?” Perhaps this seems a subtle distinction, but it isn’t; and the film pulls it off with impressive ease thanks to Darabont’s writing and direction, plus the well-judged performances of Duncan, Tom Hanks as lead warden Paul Edgecomb, and the rest of the cast.

Up to this point, the film feels like a collection of subplots. It takes a slow and careful, but never dull, approach to storytelling, slowly unfurling details of the characters, their relationships, and the technicalities of prison life; but it’s not until Coffey’s power emerges that these really begin to come together. Within this process, Darabont’s writing cleverly structures the release of information to the viewer. We never learn any details of some of the inmates’ crimes, for example, allowing us to sympathise with them; indeed, a lot of subtle effort is put into making Michael Jeter’s Del likeable, serving the double purpose of making his death infinitely more shocking (that we don’t know his crimes largely removes the danger of a “well he deserved it” reaction from certain viewers) and, by his association with Coffey, helping the viewer to like the apparent child murderer. All sorts of details slip by almost as scene setting, only to have horrendous significance later on, and both the reveals and later revelations are played out perfectly.

The film’s ending successfully brings together a wide variety of these seeded elements, neatly melding the remaining subplots without pushing into the realm of unsatisfactory coincidence. But the conclusion is also unapologetically downbeat, and it’s this which affirms that anti-Shawshank status: where Shawshank ends with escape and hope, The Green Mile ends with injustice and imprisonment — the execution of an innocent, miraculous man, and Paul’s ‘imprisonment’ in an unknowably long (potentially, endless) life, suffering the constant loss of those he loves and the guilt of what he did.

If The Green Mile is not quite Shawshank then that’s because it’s not trying to be. It’s a superb film in its own right, but the lack of an uplifting ending is the reason it isn’t — and never will be — as popular as its apparent twin.

(Originally posted on 28th January 2009.)

Becoming Jane (2007)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #91
Julian Jarrold | 115 mins | DVD | PG / PG

Director Julian Jarrold seems to have found his cinematic niche in “coming a bit late”. His Kinky Boots, while entertaining, was reminiscent of films like The Full Monty… except 8 years later; Becoming Jane rides the Pride & Prejudice bandwagon… except 18 months later; and his latest, the new Brideshead Revisited, had something of the Atonements about it… except 6 months later. At least his lead times have got shorter.

Perhaps Jarrold’s other inspiration here was Batman Begins. No, bear with me, for this is Austen Begins: Jane’s literary career has yet to start, but as the film progresses we see something of her personality taking shape — and plenty of the inspiration for her novels. Lord alone knows how factual any of it is, but I’m sure it must be a lot of fun for certain Austenites. On the other hand, purists might be less pleased with their idol being constantly lovelorn and indulging in (whisper it, children) snogging. For those with only the most cursory knowledge of Austen’s work, these might be the only things that stop them believing this is an adaptation of one of her novels; though, in truth, they’re probably not even that intrusive.

The big advantage to this being a somewhat Hollywoodised version of the story is the slew of English acting talent on display. Julie Walters, Maggie Smith and Ian Richardson are all present, in roles of varying sizes, plus the younger Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House) and Laurence Fox (son of Edward); not to mention James McAvoy, busy appearing in everything under the sun at the time. In the lead role, Anne Hathaway does a fine job, though there’s the inevitable question of “why not cast a Brit?” (to which one must assume the answer is, “for the sake of the US box office”). At least her accent is good.

Becoming Jane is a Jane Austen biopic treated as if it were a Jane Austen novel. In fact, so much is it embedded in the writing of Pride & Prejudice — and the notion that most of that was inspired by her own life — that it occasionally feels like another adaptation of it. This approach is a little uncomfortable in places, though probably makes sense considering the target market; and, by being so relatively lightweight, the resultant films seems to have faced less criticism from some Austenites than the similarly-timed TV biopic, Miss Austen Regrets. It’s for precisely this reason that the latter was a superior product, however: it may be darker and less uplifting — it ends with Austen’s death, rather than the start of her literary career — but it has a level of reflection that makes it more than Austen-Lite. Unlike this.

Becoming Jane is on BBC Two today, Wednesday 31st December 2014, at 1:20pm.

(Originally posted on 27th January 2009.)

White Christmas (1954)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #97
Michael Curtiz | 115 mins | DVD | U

White Christmas is surprisingly un-Christmassy. Yes, it’s set at the right time of year, and the plot concerns itself with do-gooding and charity and other such vaguely seasonal themes; but, crucially, there’s a distinct absence of snow (until the very end) and little else actually inspires much Christmas feeling.

The plot winds its way to a moving finale, but, baring a few memorable numbers — Sisters, for example; and, particularly, a rendition of it by the male leads — most of the path there is quite average. One wonders how much of its renown is actually based on the titular song.

White Christmas is on Film4 today, Monday 24th November 2014, at 12:50pm.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

aka Die Hard 2: Die Harder

2008 #95
Renny Harlin | 118 mins | DVD | 18 / R

Good guides to how to write always advise that your hero is only as good as the villain. This is one of the reasons Die Hard is such an endlessly enjoyable film — as well as a great high-concept setup, excellent action sequences, and amusing one-liners, Alan Rickman’s villain, Hans Gruber, is one of the best ever committed to celluloid. Dry witted and clearly more educated than his opponent, Bruce Willis’ John McClane, he’s nonetheless defeated by that everyman spanner-in-the-works. Yippee-kay-aye indeed.

So how do you top that? Well, not like this. The generic Traitor General character offered here isn’t a patch on Gruber, meaning the hero/nemesis relationship between him and McClane never kicks off in quite the same way. The final act even tries to introduce a new villain, probably aware that the first one wasn’t quite working, though it’s to little avail. Their final duel — on the wing of a moving plane — is exciting enough, but doesn’t pack the same punch as the first film’s verbal sparring.

Arguably the other main reason Die Hard worked so well — the confined office block setting — is also discarded, giving McClane a whole airport to run around. We have to be grateful that this isn’t just a straightforward rehash of the first film — probably the advantage of being adapted from an unrelated novel, 58 Minutes, rather than a committee considering how to recycle the same idea — but it doesn’t have the same brilliant simplicity. That said, the line acknowledging similarities between the scenarios is a highlight, and good use is made of McClane’s fame following the events of the first film.

Die Hard 2 is by no means a bad action film — there are several sequences that are above par for the genre, an acceptable degree of silliness, and the odd spectacular explosion too — but the unavoidable comparison to one of the genre’s all-time classics is to its detriment. If only the villain was someone like Gruber’s brother…

(Originally posted on 25th January 2009.)

Chicago (2002)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #96
Rob Marshall | 108 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

I remember being distinctly unimpressed when Chicago took the Best Picture Oscar in 2003, especially as the alternatives included Gangs of New York and The Two Towers — not to mention Road to Perdition, an excellent film that was massively undervalued during award season.

In its favour are a number of memorable songs, all performed with impressive routines. On the downside, they’re all quite stagey in their choreography, though this suits the daydream-fantasy style in which they come about. In fact, the ability of film to make clear the distinction between ‘real life’ and fantasy means the film is far easier to follow than the stage version.

The story is passable enough, serving as a roadmap between the songs and offering the occasional bit of commentary/criticism on celebrity culture — it may be set in the ’20s and have been written in the ’70s, but the characters’ underhand tactics to keep their story on the front pages are as pertinent now as ever.

Five years on, Chicago isn’t as poor as expected — it manages to be consistently entertaining — but nor is it superior to the alternatives. For a current comparison, it’s only marginally better than if Mamma Mia were to trot round winning Best Picture gongs this year.

The Blues Brothers (1980)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #99
John Landis | 142 mins | DVD | 15 / R

Cult comedy musical, with a more-than-healthy dose of the surreal, about two brothers on a mission from God, here watched in the extended DVD version (full details at IMDb). Maybe this is why it takes a while to get going — the first hour or so could do with a kick up the proverbial — and has a tendency to sprawl like an unruly first draft.

On the other hand, its insistence at being random, crazy, and incessantly silly throughout is beautifully anarchic. There’s an array of fabulous cameos — Ray Charles! Aretha Franklin! and Carrie Fisher, feeding the anarchy with her ludicrous attempts to kill one of the titular pair. While there were fewer songs than I’d expected, they’re all classics rewarded with infectiously fun performances. Then there’s the climactic car chase, which surely challenges many more serious examples for pure excitement value.

And any film which sees Neo-Nazis jump into a river to avoid being run over has to be good.

The Blues Brothers is on ITV4 tonight, Friday 26th September 2014, at 11:35pm.

(Originally posted on 24th January 2009.)

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #94
David R. Ellis | 101 mins | DVD | 15 / R

You don’t get much more high-concept than “snakes on a plane”, a mission statement of a title if ever there was one. It certainly captured the imagination of online geekdom, who knew everything they wanted just from those four words and famously launched a viral marketing campaign for a film they’d not seen. Ultimately, it’s for that reason it will be remembered, because without the evocative title and the reaction it provoked this would be forgotten quicker than Samuel L. Jackson can utter his Oedipal expletive-laden catchphrase.

The best thing one can say about Snakes… is that it lives up to its B-movie title. Once it gets going it throws lots of gory fun at the audience, like a snake in a microwave, or entirely gratuitous shots of people trampled in panic (which sounds distasteful, but in the context of the film is more amusingly squelchy). It even manages the horror movie’s obligatory gratuitous sex/nudity — courtesy of the Mile High Club, naturally. That’s not to mention the plot, in which a gang release snakes onto a plane (did you guess?) in order to kill an FBI-escorted witness. As assassination plans go, it may just be the barmiest ever, and delightfully so.

However, the plan is flawed — in storytelling terms at least — because snakes don’t actually do much. They drop from ceilings, they slither, they bite… and then you’re pretty much done. When the legless beasties eventually turn up it’s quite good… for a couple of minutes. But a couple of minutes do not a feature film make, so every length-inflating trick is whipped out to boost the running time. The first crime is an irritatingly long opening: a seemingly endless preamble reveals what crime the witness witnessed, why he’s being transported, and how villainous the villain is — but all the average audience member wants is to get on that plane!

But when they finally board there’s a series of establishing scenes to get through. There’s even a full version of the safety demonstration — no one likes the safety demo normally, never mind in a film! This bit at least serves to introduce an array of characters ready to be killed, but as few of their stories go anywhere most should have remained faceless victims. These scenes on the plane feel like the opening, and may have been less interminable if they weren’t preceded by all that needless preamble. It’s especially pointless because, by the time the plane inevitably lands, the makers seem to have forgotten they introduced a villain in the first place.

In between, those snake ideas (drop! slither! bite!) run their course sharpish, so the viewer is treated to an array of stock Plane Disaster Movie scenarios. An investigation on the ground! Something needs fixing in the hold! A non-pilot has to land the plane! Chopping 10 to 20 minutes wouldn’t hurt any — it should be short and efficient — or, instead, putting the same screen time to better use by bringing a resolution to the villain. Normally the plane landing would be a perfect point to end — you want snake-based slaughter, and then you want out — but after the persistence in setting other stories in motion those really ought to be finished.

Snakes on a Plane is as much of a B-movie as the title implies. This seems to be what disappointed some when it was finally released, yet at the same time is clearly the vibe the makers were going for all along. Perhaps a greater problem is that it still sounds like such a good — snakes released on a plane to kill someone? That’s utterly loopy! It should be crazy and great! But it’s treated with too much seriousness, as if the makers are struggling to convince us this is actually a plausible notion in the real world — which it patently isn’t.

Nowhere near bad enough for the infamous “so bad it’s good” classification, nor good enough to rise up on genuine merits, it is instead largely unremarkable though passably entertaining. Perhaps it should’ve been left as just a title.

Channel 4 are premiering Snakes on a Plane tonight at 10pm (hence why it rises above the eight other still-unreviewed films from 2008 today).

(Originally posted on 17th January 2009.)

Swing Time (1936)

Posted on December 31, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #100
George Stevens | 99 mins | TV | U

Swing Time is, I’m told, widely hailed as the greatest of the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers pictures. The plot isn’t especially captivating, one of the stock variations on “boy meets girl” that still serve rom–coms to this day, but that’s not the main reason these films are so loved.

That, of course, is the song and (especially) dance numbers. I can’t say I recall any of the songs now, but the dances are suitably impressive. Particularly memorable is an early number where, after Astaire accidentally gets Rogers’ dance teacher character fired, he shows the proprietor how much she’s taught him in the last ten minutes, winning her job back. Trust me, that makes far more sense on screen than in that pathetic explanation. Elsewhere, Astaire blacks up for a dance to Bojangles of Harlem. These days one might wonder why he had to black up, or consider the concept faintly racist, but clearly it was acceptable for the time and in no way detracts from the skill on display.

One interesting note is some story similarities to Sideways — yes, Sideways, the recent Oscar-winning indie comedy about love and wine tasting. Whether Swing Time had any influence on that (made almost 70 years later), or it’s just a huge coincidence, I don’t know, but there are several reminiscent moments throughout the engaged-man-and-buddy-find-love-in-far-off-location-(then-accidentally-let-truth-slip) plot.

I haven’t seen enough Astaire/Rogers films to declare whether this is their best or not, though personally I preferred Top Hat. In the same way the plot of some action films doesn’t matter one iota so long as the fights are good, so the story here is irrelevant beside the quality of the dancing — and that, at least, is exemplary.

(Originally posted on 9th January 2009.)

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

Posted on December 29, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #92
John Lounsbery & Wolfgang Reitherman | 71 mins | DVD | U / G

Having finished 2007 with Piglet’s Big Movie, it feels somewhat appropriate to round off 2008 (almost) with Disney’s first Winnie-the-Pooh feature.

The Many Adventures… is actually compiled from three shorts made in 1966, 1968 and 1974, with some new linking material. I don’t know if these shorts were produced with any great expense, but there’s occasional evidence of what looks like cheap animation. It’s not that it’s not smooth or fluid, but rather the attentive viewer will often spot sketch marks around some lines, or flashes of other bits not properly erased. Perhaps it was deliberate, considering the sketchy style of the backgrounds, designed to evoke the original illustrations, but I sometimes found it distracting.

This is one relatively minor flaw in an otherwise brilliant adaptation, however. The film faithfully adapts several of the original stories, acknowledging its sources by frequently showing the action as illustrations within a copy of the book. This fourth-wall-breaking move may irritate some, but personally I loved seeing Pooh and co have to leap from page to page, or tipping the book sideways to free Tigger from a tree. Such moves seem tonally in keeping with A.A. Milne’s original stories and, even though some tales are abridged and some good ones left out, that spirit is always retained.

The characterisation is also spot on, producing an array of cute and loveable creations, none more so than Pooh himself. The gopher is an unnecessary addition, though the running joke about him not being in the book is very nicely done. And one can’t fail to mention the excellent songs, now as linked to the world of Pooh as anything from the original books — especially Tigger’s little tune, surely familiar to anyone who was a child in the last 30 years.

If some later Disney ventures have lost sight of the correct spirit for Pooh’s adventures, at least this original is a great adaptation. Bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, and, above all, fun fun fun fun fun.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: Decades

Russian Ark (2002)

The Green Mile (1999)

Becoming Jane (2007)

White Christmas (1954)

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Chicago (2002)

The Blues Brothers (1980)

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Swing Time (1936)

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)