“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” – film review

I’m not sure what the moral implications are of watching a sequel before the original, but I’ve not really been that keen on catching Wall Street 1 but sort of guessed what the general gist of it was and heard roughly how it ended.

So, how does watching a sequel “blind” work out?

I guess I’ll find out when I finally watch the original, but for some reason I was attracted to seeing Money Never Sleeps to satisfy certain curiosities… namely, why does a director who tends to tackle quite serious political issues in one-off releases feel the need to dig out a film he made twenty years ago and make his first ever sequel?

I’ve not seen many Oliver Stone films, not because he’s a bad director or a boring visualist, but because, like Martin Scorsese, his usual subject matters don’t tend interest me very much. On the odd occasion that he does stray away from war films or political musings then you’ll find me forking out the cash for a reduced-to-clear dvd copy.

There’s an important and valid point made in Money Never Sleeps which the news media really needs to make clear to the general public when the country falls into another recession: a capitalist economy is cyclical, you’ll get dips and crashes in the market but this needs to happen in order for it to regenerate itself… so don’t panic!! Numbers can’t hurt you, things will work out in the end and people, lives and relationships are far more important than year end bonuses. Freedom and wealth can’t be counted and felt in bank balances and possessions.

I did brace myself for an angry film about sharp suited yuppies clambering for money and power, but I’m guessing that’s what the original film was about. Even though this one sort of starts off like that, it actually turns out to be a very sweet and warm hearted little film that wants to inspire people to push themselves to improve the world for the greater moral good rather than for personal gain.

There’re ace performances from the lovely (oh so lovely) Shia LaBeouf (who’s managing to prove that he’s not just another young stud from the Hollywood cookie cutter to end up in the forgotten footnotes of movie casting history), Michael Douglas (one of my favourite movie stars… he’s just so cool and nobody gets angry quite like him) and Carey Mulligan (who’s stunning emotional breakdowns and twinkly, tear filled eyes are given extra screen time and pauses by Stone’s adoring camera).

Money Never Sleeps is a film about hope and believing in doing the right thing even though it doesn’t earn you millions and billions of sweet, sweet dosh.

Give it a go, then watch the first one.

"Scott Pilgrim vs The World" - film review

“Alfie tells the story of a young man who leads a promiscuous lifestyle until several life reversals make him rethink his purposes and goals in life.”

- Alfie (1966 film), Wikipedia

“Slacker:
someone who, while being intelligent, doesn't really feel like doing anything.”

- The Urban Dictionary

“Me and some guys from school
Had a band and we tried real hard
Jimmy quit and Joey got married
Shoulda known we'd never get far”

- from “Summer of 69” by Bryan Adams

The self-indulgent fantasies we have throughout our lives include themes of revenge, heroism, regret and sex. Scott Pilgrim vs The World joins a steadily mounting list of films such as Kick-Ass, Brazil, American Psycho, Inglorious Bastards and Once Upon A Time In America where the reality of what we’re watching is blurred by the suggestion that we are not watching events from a third person perspective, but from a first person perspective.

Scott Pilgrim, Kick-Ass and Brazil all feature fairly ordinary young men who go about their lives in a daze, fantasizing about being somebody they’re not and achieving things they can only dream about. In Brazil this is clear, most of the time Jonathan Pryce’s character Sam Lowry drifts off into soft-focus fantasies about being a winged hero rescuing a damsel in distress but eventually finds the reality of enacting such a scenario in real life far more complicated and painful. In Kick-Ass the fantasy is vague and based on how the viewer perceives things. Our main character pretends to be gay in an attempt to maintain a deception-based relationship with a girl he is in love with. The justification for this lying alter-ego manifests itself in a world of superheroes, where retaining ones secret identity is just as important and acceptable. Scott Pilgrim seems to be a little of both. A lot of what goes on in the film is clearly a fantasy, but there is no definition between the real world and the comic book/video game/superhero world. They are all integrated and intertwining in Scott Pilgrim’s mind.

The revenge fantasy of Inglorious Bastards presents an alternate reality where high ranking Nazi’s receive different and much more personally motivated ends and shares themes with Sergio Leone’s gangster epic Once Upon A Time In America about characters who cope with unresolved issues and feelings of guilt or desires for revenge through fantasy. It is believed that in Once Upon A Time In America the scenes where Robert DeNiro’s character Noodles returns to New York as an old man and attempts to solve a thirty year old mystery are the mere opium fuelled dreams of a guilt-ridden young man. With this in mind, you could argue that Inglorious Bastards ends at the beginning with the young girl escaping certain death from murderous Nazi’s through an open field… the rest of the film is her revenge fantasy unfolding as she flees. Scott Pilgrim gets his chance to revise the ending to his own movie, but not so subtly… he can just rewind events and play them out differently, something we’ve all wanted to do from time to time. I suppose you can forgive this time-bending attempt to wash away feelings of defeat and regret, after all, Pilgrim is being forced to play out the extremely petty revenge fantasies of seven other characters.

Towards the end of Scott Pilgrim vs The Word the titular lead character apparently earns the “power of self respect”. However he seems to have nothing but misguided ego and self-respect throughout the film as he lies and cheats his way through a series of meaningless relationships. Somewhere down the line Scott Pilgrim has convinced himself that this is acceptable behavior. He is another Patrick Bateman, and as with the American Psycho “serial killer” how can we possibly trust what our antihero tells us. If he is a liar and a cheat, then why should we accept anything that we see? Has the whole violent series of events we’ve just witnessed been just part of his fantasy?

Taken at face value Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a film let down by a central romance involving two attractive but rather dull and heartless people and never really recovers from it’s weakest but most pivotal plot point: if Scott Pilgrim has to fight seven ex-partners of a girl he’s only just met and knows very little about, how long will it take for him (and the audience) to get fed up and question whether she’s actually worth it?

Not long.

But as a first person fantasy about lust and wish fulfillment it’s an exciting visual spectacle with an abundance of strong supporting characters that add dimension to an otherwise cold little movie. In fact the film really seems to crank up a notch when Jason Schwartzman arrives on screen towards the end. He does so well to brighten things up that you sort of wish they’d written him into earlier parts of the film.

Anyway, none of this matters of course, as it was all just a dream…

"Speed Racer" - film review

Caught somewhere between Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Star Wars Episode II Attack Of The Clones, the purpose of Speed Racer seems not to evoke the cardboard feel of it’s origins but to exist in a bouncy Warner Brothers universe that dabbles in the uncertain editing and awkward silences of the Star Wars prequels.

If you’re not sure whether the film’s creative team wants us to take the disjointed and gravity-defying reality of Speed Racer seriously, fear not, the moment some penguins provide a screen wipe whilst waddling through a car factory then you’ll cease to care and accept that you’re just here to enjoy the ride.

Yes the racing scenes are confusing, but the Wachowski’s don’t seem particularly interested in terrestrial car racing, they want you to feel like you’re watching the podrace from The Phantom Menace or the speeder chase in Attack Of The Clones. You sort of work all that out pretty early on and get on board, so don’t worry.

As with JJ Abram’s recent Star Trek resuscitation this is a film about people taking pride in their work and finding passion and creativity in the most greasy and sterile of environments. We all have a purpose, something that drives us, but not everybody can relate to our individual needs in life. Some people are race car drivers, some are businessmen, some are sports commentators, some are gangsters. Whatever. Speed Racer has an abundance of passionate souls who, without their chosen vocation, would be lost in life.

Beyond the look and moral centre of Speed Racer we’re treated to some strong and earnest performances. I’m guessing these days most acting schools come with a “Working With Blue Screen” module that puts budding thesps at ease when speaking and performing to perhaps nothing more than a marker for their eye-line. Things are improving. Emile Hirsch, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Christina Ricci, Matthew Fox and Roger Allam all punch through the millions of dollars worth of special effects and give their characters real weight and value, as opposed to some CGI filled efforts where actors stand around looking bemused and slightly frightened.

Some odd pauses could have been trimmed or edited out and the time jumping narrative tightened to avoid some moments of confusion, but these elements seem to add to the heightened quality of the experience.

Speed Racer is fun, dazzling, camp, exciting, silly, surprising, full of heart and definitely worth a viewing. Even though references can be made and comparisons drawn, this really is a unique experience and will leave you desperate to find out how things end.

Go for it.

"Inception" review

Tired of waiting for somebody else to bring William Gibson’s Neuromancer to the big screen, Christopher Nolan has clearly turned frustration into creativity and written his own version of the story to make. However, with Inception, we aren’t dealing with the internet or the “matrix”, but with dreams. The idea is basically the same. Thieves try to break into dreams and people try to hide within them.

What I like about Inception is that it is what it is: a heist movie. It’s a tight, clean-cut sci-fi tinged thriller with no grand, reality shifting twist to second guess or new plane of amazement to attempt to wow audiences with in the final reel. All the film asks you to do is listen, concentrate and remember. If you don’t… then you’re lost.

I was surprised I enjoyed Leonardo DeCaprio for once. You completely forget you’re watching that annoying twit from Titanic and just get drawn into the world of his character. I also enjoyed the performances of 3rd Rock From The Sun’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt (now all grown up and sporting some very flattering sharp suits) and Tom Hardy (who’s throaty Brit accent is to die for and his line reading is wonderfully frank and fresh).

I was disappointed by Ellen Page, who I loved so dearly in Juno. Her purpose in this movie is to soak up exposition. She’s the “newbie” character who needs things explaining. In effect, she’s our insider, we watch her and hear what she asks in order to understand the world of Inception. Unfortunately she doesn’t fit the role very well and quite often gets vocal intonations wrong whilst delivering a string of dry feed lines for the other actors/characters to play off.

The role of Cillian Murphy could have done with a little more clarity and moral definition. As the pawn in a very confusing game he is neither good nor bad, however since so much in the narrative is rested on his character’s decisions then this ambiguity leads perilously close to letting go of the viewer’s attention towards the end.

In summary, I enjoyed Inception for the complex suspense/espionage thriller that it is. Unlike The Matrix, it won’t change your perception or make you want to discuss what is real and what isn’t. Inception is clear on that: what’s real is real, when it’s not real then you can tell by the people walking on the ceiling.

Bastards, butchers and bums: Hard Target

Last night I dusted of this Jean-Claude Van Damme starring Hollywood debut from renowned action director John Woo. I was terribly worried that I’d be embarrassed by my consistent assertion over the years that it’s still the only decent film that Woo has made in America. I wasn’t really in the mood to back track and spend time re-evaluating things, but realised I might have to.

Thankfully I was pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable and well crafted the film still felt.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s a very silly film, but everybody involved in it seems to be trying their hardest to make it better than perhaps it’s budget would have allowed it to be. That’s not to say everybody takes the experience too seriously, as there’s a lot of lightness and fun in the right places, but some elements to the film are better than you would expect them to be.

Whilst Van Damme is reliably stone faced and intense as loner Chance Boudreaux his support cast really do shine and bolster the heart and soul of the action. A surprise standout is South African Arnold Vosloo (later to turn up in the Mummy series) who’s menacing demeanour is counterbalanced nicely by his cheeky bad-boy asides (not to the camera though, thank goodness). His performance is very natural and human, rather than two-dimensional and one-note.

Also on board is cinematographer Russell Carpenter who went on to lens James Cameron’s True Lies and Titanic… and you can tell that Hard Target must have helped him to get those valuable assignments. His lush oranges and blues are all in check and the waxy tone to his pallet is very rich and an interesting texture. He seems to have learnt a few things from the great Freddie Francis.

Most importantly, though, this isn’t a film that meanders. It could possibly be compared to the Liam Neeson kidnap thriller Taken for it’s tight construction. There isn’t a second wasted in Hard Target. Yes there are plot, character and emotional development scenes, but they don’t outstay their welcome or slow the pace. They are all key moments and aren’t cast aside as perfunctory. They all lay the foundations for the adventures to come.

So, why “bastards, butchers and bums”? Well, it suddenly occurred to me afterwards at how poorly men, as a gender, seem to be represented in the film. Hard Target shows a world full of destitute ex-soldiers living a rough and desperate existence, callous pornographers taking advantage on the vulnerable, malevolent and murderous businessmen who hunt for sport and crooked doctors who conceal and tamper with evidence for their own gain. Even random men in the street are unhelpful and refuse to provide sanctuary to characters being hunted to their deaths. I suppose Hart Target could be watched as a double-bill along with Once Upon A Time In America, a film thought to be let down by many critics as only portraying women as either “saints or whores”.

The balance seems to be lost in both films.

The IT Crowd, Episode 3: “Something Happened”

An episode that only half works because the storyline about Roy being sexually assaulted by a sports therapist during a relatively straight forward massage isn’t as funny as it’s meant to be. This wrong turn has a knock-on effect on both Moss’ reaction to Roy’s recounting of the incident and the later courtroom finale… neither of which work because what happens to Roy can actually be quite upsetting in real life and Chris O’Dowd’s emotional performance is a little too convincing.

This apparent attempt to pay tribute to Chris Morris and Brass Eye has the unfortunate effect of slightly undermining the seriousness of sexual assault, rather than satirising media witch-hunting.

Occasional poor editing choices mean that a few other moments in the episode stumble, but apart from that Jen’s romantic storyline is classic IT Crowd stuff which didn’t deserve to be pitted against such a dark companion story.

What happened, Graham? I await his DVD audio commentary with anticipation.

The negative Robin Hood reviews

The bad reviews I keep reading for this Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe version of the Robin Hood myth are just making me want to go and see it more.

The problem most American critics seem to have is that it isn’t the “classic Hollywood” treatment of the tale… with tights, pointy shoes and stick fights over rivers. The problem with that is that there never was a set story to betray and I think what Rid and his team have tried to do is show us what did happen back then and from that work out where the legend came from.

But since the now rather tired series of events that is apparently the “set” Robin Hood legend is all that is fixed in the American consciousness it ain’t going down too well over there.

I get the feeling British reviewers sick of the same old plot mechanics will favour this retelling.

"Watchmen" movie - first thoughts

There comes a time in many people’s lives when a sense of confusion about the nature of things overwhelms them. This might strike during childhood, teenage years, early adulthood, middle ages or beyond. It derives from that fundamental fear that in a vast, seemingly limitless universe what is the meaning and point to our lives, and why should we carry on through struggle and strife?

One point of view could be that in relation to the cosmos our lives are a pure accident. We are alive because our planet is this size, is this close to the sun and has gases around it that make it habitable. What we do with our lives, good or bad, has no real meaning. All plants and creatures are on this planet purely to serve their own regeneration, everything is about surviving to reproduce…. be it tree, flower, weed, ant, cat, dog or human, we simply are here to exist. There is no grand scheme or design to it all which will be revealed after we are gone.

The character of Dr Manhattan in Watchmen is grappling with this very point himself and, now gifted with superhuman ability, has become emotionally, morally and physically detached from humanity and Earth by the coldly logical answer. He sees misery and suffering and the prospect of more to come but cannot understand why either state really matters. On a long enough timeline everything becomes dust, why is it so important how it got there?

Watchmen has three main functions. The first is as a domestic drama involving masked heroes, vigilantes if you will, who’s glory days have come and gone. The second is as a fairly standard good versus evil popcorn pot-boiler, replete with cool gadgets and an impressive villain’s lair in which to stage a grand finale and showdown. The third is to pose that key philosophical question about he meaning of existence.

It’s worth watching on all three counts and is brave indeed for daring to provide food for thought for it’s viewers and risk a drop in ticket sales.

Unfortunately however, and I wish I didn’t have to say this, but the level of horrific violence displayed throughout does well to stop the viewer from truly empathising with it’s main protagonists... good or bad. This point may very well keep it from becoming a true classic. Then again, maybe the level of violence is, in itself, part of the philosophising that is at the heart of Watchmen.

Nowhere Boy

Ah ha, the human side of John Lennon at last.

My girlfriend and I escaped the cold to watch this at the Showroom cinema in Sheffield at the last minute. I think I was initially put off by watching a potential love-in to a man whose status as a genius I’ve never been particularly convinced of.

Using a solo song ("Mother") from his back-catalogue the film Nowhere Boy reminds us that this is not the story of The Beatles but of its founding member, (co...) singer, guitarist and songwriter. It’s a clever way to close matters at a point where you are expecting scenes of tawdry nightclubs in Hamburg.

Kristin Scott Thomas gives a wonderfully restrained performance as a woman constantly on the verge of boiling over and balances so many sides of a character at once that you are almost moved to stand up and applaud her by the end.

Aaron Johnson succeeds in pulling off the tricky task of portraying somebody who is outwardly fairly arrogant and dislikeable and finds some sympathy within, which kept me interested in following his story.

There is a dreadfully miscast actor as the young Paul McCartney who scowls and pouts his way through his scenes which feels at odds with the McCartney we all know. The actor would have been better off as George Harrison with a more lively and enthusiastic soul slotted into the role of Paul.

For some reason, perhaps my own deep cynicism, the scenes where the future members of The Beatles meet and begin forging their future felt quite embarrassing and are not really treated with a great deal of subtlety or originality… but then again Nowhere Boy isn’t a Beatles museum and it’s focus on domestic turmoil and tender emotions are at odds with the crowd pleasing Fab Four moments.