THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008) - David Fincher

There are certain films that you know are made for awards ceremonies. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button certainly comes across as one of those types of films. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching them, you know exactly the type of audience the film is made for. David Fincher takes a different direction than the dark thrillers he’s known for by directing Benjamin Button. But will the unknown territory work against Fincher’s style.

Benjamin Button is a baby born on the night World War I ends. His mother dies in birth and his father, a rich factory owner is horrified when he sets eyes on his baby son. Benjamin is born with a condition that causes him to age backwards. He is born an old man and gets younger as he gets older. Benjamin ends up living in an old folk’s home, where he simply appears to be one of the people staying there. But as he gets older, and his faculties return, Benjamin wants to get out and see the world. Despite his love for a young girl, the granddaughter of one of the old folks, Benjamin must see the world. And so he sets off, unsure where his travels will take him.



A lot has been made of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button being very similar to Forrest Gump. And in ways, they are quite similar. They both feature protagonists who are unique in the world. They both long to go out and see different things. They are both in love with an unattainable girl. So, yeah, I’ll admit it could be argued that they’re practically the same movie. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Benjamin Button. Despite all the similarities, Benjamin Button’s still a very entertaining film to watch.

Firstly, it looks amazing. Fincher’s one of the great directors working today. Working with cinematographer, Claudio Miranda, Fincher creates a film steeped in detail and gorgeous colours. Aside from the special effects, which I’ll get to in a moment, the quality of the production is second to none. 1920s New Orleans looks amazing. Russia feels cold and sharp. And the golden era of 1950s America is suitably golden. And the special effects themselves are fantastic. The old (or is it young) Benjamin Button really looks as if they somehow aged and shrunk Brad Pitt. The only thing that still remains elusive when it comes to creating CGI people is they eyes. No matter how expensive and professional the CGI, they still can’t get human eyes right. There’s just something empty about them. I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul!



Pitt’s performance is good enough for the role. The thing about Button is, he seems to be an observer in his own world, rather than somebody who drives events. When it came to Forrest Gump, while Gump was observing the things he witnessed, he did have a significant role to play in the events. Button seems to be drifting from event to event and allowing things to happen to him. And this reflects in Pitt’s performance. He just seems to be observing and isn’t required to do very much. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the object of Button’s affections. While the character does come off as a bit of a bitch, Blanchett plays her very well. The rest of the characters are played by some very good character actors, including Elias Koteas, Jared Harris and Jason Flemyng and are all very good in their roles.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’s not as memorable as Forrest Gump. Nor is it really deserving of the 13 Oscar nominations it’s received. I’m sure it’ll win a good few, but it’s in no way the film of 2008. It’s entertaining, and inoffensive, but it’s not going to set the world on fire. Fincher’s direction is rock solid. It looks amazing, and the performances are good, if not the best we’ve seen the actors deliver. And it should be seen on the big screen. But as I said at the start, some films are made to get awards. This is one of them.


8/10

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) - Steven Spielberg

In the history of cinema, there are few film characters as iconic as Indiana Jones. His hat and whip alone are enough for most people to instantly recognise the character in question. He is the genius creation of George Lucas, directed brilliantly by Steven Spielberg and brought to life by Harrison Ford. Like many of my friends, I’ve grown up with the character and he’ll always be the quintessential hero to me and my friends. And after nineteen years of anticipation, we are given one more (and possibly not the last, never say never) adventure featuring the brilliant archaeologist. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.

It’s 1957. Nineteen years since Indiana Jones and his father rode out of the desert after defeating the Nazis’ attempt to get their mitts on the Holy Grail. A group of Russian soldiers break into a secret American military storage facility and force Indy to find the location of a box containing a mummy. Indy manages to escape but not without stopping the Russians who are under the command of a Russian military scientist with a penchant for the paranormal. Later on, Indy is contacted by a young man named Mutt Williams. Mutt needs Indy’s help to rescue his friend, an old colleague of Indy’s named Professor Oxley. It is Williams’ mother, Marian who suggested he seek out Indiana Jones. So Indy and Williams head for Peru to find out what happened to Oxley.



So, almost two decades after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, we’ve finally been given the sequel many of us thought we’d never see. Harrison Ford’s in his sixties, something that could present a bit of a problem considering the Indiana Jones films are action films. However, Lucas, Spielberg and Ford decided to use this as an advantage rather than a hindrance. So we have old Indy. In a play on the line from Raiders of the Lost Ark, ‘it’s the years, not the mileage.’ But is the film a success? With a franchise this beloved, there was a real fear that after so long, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull might be to Indiana Jones what The Phantom Menace is to Star Wars. The good news is, it’s no Phantom Menace. The bad news is, it’s no Raiders. Or Crusade. Or even Temple Of Doom.

The first thing I thought as the credits rolled on The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was how much of a mixed bag it is. There are some moments in the film that are absolutely akin to what we know and love of the other three films. The opening salvo, the inevitable action sequence that draws you into an Indiana Jones film is as good as the previous films. While Ford definitely looks older, and moves a little bit slower, the action sequence in the military base is brilliant. It really recaptures the feeling of the previous films. After this sequence, I found myself grinning immensely at what I was watching. As the action was moved to Indy’s Marshall College, I felt the old pang of nostalgia for the old movies. Yet as the film progressed from here, the smile began to wane a bit. When the action moves to Peru, it’s here that the film’s major weaknesses takes hold.



The first major weakness of the film is David Koepp’s script. Koepp stated that he wanted to create an Indiana Jones script that wasn’t filled with obvious references. A film that was a mix of the comedy/adventure from Raiders, less dark than Temple Of Doom and less jokey than The Last Crusade. Setting the film in the 1950’s would move the film away from the 1940’s serials-influenced style of the previous films and more into the red-scare sci-fi adventures of the 1950’s. Unfortunately, by doing this, Koepp has fooled around with Indiana Jones too much. As a sequel to The Last Crusade, some of the story elements (without going into too much spoiler detail) are quite logical and don’t seem out of place. But by striving to make the film some-what of an homage to the 1950’s films, this is where it falls flat. It’s almost legend at this stage that George Lucas rejected Frank Darabont’s Indiana Jones script. I really hope we get to read that script someday. Because I’d bet quite a lot that it’s far superior to Koepp’s script.

The MacGuffin, the artefact that Indy is striving to get his hands on just doesn’t hold up to the previous films. There’s no sense of urgency about the crystal skulls. In one way, I thought it might have been due to the fact that the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are biblical artefacts. However, even the Sankara Stones (and essentially, it’s the village children who are the MacGuffin in The Temple of Doom) have more of an impact. The Crystal Skull just doesn’t seem to be exciting enough of an artefact. And by losing this sense of urgency, the excitement is somewhat killed in The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. By the time the climax of the film comes about, there’s little to the proceedings that really excites. It all just seems a little TOO far-fetched. I know that sounds like a ridiculous complaint considering the subject matter, but there was just something a little more grounded in reality about the previous artefacts. The Crystal Skull requires a leap of faith that’s just too much.



The other major problem with the film is that there is way too much of a George Lucas influence on the film. Far be it from me to criticise the man. He’s an incredibly successful business man. Without him, there would be no Indiana Jones at all. But as we have seen in the Star Wars prequels, some of his decisions when it comes to his films leave a lot to be desired. And unfortunately for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, there are moments that have his fingerprints all over them. There are some completely unnecessary cutesy animal moments that had me shaking my head in disbelief. These stood out like a sore thumb and did not belong in an Indiana Jones film.

The action sequences are staged very impressively. As I’ve mentioned, the sequence in the storage facility is particularly impressive. The chase in Marshall College is very entertaining. But the main showcase of the film, the chase in the rainforest, while impressive, again, doesn’t feel like it belongs in an Indiana Jones film. It attempts to replicate some of the great chase sequences from the previous films, but ups the ante too much. Everyone seems to be a superhero in it. And amazingly, after a short burst of action at the beginning, Indy takes a back seat for the rest of the sequence. The focus shifts to Mutt Williams as he swash-buckles, and leaps between the chasing vehicles. And in one stunningly ill-conceived moment, swings from the trees like Tarzan. It’s this one moment that really took me out of the illusion that I was watching an Indiana Jones film. I understand the purpose of that sequence was to hark back to the Tarzan films of the 50’s, but it’s such a bad idea, it’s so out of place that I’m still astonished it was put into the film. The climax of the film, the inevitable moment where the villain succumbs to their greed is also quite disappointing. It’s a CGI-fest and a little over the top. I’m all for progressing the technology of film, but at this moment, I really missed the stop-motion moments from Raiders and Crusade. Don’t get me wrong, Steven Spielberg is the greatest of all popcorn directors. But there’s just something lacking here.



Harrison Ford steps back into role of Indiana Jones and is quite successful, at moments. While he’s older and a little bit slower, there’s still a sparkle in the eye, and a wry grin at the appropriate moments. But then, there are problems with the script that affect the character too. For some reason in the film, Indiana Jones is rarely referred to as Indiana Jones. He seems to insist (as does everyone else) on calling himself Henry. I seem to recall a line in The Last Crusade that went ‘I like Indiana.’ And so do I. Yet he’s rarely referred to as such, and it’s quite unsettling. Another thing missing from the film is the sexual tension between Indy and his leading lady. Cate Blanchett plays Irina Spalko, the Russian agent. But the opportunity to have something between herself and Indy is missed. And it’s a wasted opportunity considering Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood turns up. There could have been a great competitive subplot going on between the two women, but again, a lost opportunity.

Many balked at the fact that Shia LaBeouf was cast in the film. But I have to say, he’s one of the stronger elements of the film. He fits in quite well within the canon of Indiana Jones, and the way they’ve switched the relationship elements that existed between Ford and Connery in The Last Crusade works very well. It’s quite obvious that Lucas and Spielberg are setting Mutt Williams up as a new adventurer. And while that’s perfectly fine, it does distract attention away from Indy, which is a damn shame.

It saddens me to be disappointed in an Indiana Jones film. But as the credits rolled, I found myself willing the disappointment out of me. But it remains. There are some brilliant moments in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Some quite authentic Indiana Jones moments. But they’re not moments that will stand out compared to the previous films. There’s no shooting the swordsman moment. There’s no melting faces and exploding heads. There’s no rope-bridge stand-off. There’s no brilliantly played out father-son one-upmanship. And there’s no rapid aging showdown. There is some very sweet action sequences, and Ford does have flashes of the old Indy. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is a decent action film. But it’s not a very good Indiana Jones film. And that’s the real disappointment.


6/10

I'M NOT THERE (2007) - Todd Haynes

When is a biopic not a biopic? The answer is when it’s Todd Haynes’ examination of the life and experiences of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. Dylan is one of, if not, the greatest songwriter of all time. As well as writing some of the greatest songs ever sung, Dylan’s life has seen the singer go through many different personas. After emerging as the great poster boy of 60’s folk music, enlightening a generation to social problems, alienating a great many of his folk fans by switching to electric guitar, to his ‘rebirth’ as a Christian, Dylan’s life would make for a pretty packed straight biopic. But Haynes departs from the conventional biopic and presents Dylan’s many personas through a number of different characters. This is not Walk The Line.

As mentioned, I’m Not There concentrates on six different characters, each of which personify either Dylan at a different time of his life, or an aspect of his life. Firstly we have Marcus Carl Franklin who plays an eleven year old boy by the name of Woodie Guthrie (after the folk singer and inspiration for the real Dylan) who travels the south in box cars, singing songs and spouting wisdom far beyond his years. Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, a protesting folk-singer who turns his back on music in favour of devotion to God. Heath Ledger is Robbie Clark, an actor who makes his break playing Jack Rollins in a biopic of the singer. Ben Whishaw is Arthur Rimbaud who answers questions in front of what seems to be some sort of panel of agents. Cate Blanchett portrays Jude Quinn, who is the personification of Dylan we’ll be most familiar with. Quinn has just arrived in Britain to hoardes of fans, accusations of selling out, and more drugs than he can handle. And finally, Richard Gere plays Billy the Kid who has turned his back on society to live a life in solitude in some sort of anachronistic version of the old west.



As much an examination of what a biopic is as a study of Dylan’s life, I’m Not there mixes many different styles and techniques as it presents each story. For example, the segment about Jack Rollins is shot as a documentary that is a retrospective of Rollins’ life. Where as, the segment about Jude Quinn is more what would be expected from a conventional biopic. Haynes mixes up the stories and cuts back and forth between each character. The result is we never quite know what time period we’re in, and where things are happening. The Quinn part being the only sure part of the film since that period in Dylan’s career is probably the most famous. We see Quinn’s first live performance using an electric guitar, something that horrifies his fans and spills over to the tour of Britain he undertakes where cries of ‘Judas!’ are heard from the crowd.

In biopics, the performances of the actors portraying the real life person is always going to be under the most scrutiny. Having six actors portray the same person, or an aspect of that person does make for an incredibly interesting experience. Yet it’s not like you spend the film thinking ‘well, that actor is more the Dylan I know than that actor.’ In fact, every performance in the film is excellent, whether it’s one of the six central actors, or a member of the supporting cast. One of the best performances in the film comes from Bruce Greenwood, who plays Keenan Jones, a BBC journalist who personifies all the journalists who attacked Dylan for turning his back on humanity and the plight of his fellow man when he made the change from folk to electric. Greenwood also plays and aged Pat Garrett, the arch nemesis of Billy the Kid, who wants to destroy the town the Kid has come to love after turning his back on his former outlaw life.



However, the performance that is getting the most attention, and deservedly so, is Cate Blanchett, who plays Jude Quinn. Aside from the fact that Blanchett is a woman portraying a man, she also becomes a version of Dylan that is instantly recognisable. Anyone who’s seen Martin Scorsese’s brilliant No Direction Home will recognise what Blanchett has achieved when they see the footage of Dylan in Britain in the 60’s. Not only is Blanchett brilliant at portraying this pastiche of Dylan, she also puts in a brilliant performance of a singer at the height of his fame, and how the excesses, and his own personality are slowly destroying him physically. Blanchett’s scenes with Bruce Greenwood, and the moments with David Cross as beat poet Allen Ginsberg are among the highlights of the film.

It’s needless to say that the soundtrack is fantastic. Haynes doesn’t just go for the instantly recognisable songs from Dylan’s vast catalogue throughout the film. Of course, anyone vaguely familiar with Dylan’s music will recognise some of the bigger hits. However, Haynes also employs a number of artists to cover Dylan’s songs throughout the film. The characters sing Dylan’s songs, but sung by different artists. There are Dylan-sung Dylan songs in there, but by the cover versions add a refreshing twist to the film, and suit the scenes perfectly.

Of course the question begs, is there anything for non-Dylan fans in this film? While I’ll admit, being a Dylan fan, and having knowledge of his life certainly did add something to the film, I think there’s plenty to allow non-fans in. Like I said, I’m Not There is very different to the likes of Walk The Line. It’s certainly a more art-house film, and in no way a conventional biopic. But for someone as enigmatic as Dylan, it’s the perfect way to take a look at his life.


9/10

ELIZABETH (1998) - Shekhar Kapur

England's longest serving monarch, Elizabeth I certainly is a character worthy of the screen treatment. And in 1998, Shekhar Kapur brought Elizabeth to the screen in the movie, imaginatively titled... Elizabeth. The movie opens with an ailing Queen Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, ruling a decaying England. She, being devoutly Catholic, is determined to make England once again Catholic and is destroying anybody who is found to be Protestant. Her half-sister, Princess Elizabeth is in league with Protestant dissidents within the kingdom. Mary has her half-sister locked in the Tower of London. But Mary soon dies and Elizabeth succeeds to the throne.
Now a Protestant Queen, Elizabeth finds that her own Bishops have no faith in her and wish her to fall. She is advised by her loyal subjects that the only way to secure her throne is to marry and produce an heir. She is given the choice of suitors from France and Spain, while her own true love, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester is regarded with suspicion by the Queen's court. Plots are hatched to bring about the demise of Elizabeth from as far as the Vatican in Rome, and after a few misguided blunders in her early years as Queen, Elizabeth learns that the only counsel she can keep is her own.



I am the first to admit, I know very little about English history. It was never a subject we covered in school, so what scant knowledge I have, I've picked up from the movies. So I am in no position what so ever to comment on the historical accuracy of the film. However, as a movie, Elizabeth refrains from being a weighty biopic and retains enough intrigue and drama to stay quite entertaining. The heart of the film is in Cate Blanchett's performance as Elizabeth. When we first meet the soon-to-be-queen, she is naive of the politics of state and has a very innocent view of the world. She spends her days in entertaining pursuits, and when she is presented to Queen Mary, she is very timid. But over the course of the film, she gains confidence and authority, and it is a testament to Blanchett's performance that this is fascinating to watch. In fact, the performance is so good that it overshadows everyone else's, which includes heavy-weights like Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston and Richard Attenborough. However, since this is a film ABOUT Elizabeth, this is to be expected!
The film's photography and production design is beautiful. The period is captured very accurately (as far as I can tell!) in terms of costuming and set design, while the cinematography captures the vibrant colors in rich detail. While some historic epics can be a little daunting, Elizabeth is intriguing enough to hold your attention, and Blanchett's Oscar-nominated performance is worth checking out.

7/10