Thursday 18th March 2010, 00:37
The Blind Side - Paul's review
The Blind Side opens by telling us that 'the blind side' is what an American Football player does not see. He thinks he's got it all figured out, but then bam! He didn't see that coming. Its obvious double-meaning is that Sandra Bullock's character too is blindsided when her perfect life is changed by her encounter with Michael, a gentle giant of a boy who she invites to live with her and her family. There is, however, little 'blind side' for us viewers: the story plays out as you might expect. Maybe it's too much to wish for a movie like this to be as touching as it is, and yet still steer away from predictability, but that said, the story is a good one, and especially hits home when you realise it's a true one too.
The film famously earned Sandra Bullock her Best Actress Oscar, and it does have the 'worthy' connotations that go with that. The good news is that it doesn't have the bleakness or dullness that can be associated with worthy movies - it is a good story, well-told, solidly (if not astonishingly) acted, and it never veers below its 12A rating. It does mean the gangland scenes lacks the authentic language you'd get in a 15- or 18-rated film, but on the plus side, it means that you know the rags-to-riches tale, which will inevitably have its dark moments, never goes too dark.
If I were to get critical, my one other reservation is that it is very, very 'American' - everything from American football (which I didn't understand) to AGPs and SATs (which I didn't understand) weren't explained to the overseas market as well as, say, the rugby was in Invictus. But get past those references and you'll find an affecting, personal drama that gives us the sort of film Sandra Bullock should be making more of. More of these please, Sandra, less All About Steves.
Tuesday 2nd March 2010, 19:03
A blog by one of our podcast listeners...
One of our regular listeners Johann has recently started a blog about films - you can read it here... jorskeptictank.blogspot.com.
Thursday 24th December 2009, 11:01
Episode 55 Days at Peking
Avatar Yourself A Merry Little Christmas! An epic Christmas special, featuring our very own Nativity acted out for you, dear listener, praise for Avatar, aka, Dances With Smurfs (or is it 'Smurves'?), plus a mammoth discussion of the best Christmas films of all time as voted for by you, the podcastees, and latest reviews of recent releases Nativity! and A Christmas Carol. All that, plus a festive special of the quiz In This Week In Movie History. And Christmas greetings from us all!
Find us in iTunes
Right click here to save the podcast
The podcast feed
Become a fan on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
The Movie Banter website
Thursday 17th September 2009, 15:17
9: review from a listener, cos we ain't seen it yet...
9, reviewed by Jedd...
In 2005, Shane Acker made an 11-minute animated film for his university thesis at UCLA. This film, called 9, took four-and-a-half years, on and off, to animate and went on to win several awards. Arguably its greatest achievement was impressing Tim Burton, who, along with Wanted director Timur Berkmambetov, went on to adapt it into this feature film. Something that made these two well-known filmmakers want to see more surely has the makings of something special.
9 takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, in which humans have lost a war with machines that have turned against them. A scientist (Alan Oppenheimer) imbues his spirit into nine “stitchpunks”, burlap rag dolls, who must fight for survival in this hostile, bleak environment populated with ferocious machines.
The nine consist of 1 (Plummer), the authoritarian self-proclaimed leader, 2 (Martin Landau), a kind inventor, curious but shy twins 3 and 4, engineer and mechanic journeyman 5 (John C Reilly), prophetic artist 6 (Crispin Glover), she-warrior 7 (Connelly), 1’s brutish bodyguard 8 (Fred Tatasciore) and the film’s protagonist, the earnest but naïve 9 (Wood).
9 accidentally activates the fearsome Fabrication Machine, which is able to create dastardly creatures such as the pterosaur-like Winged Beast and The Seamstress, reminiscent of a snake. Worst of all, the Fabrication Machine sucks the life force out of the stitchpunks for its own sustenance. 9 and his motley crew of comrades must battle the Fabrication Machine and save themselves-the only things left of humanity.
9 is a visionary, inventive and creative piece of work, a complex, dark and layered visual feast with a computer-animated exterior that belies some depth and maturity, much more than a run-of-the-mill kid-pleaser cartoon anyway. It’s a very human story, despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that there’s nary a human in sight.
Despite its numerical name, 9 is anything but by-the-numbers. Despite utilizing the familiar plot device of a post-apocalyptic world overrun by machines, the idea is presented in a visually-arresting fashion. A truly immersive environment has been created for the film, and one can’t help but feel drawn into it. The animation is also very fluid, and each of the 9 stitchpunks has a distinct personality visible in their body language.
9 also sets itself apart from the herd with its intense and menacing tone. While perhaps more accessible than quirkier and equally-dark animated fare such as Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride, this is not a film recommended for very young audiences. This quality makes it a good contrast to Disney/Pixar’s Up, far brighter and cheerier and an excellent film as well, though in different ways. 9 offers several good scares and some high-octane action sequences to be had, and the bleakness is milked for all it’s worth.
While the strongest point of 9 is undoubtedly its captivating visuals, there is plenty of aural spectacle as well. The details in the sound design are breathtaking, and the musical score by oft-Burton collaborator Danny Elfman and Deborah Lurie is evocative and suits each scene well.
However, the voice acting seems a little disconnected, and since so much emphasis is placed on the look of the film there ends up being little the voice actors can contribute, regardless of their talent. Christopher Plummer however stands out, fairly effectively conveying the quick-tempered, irritable and domineering nature of 1 through his voice acting.
Unfortunately, 9 seems to possess plenty of unmined potential, with philosophical, political and even spiritual issues hinted at but not fully addressed. It seems director Acker has only scratched the surface with his brilliant material and, this being his first feature film, has yet to bring his A-game to the fore. 9 is great as it is, but with more room for characterization, subtext and other storytelling elements, it could have been excellent. The film is also let down by a slightly plodding plot, even though it clocks in at a mere 79 minutes.
Even so, 9 emerges as a profound and superbly-crafted animated masterpiece that keeps its promise of being different from so many other animated films aimed squarely at children and possessing little substance. This one looks like a strong contender for the Best Animated Feature Oscar. Look out, Up.
RATING: 4/5 STARS
Tuesday 8th September 2009, 09:25
Up: A Listener's Review (cos the UK STILL haven't got it yet)
Us Brits are still waiting for Up. Come on, Pixar, pull your finger out. Who doesn't want to see an old man flying in a house attached to some balloons? Well us if you drag it out any loner. In the mean time, here's a review from across the world from us here in Blighty, from podcastee Jedd...
Toys, insects, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars, rats and robots. And the star of Pixar Animation Studios’ latest film? A cantankerous septuagenarian. Can a grumpy old man carry an animated film, the first to open the Cannes Film Festival? I am among those who think that the genius animators and storytellers at Pixar can make anything work-to a certain extent, at least.
Carl Fredericksen (Asner) is an aging, widower balloon salesman whose beloved house is threatened by a construction company. The film’s prologue tells the story of how an 8-year-old Carl meets his future wife Ellie, both sharing an interest in the adventures of famed explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). A montage sure to bring a tear to any eye shows the couple getting married and growing old together, working towards their dream of moving to Paradise Falls in South America, until Ellie passes away.
To keep his promise to Ellie to move to Paradise Falls, Carl creates a makeshift airship out of 10 000 helium balloons that lift his house off the ground. Carl, in his floating house is on his way until he discovers he has extra baggage in the form of an over-enthusiastic boy scout-type named Russell. Carl reluctantly lets Russell tag along, knowing he has no choice.
Surviving a violent storm, the two eventually make it to South America and attempt to walk to Paradise Falls, dragging the floating house along. On the way, they meet an exotic bird of paradise whom Russell nicknames “Kevin”, a talking Golden Retriever named Dug (Peterson) and Charles Muntz himself. However, mayhem ensues when Carl and Russell discover Muntz will do anything and everything to capture Kevin alive, having been previously called a fraud for bringing back a skeletal specimen of the bird.
Among Up’s strengths is its whimsical premise-a house carried into the sky by innumerable colourful, helium-filled balloons. The image of balloons emerging from under an unfurling tarp is awe-inspiring and beautifully-rendered, as is much of the movie.
Up is also undeniably a character piece. There is so much depth in the relationship between Carl and Ellie, even though it is told in 15 minutes and, for the most part, without dialogue. This whirlwind journey through the travails and simple joys of the 70 years they spend together is the film’s strongest portion.
A masterful balance has also been found in the characterization of almost everyone in the film. Audiences are able to laugh at Carl’s incessant grumpiness, but also sympathise with the hardship of losing his wife. Russell is endearing and not in the least irritating, as animated sidekicks can often be. Seven-year-old Jordan Nagai is perfectly cast as the rotund foil to Fredericksen. Bob Peterson, also the movie’s co-director, injects boundless energy into Dug, which makes for one of the most entertaining talking dogs in the cinematic history of talking dogs. Christopher Plummer also audibly relishes playing the stereotype, if only in voice, of the flamboyant adventurer with a Machiavellian streak.
The movie seems to hit all the right notes in combining plenty of delightful humour, moments of sadness, visual spectacle, an adventurous spirit and genuine peril-those heights are frighteningly realistic, especially in 3D, and there is plenty of dangling thousands of feet up in the air.
However, Up is not perfect, and despite its many positive points, is not Pixar’s best effort in my opinion. The first half of the film is noticeably better than the second; for all it’s worth the primary colours of the rainforest and fairly exciting chase sequences cannot outshine the heartfelt love story between Carl and Ellie.
Up is also admittedly far-fetched, and while every effort is made to ground the story, it just seems to float up and up and up. At times the whimsical premise works against it, and portions of the film are a little too fantastical to be readily relatable to the audience. While the story is inventive, it is not as visionary or well-told as, say, Ratatouille or Finding Nemo. Even in terms of visual spectacle, Up doesn’t pack as much as Pixar’s action-packed superhero satire The Incredibles or WALL-E. The latter also has a slightly more endearing main character to carry the film.
All that said however, Up supercedes many mediocre animated films that cram too many pixels and not enough story into their 80-90 minutes. One can always expect more from Pixar, and despite its shortcomings, Up rises satisfyingly far above average.
3.5/5 STARS
Saturday 29th August 2009, 01:04
G.I. Joe: A listener's review
Us Movie Banter podcasters do our best to give fair and balanced reviews, but sometimes it needs you, the podcastee to give your tuppenceworth too. So here's an email sent in by Jedd, of G.I. Joe...
G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra is first and foremost a comic book or cartoon come to vivid life, and its strongest point is that it accepts the fact and does not take itself too seriously at all, reveling in its relative silliness. The film’s over-the-top nature is best exemplified by the sprawling hidden bases in locations as preposterous as under the Sahara Desert and at the North Pole, and the good old-fashioned “evil megalomaniac takes over the world” storyline. All this brings to mind the Bond films of yore, which over the last few years have lost much of their glamour and ridiculous spectacle.
However, it is painfully obvious at times that the movie tries to pack far too much into its 118 minutes, turning it into a partial cinematic equivalent of an elephant standing on thin ice. One action sequence begins barely before the last ends and as such it’s difficult not to feel overwhelmed by the proceedings-even when they are balanced with a nice assortment of character moments.
Characterization is not paper-thin per se, as one would expect with this sort of motion picture, but rather around as thick as a weekly magazine. To a limited degree of success, the film balances the wham-bam action sequences with the romantic subplot between Duke and the Baroness and also the rivalry between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, which stretches back to their childhoods.
Surprisingly, the performances are pretty much up to par, even though it is a given all eyes will be on the action and visual spectacle rather than the actors. This is the one genre of movie where over-the-top is welcome; everybody gets a chance to play the stereotype, and each of the actors seems to enjoy that very much.
Ultimately, the movie comes off as Wanted-lite, complete with entirely unbelievable action set-pieces, which include Duke and Ripcord wearing “accelerator suits” chasing the Baroness and Storm Shadow-with Snake Eyes hanging off the side of their Hummer-through the streets of Paris (leaving innumerable cars destroyed in their wake) and the ensuing destruction of the Eiffel Tower by way of nano-mites.
However, for a movie aimed in most part at youngsters and created mainly for the purpose of selling toys, it packs in an overwhelming amount of unrelenting violence. There are a smorgasbord of explosions, fisticuffs, flying bullets and impalements, and even a particularly brutal fight between two ten-year-olds. The Cobra henchmen get the worst of it: they are thrown into electrical arcs, set on fire, have grenades shoved into their helmets, fall into bottomless pits and get disintegrated from the inside-out.
In the end, GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a fairly entertaining trifle perfect for the attention-impaired and those who like their action flicks served with lots of (less-than convincing) CGI sauce. It’s a delightfully B-grade, feather-weight fantasy fuel for your inner ten-year-old boy that stays on the right side of average (Joe).
RATING: 3/5 STARS
Monday 10th August 2009, 05:17
The Ugly Truth review
Jon: First off, I'm a romcom fan. I realise, being a bloke, that makes me a soppy tart, but so be it. Either because of my sympathy for the genre or my general soppy tartiness, I tend to review them much as Roger Ebert did with...The World is Not Enough, I think - namely a checklist of criteria, and see how many boxes they tick. To my mind it's relatively hard to get a romcom badly wrong - The Wedding Planner comes to mind as one of the few examples. It was an insanely boring film - my only memory was one or both of the leads nearly being hit by a dumpster - if it had actually made contact and the credits had rolled, it would have given the audience a bigger laugh than any other bit of the movie and spared us all a lot of bother.
However, they're also very hard to get really right - it's rare to find a romcom that properly balances the rom and the com such that it's funny until the end, but also makes you care enough about the couple involved (and the other characters, too-often overlooked). Four Weddings and a Funeral is probably the best example of that - genuinely funny, genuinely touching, and while you're fairly sure the main couple will end up together (because they pretty much always do - My Best Friend's Wedding being a rare example of a semi-curveball), it throws in the occasional loop.
That inevitability is one of the main problems with the genre, but also the main reason a lot of people (myself included) go and see them - if you're in the mood for a few laughs and to see happy people get together, pretty much any one will do. If, however, you're in a cynical mood, give something like Very Bad Things a try instead. This is turning into a bit of a treatise on romantic comedies, which I don't mean it to be, but this is my first written review since starting to write here, so I figured best get it out now. My point is that for me, a romcom has to work that much harder to drag itself away from the "yeah, it was OK" middle-ground of reviews.
Anyway, The Ugly Truth. Katherine Heigl plays a control-freak TV producer, with Gerard Butler being her man-whore "talent". He starts giving her advice on how to seduce her new neighbour, leading to them of course spending time together, falling for each other, etc. etc. While as setups go it's no worse than many, and the two leads fit their parts....reasonably well, it's all appallingly two-dimensional. Every hint of a deeper plot or better characterisation has been purged, so while there are a few smiles, and a few laughs, you just don't really care.
This is doubly unforgivable given that there's a very good supporting cast on hand, none of whom get any worthwhile material, beyond a couple of good moments between John Michael Higgins and Cheryl Hines as the unhappily married co-hosts, but who are then all but forgotten about as the movie progresses. Likewise Bree Turner as the obligatory best friend/assistant, who bemoans her own love life but is never fleshed out to any degree.
Gerard Butler is built on to some extent as we meet his nephew, and see that how they are together hints at his real feelings underneath his shallow exterior. He also has a believable-ish moment when he explains to Katherine Heigl the run of relationships which led to his attitude towards women.
However, all of this is mostly steamrollered over by the leaps the movie takes over most worthwhile development. Much is made of Heigl's control-freakery, how it deters men, and how she's kept it hidden from her new man at the order of Butler, but we see hardly any of that, so when she finally reveals the truth to him we're more confused than he is. Likewise the growing attraction between the leads - Butler has a few lingering looks behind her back, prompted by...nothing, and Heigl's reciprocation also comes from pretty much nowhere.
The whole thing just feels like a fairly soulless exercise in romcom-making, which of course it is, but the trick is to hide that fact from the audience. Even the vibrating-knickers-incident, highlighted in the trailer, doesn't give much of a laugh beyond, well, watching the trailer. It ticks the basic boxes of relatively likeable leads and one or two jokes, but doesn't make any attempt at being a fully-grown film. It certainly whiles away 90-odd minutes, but with a better script and more time spent on the background characters it could have been worth seeing. As it is, save it for a DVD rental if you're really out of options. Oh, and the final scene just seemed a bit of a weird addition. If you're desperate for a romcom at the cinema, you're currently much better off (well, relatively speaking) with The Proposal, which may still be on - we reviewed it in last week's podcast.
Two final thoughts - this fits into a neglected (but it worked for me) middle ground between a regular quite sanitised romcom, and a more blokey comedy. It's got a surprising amount of swearing in it, but all in context and well-used. To be honest it makes it more believable given the subject matter and people discussing it - keeping it overly clean would have been a bit weird. Having said that I reckon my attitude will be quite unusual - it's more likely to put off an audience expecting something more gentle, while not really being the right sort of movie to attract bawdier types.
The second is that this does borrow lightly from When Harry Met Sally, both in terms of orgasms in public and a couple who have different attitudes to relationships but end up falling for each other (yeah, tenuous but it's where my mind went). Hardly an accusation of plagiarism, more just that it's unfortunate for this movie that it reminded me of a much better one. Meg Ryan's place in cinematic history is well and truly secure for now.
I've also just realised that rather than writing this, I should have been editing the podcast we recorded on Friday. Apologies - busy weekend. Will get it done later today.
Sunday 9th August 2009, 02:17
GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra review
Jon: I'm going to a run a risk here of contradicting/repeating my Transformers 2 review, so I'm choosing to not re-read that first. Feel free to hoist me by my own petard. This is based on a kids' comic/TV show that I've never really read/seen - here in the UK we had Action Man, which was a licensed version of GI Joe, but never really had the same impact - I had one back in the day but remember very little about it. As such I approached this with the bare minimum of knowledge about the characters or any in-jokes. I also had a healthy dose of low expectations after a ropey initial trailer and plenty of bad buzz - with hindsight no-one seems to know where that came from, which I think is telling.
Approach this with the understanding that it's basically a live-action cartoon and I think it'll stand you in good stead. The characters are defined with broad strokes and stupid names, the plot is fundamentally good vs. evil, there are gaps in logic, and yet....and yet, and yet, and yet.
At about the half-way point there's a well-executed chase through Paris, and from that point on I had a metaphorical, if not actual, grin on my face. It's all so cheerfully ridiculous, and yet played just straight enough that you can go with it. It's absolutely not a critics' movie - the script's functional at best (the line "deploy the sharks!" will forever hold a special place in my heart), the acting likewise, despite a fairly solid cast - Channing Tatum is Whalbergian in his blandness, but fortunately it's more of a team effort, despite him being the ostensible hero. However, I came out of it having had a blast.
This is where the Transformers 2 comparison comes in, because I recall saying very similar things about that. The difference is though that on many levels Transformers was actually awful, being far too long, wildly uneven in tone (leering at Megan Fox, genuine peril, childish humour, etc.), with characters you could barely identify, let along care about, etc. I still enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I felt slightly bad about that fact.
By contrast, GI Joe picks a level and sticks with it, namely the cartoon I mentioned before. Much like the cartoons of my youth, there are moments of levity, moments of tension, but they're well balanced. And most importantly over the course of the film we get introduced to all the characters, all human, with stupid but memorable names, and degrees of back story for most of them - it's hardly The Godfather, but it hits the rudimentary basics of film-making. That's not a reason to praise it too highly, but it's at least a reason not to tear it to shreds.
As such, it's a far easier recommendation to make than Transformers 2, which needed a lot of qualification. This will still only appeal to the teenage boy/action junkies among us, but let's be honest that's a fairly hefty chunk of the movie-going public. I feel I'm almost over-defending it against the unjustified bad press this was getting before release, but that's the point - it's unjustified. Could it have been a better movie? Absolutely, but just because something can be improved doesn't mean it's garbage in itself.
Fundamentally, GI Joe is a solid, uncomplicated movie. For many people that will translate as "stupid", which is arguably true, but my point is that rather than watching it while also driving virtual trucks through the plot holes, it all hangs together - bad guys want to cause chaos, good guys want to stop them, there's minimal exposition, nicely-constructed set-pieces, and enough characterisation that you care, at least to some degree, what happens to people (more than can be said for Transformers 2). Plus it doesn't overstay its welcome - rather than the 150 minutes of that movie, GI Joe comes in at about 1h 45 - far more reasonable, and makes the whole experience more enjoyable.
As such, if you're of a mind for a relatively mindless action movie, give this a go - I'm not going to sell it too hard, because I can't honestly say it'll suit everyone. However, for those who saw Transformers 2 expecting an entertainingly dumb explosion-fest and came away feeling a bit too dumb and overly exploded, this is almost certainly more the kind of thing you were after - I liked it a lot.
Tuesday 21st July 2009, 13:18
Moon, with some stars
Saw Moon yesterday - a fine, 'little' film (one actor has 99% of the lines, although it's set on a moon station with what looks like an impressive budget on the screen) with Sam Rockwell as the lonely astronaut on the dark side of the moon. Until he finds someone else there, who looks somewhat familiar...
I could go on, but won't, because it's a great watch, and although I felt it nearly lost its way halfway through (there were moments where it seemed it didn't quite know where it was going), it all came together beautifully at the end. It's a rewarding, well-rounded film where you can tell that one guy (who happens to be, in reality, David Bowie's son) has had this idea and put it together with very little studio involvement. And it's fantastic that nowadays technological advances mean that even a small, British, independent movie can convey a space station on the moon with stunning detail, let alone the very tricky visual effects of having Sam Rockwell in scenes with... Well that would ruin it, but you probably get the idea.
The main point of note was that this was a Monday afternoon in the centre of London - I won't say which cinema to preserve anonymity, and so that I can go again for a similar experience - but three seats to my left sat none other than top actor Tim Roth. Wow, I thought. Then I heard a loud voice three seats to my right, complaining to his son that the curtain after the trailers was shut for far too long and made a not-very-slick show of it. And that was Kevin McNally. Wow again.
So there I was, sat in a small little screen, in the same row as Mr Orange and First Mate Joshamee Gibbs. It felt like a premiere. So there's your tip - if want to watch movies with movie stars, Monday afternoons in central London is where you'll find them.
Friday 17th July 2009, 18:20
Episode 35mm
Ach! Ish habe Hogwarts auf mein Wand! That's right: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince and Bruno come under fire from Jon, Jen and Paul, plus This Week In Movie History, three film recommendations from Delorean car owner Stuart Nicholls (and Back To The Future isn't one of them), plus Desert Island Flicks looks at the best child actor performances.