IN BRUGES (2008) - Martin McDonagh

Martin McDonagh is best known as an award-winning playwright. Writer of The Beauty Queen Of Leenane and A Skull In Connemara, in 2004 he turned his hand to filmmaking with short Six Shooter. The short went on to win an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film. This year McDonagh reteams with his lead man in Six Shooter, Brendan Gleeson, for the dark comedy, In Bruges.

Ray and Ken are two London-based Irish hitmen. After a hit ends in disaster, the two men ordered to go into hiding. Unfortunately for Ray, they’re sent to the town of Bruges in Belgium and told to wait for a telephone call from Harry, their boss. Ray’s a young, smart-arse and hates the picturesque beauty of the medieval town. Ken, on the other hand is a culture vulture and takes the town immediately. Ray wants to get pissed, Ken wants to see the sights. For some reason, they’re constantly at logger-heads. While on a night out, Ray meets Chloe, a Belgian girl working on the set of a film who sells drugs to the cast and crew. Ken finally gets the call from his psychotic boss, Harry. And from then on, things get a little heated.



The strength of In Bruges lies in McDonagh’s screenplay. The dialogue is smart and funny and the characters, while somewhat unrealistic for real life, fit the film perfectly. In Bruges is the kind of film that would fit into the whole Guy Ritchie kind of crime comedy genre. A genre that has truly become tired with the endless amount of films that try to emulate that style. But In Bruges avoids becoming just another of these films by avoiding trying to be ‘cool.’ It relies on the characters rather than the style of the film. There are a number of eccentric secondary characters that fill the cast, but none of these are too derivative.

The acting from the two principles is excellent. Brendan Gleeson has been in this kind of film before. In 1997’s incredibly underrated comedy, I Went Down, Gleeson showed his flair for comedy. Yet in that film he was the idiot, bumbling his way through proceedings, but getting the job done. Here, he’s a lot more subtle, and almost plays the straight man to Colin Farrell’s character, Ray. Yet he still has his moments for comedy, and seems right at home working with McDonagh.
Colin Farrell’s character, Ray is the main source of comedy for the film. He’s impetuous and quickly bores, and while he initially hates Bruges, once he gets out into the town and starts interacting with the denizens, the chances for comedy increase. But Ray is also the heart of the film. The disastrous hit that the men are on the run for is entirely his fault, even if circumstance does come into it. He’s incredibly affected by what he’s done, and it really shows. Farrell’s known more for his personality than his acting, but here, he shows he’s got talent.
Ralph Fiennes has a smaller, but pivotal role as Harry, the foul-mouthed, hot-tempered boss. Fiennes rarely does comedy. He’s known for his very dark roles, and it’s this that adds to his character. In a way, he seems like a comedy version of Ben Kingsley’s character Dom Logan from Sexy Beast. However, that’s not saying that Fiennes is just rehashing the role. He does make Harry his own.



As I’ve said, McDonagh’s script is the star of the film. But his skill at directing his actors also deserves mention. He gets the best out of his cast, and there’s never a dull moment. It's full of funny moments, but at the same time, it has a dark edge. A surprisingly dark edge. But any mention of that would lead me into spoiler territory, and that's not somewhere I want to go. It’s McDonagh’s first feature, and I hope it’s not his last. While his experience as a playwright comes through in the script, that’s not a complaint. Occasionally an Irish film does make an impact. Last year’s Once sure made it’s mark. While In Bruges is a totally different film, it deserves to be seen. Not flawless, but damned entertaining.


8/10

NEW Indy Poster

This is where it's at really! The new poster fits in perfectly with the style of the previous posters. The 'head' posters as it were.

It ain't the mileage, it's the years!

Just released is another new image from Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indy seems to be heading straight into the business end of an AK-47, but then reckless endangerment of one's own life was never a concern for our fedora-sporting hero. I just hope the leap doesn't result in some sort of hip-breakage...



And in other news....

Actor Aaron Eckhart has confirmed that Two-Face, the evil incarnation of Harvey Dent WILL make an appearance in the upcoming The Dark Knight. Long rumored, but never confirmed, there was speculation that the sequel to Batman Begins would be a film more about the fall of Dent rather than focusing on The Joker. This seems to confirm this. What's even more encouraging is that Eckhart says the Dent/Two-Face arc will continue into a third film. Great news, as long as Christopher Nolan and his crew stay on board...

Here are (most of) the WATCHMEN

Full character shots of some of the central characters in Watchmen, due next year. They've hit pretty close to the mark for the most part, while updating the costumes for the big screen. Most laymen wont be familiar with these characters, but for those in the know, this is pretty exciting. What Zack Snyder delivers should be pretty freakin sweet.

Rorshcarch-

The Comedian-

Ozymandias-

Nite Owl-

Silk Spectre-

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) - Paul Thomas Anderson

There are good films. There are great films. And then there are films that come along, once in a decade, if we’re lucky, that are so different that they seem to reinvent the medium. These films are received in different ways. Sometimes they’re heralded as the second coming, and sometimes they are even lambasted by critics and it’s years before they’re properly appreciated. What defines these films for me, is their affect on me. How much I’ll be thinking of them after I see them. Rarely has a film perplexed me and astounded me as Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood.

Adapted from the Upton Sinclair novel, Oil!, first published in 1927, There Will Be Blood is a tale of greed versus religion and a clash between two forces who are relentlessly ambitious but have vastly different goals. The novel Oil! was a very political novel with Sinclair even sending it to members of congress. In his adaptation, Anderson changed the protagonist and stripped the novel down to the story of Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a silver prospector who stumbles across oil in his silver mine. He drills for oil and hits paydirt, but in the process, one of his workers is killed, leaving his son an orphan. Plainview takes the baby on as his own. Years pass and Plainview has made a name for himself in the oil business when he is approached by a young man who claims his home town is rich in untapped oil. He sells the location of the town to Plainview, who takes his son H.W. and seeks out the town. When he finds that it is indeed rich with oil, he sets about selling himself to the town to take their oil. But the brother of the young man who approached Plainview, Eli Sunday has his own plans. He’s a shrewd preacher who wants Plainview’s money to build his church. They have vastly different goals which cannot be achieved without great confrontation.



By now, you’ll have read or heard quite a bit about There Will Be Blood. Not only about the incredible performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, but also about the film itself. But to be honest, it’s extremely difficult to do the film justice here. In fact, just one viewing of the film doesn’t do it justice. It’s so packed with detail that the nuances of the actors’ performances, every minute detail of the production design and direction cannot be taken in first time. Central to this wonderful dilemma is Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview. There are very few scenes in the film where Day-Lewis isn’t on screen. And when he is, it is next to impossible to take your eyes off him.

Plainview is an incredibly complex character. At the very heart of him, he is the embodiment of ambition. Ruthless ambition. But aside from that, there are so many levels to his character. He’s charismatic, yet hates people with a passion. He’s gentle in some moments, and explodes with rage in others. He’s greedy, yet generous if it helps him achieve his goals. Yet the depiction of this character isn’t just of an evil man. Throughout the course of the film we see the disintegration of Plainview into a twisted, bitter old man. By the third act, Plainview is consumed by the worse parts of his character, and in some ways becomes a more typical movie villain. But this isn’t a flaw. This is, after all, a character study film, and this part of it is warranted after what has preceded.



Day-Lewis’ performance is as detailed as the character he is playing. Every gesticulation, every twitch in his face is essential to the performance and is fascinating to watch. While I’d heard great things about the performance before heading into the film, I was fascinated at how Day-Lewis just seems bigger than the screen size. He seems to transcend the film, and at points overshadows the plot. In some cases, this might be a problem, but the tension built in the film prevents this from happening. There are moments of such palpable tension that the film becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. This is what filmmaking can do when it’s executed perfectly. Some have criticised Day-Lewis for channelling John Huston in Chinatown, which is where he drew inspiration for his accent in the film. But if doing this was a problem, it would be a problem I would like to see more in films these days. While I’m trying desperately to avoid hyperbole, it’s no exaggeration to say that Day-Lewis’ performance will be remembered as one of the screens’ greatest. It’s up there with DeNiro playing Travis Bickle and Brando playing Terry Malloy.

Playing opposite Day-Lewis is Paul Dano as both Paul and Eli Sunday. It’s an unenviable task. How do you possibly try to make your presence felt in the face of such overpowering acting? Yet Dano does an excellent job as Eli. Eli is similar to Plainview in only one way- ambition. And Dano carries this across quite well. He’s playing a fire and brimstone preacher, and delivers the scripture spouting venom you’d expect from the role. But it’s when he’s playing off Day-Lewis when he’s at his best. It’s a shame Dano wasn’t recognised more at awards time. Despite being overshadowed by Day-Lewis in the entire film, he does hold his own when opposite him.



But the film isn’t only about the actors. It’s a film not only about ambition, but also made with ambition. A hell of a lot of it. The scope of the film is enormous. It attempts to chart the beginnings of the oil industry through one story. And in a way, it does achieve this. We get a sense of how prospectors and oil companies moved into an area, staked their claim and basically took over. Business took precedence over people, and money was the ultimate goal. This is clear. But at the same time, it’s a microcosm of this, told through the eyes of two men. And it’s this that stops the film from being overshadowed by the acting. It’s through Anderson’s superb writing and direction that the film is such a fascinating watch. There are a number of scenes in the film that are just perfect. The cinematography, by Robert Elswit is incredible. The Californian desert blisters the screen. Jets of flaming oil burn beautifully in the dark. The music, by Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood is very different to what you’d expect from a film as epic as There Will Be Blood. It’s stripped down and doesn’t rely on themes. Yet this compliments the film more than a full orchestral score would. In one of the many perfect scenes, an oil well explodes. Plainview similarly explodes into action. The screen erupts with the image of a towering flame, and the score bursts into percussion. All elements fall into place perfectly.

At this stage, I could write another ten pages about There Will Be Blood, and I’d still not do the film the justice it deserves. It’s difficult to refrain from hyperbole when a film just hits you so hard that you feel it days afterward. With this film, Anderson has elevated himself to the level that few directors achieve. If his career continues as it has begun, we may have a new Stanley Kubrick on our hands. Indeed, it seems fitting that for one particular scene, Anderson wanted to invoke A Clockwork Orange. I do believe that this film is the first classic of the twenty first century. A film that will define this era. The forties had Citizen Kane. The seventies had Taxi Driver. The noughties have There Will Be Blood.


10/10

JUMPER (2008) - Doug Liman

It gives me great pleasure to introduce a new contributor to the blog. He's a man with impeccable taste, and even better dress-sense. Hopefully this will be the first in a long line of reviews, so enjoy. Jumper, destined to be a classic will be the first of Fran Johnston's reviews. Fran, take it away-

Those crazy cork indie rockers The Sultans of Ping FC once asked the question where"s me jumper? well if their jumper was anybody like Hayden Christensen's character David Rice in the new Doug Liman film Jumper, He was off teleporting himself to far off places like Rome, Egypt, Paris, London or Fiji because that's what good Jumpers do! This might sound like a sweet deal. Being able to pop to anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye. Unfortunatly some people think its a feat that only God should be able to perform. Not least of whom, the righteous leader of a group know as the Paladins, Roland ( samuel L Jackson ), who wants to wipe the Jumpers from the face of the earth. And so begins, with the help of another Jumper named Griffin ( Jamie Bell ), David's fight against the Paladins for his life and the lives of the people he cares about especially his love interest Millie ( Rachel Bilson )

You might think this sounds like a great recipie for a movie. Especially coming from the man who brought us The Bourne Identity. But, even before I sat down in my seat the first bad omen appeared to me in the form of the panpipes version of Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On blasting out of the cinema speakers. Ok. Fair enough that was nothing to do with the movie but the second bad omen came as the film stared. A monolouge from Hayden Christensen's character David. I thought this was added to save us time by letting the character give us the history of the Jumpers as we drifted in to the begining of his story but it wasnt. It was just a few choice sentences about how great it is being a Jumper. The monolouge then ended never to be heard from again. awww!



The story of David Rice is actually put together pretty well. His relationship with Millie and the discovery of his powers cemented down very early on. His home life living with his deadbeat father and the absense of his mother established solidly and also giving him the perfect platform to run away and enjoy his new found powers.
It is when the grander scheme of the tale enters in the form of Roland though that things start going pear shaped. The basic plot of the movie is Paladins vs Jumpers but we are never given a reason why the Paladins are out to exterminate them. They mention that some Jumpers have gone bad but never say why and their hatred of the Jumpers just seems to stem from nothing. Roland himself coming accross as a near hitleresque character and claiming a divine right to murder these people who, for the record, are mostly just kids.
This massive hole in the history of the players in this movie just leaves you caring less and less about the characters and the story as the movie goes on which is a pity because you do get the feeling that the people behind the film were aiming to be original and not trying to make a no plot no problem movie.



Fifteen minutes before the end two lads behind me started to natter at overly audible levels. Normally I'd care but this time I didn't because you see we had something in common. The film wasn't holding our attention anymore. And as I sat there listening to people rummaging for the jackets they had stuffed under their seats I realised that we wern't the only ones.
Jumper seemed to promise so much but just couldn't deliver and in the end I just came out disapointed. It was like asking for a Transformer for your 10th birthday and getting a Gobot instead. The worst thing about it though was that normally I know if I have really enjoyed this type of film when I jump out the cinema doors wanting to be the main character. For example walking down the street flapping my coat about after seeing V for Vendetta or trying to memorise licence plates while looking like a moody bastard after seeing The Bourne Ultimatum. In this case though I didn't want to imagine I was teleporting out the doors or down the street while making my own sound effects and looking like a mental asylum escapee, I just felt like walking to the train station looking like a man who had just seen a very mediocre movie.
In saying that though as I climbed onto a rush hour train and had my head squashed against the armpit of a tall, overweight man, I did start to wish I could jump to a deck chair on top of the sphinx's head.


4/10

New Iron Man trailer

Jon Favreau's Iron Man is shaping up rather nicely. It's been somewhat overshadowed by a certain Fedora-sporting archaeologist and cowl wearing vigilante for the last few months, but it does look like it'll be a lot of fun. I don't know very much about the character (just from what I've read in Avengers and what certain geekier friends of mine have banged on about), but the casting of Robert Downey Jnr. looks inspired. We'll see for sure in May

BE KIND REWIND (2008) - Michel Gondry

Despite marking his debut with Human Nature, a film that didn’t really register on many peoples’ radar, Michel Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind proved that he was one of the most inventive directors working. After working with writer Charlie Kauffman on Human Nature and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Gondry went solo for The Science of Sleep, and this month with Be Kind Rewind. It’s the most traditional and linear of his films, yet it retains the experimental sensibilities that we’d come to expect from Gondry.

Be Kind Rewind is a small video shop situated in a run-down part of New Jersey. The shop is owned and operated by Mr. Fletcher, a kindly old man who’s only other love, other than that of the community is for that of jazz. Mike also works in the shop and has spent his whole life growing up there, steeped in the stories of famed jazz musician Fats Waller that Mr. Fletcher has told him. The threat of big business puts Be Kind Rewind under threat, and gives Mr. Fletcher very little time to raise the funds required to keep the shop alive. When he heads away for a Fats Waller memorial, he leaves Mike in charge. But Mike’s hapless friend Jerry inadvertently erases all the films in the shop, putting the shop in dire straits. But Mike and Jerry come up with a plan to save the shop. The decide to Swede all the tapes, to film the movies with themselves in place of the actors.



The main thing about Be Kind Rewind is that not only is it a film about experimental filmmaking, it’s experimental filmmaking itself. It’s about love for film, and in another way, it’s a protest against the big budget filmmaking that is so prevalent in the Hollywood industry. Mike and Jerry aren’t experienced filmmakers. They don’t have a penny for a budget. And yet despite these drawbacks, they create films that are incredibly popular. Now, obviously, it’s fiction. Whether this would be popular in real life is questionable. But in the age of Youtube, which is a forum that would suit Swedeing down to the ground, it’s not entirely inconceivable that a pair of filmmakers like Mike and Jerry could become worldwide celebrities.

And it’s the enthusiasm of the protagonists that drives the charm of Be Kind Rewind. Their knowledge of the films they’re Swedeing isn’t encyclopaedic, but that doesn’t stop them. Casting Jack Black as Jerry was a good decision. As seen in High Fidelity, Black has a frenetic energy that at times seems unstoppable. And he brings this to the role of Jerry, a character who, despite the protestations of others, ploughs ahead sometimes without thinking. Mike on the other hand, is more conservative. While the initial idea to Swede the movies was his, he wants to quit at one, unlike Jerry, who loves the fame the film has brought them. The combination of these two characters is endearing, and adds to the charm of the film.



Michel Gondry’s direction is, as always, fantastic. He has a real whimsical style, which lends itself perfectly to the movie. In one particularly lovely moment, we see a few of the movies Mike and Jerry are Swedeing. But instead of doing a montage using different cuts, Gondry shows each film in one continuous shot, with the actors running around putting themselves into different films like We Were Kings, King Kong, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Men In Black. It’s this one little scene that sums up the style of the film really, and is a stand out moment which will be difficult not to smile warmly at.

While the film isn’t perfect, it’s very entertaining. The most enjoyable parts are when we see the guys Swedeing different films. But sometimes these moments can get in the way of the story. It’s an interesting conflict, but shouldn’t stand in the way of enjoying the film. A really good cast and some excellent direction means that Be Kind Rewind is a really nice, entertaining film.


7/10

CLOVERFIELD (2008) - Matt Reeves

And so, after a pretty tantalising and successful viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield arrives on our screens. It was clear from the start that this film would be a blockbuster of some kind, with a huge catastrophic event taking place in New York City. Something that would go so far as to leave the Statue of Liberty decapitated, and her head hurled into the city. As plot details trickled onto the net, it became clear that Cloverfield was a monster movie. But not a monster movie like Godzilla. This was a guerrilla monster movie, shot like The Blair Witch Project.

The plot for Cloverfield is pretty thin. But unusually, this works in favour of the movie. Instead of trying to be something it’s not, Cloverfield sticks to the spectacle, and doesn’t get bogged down in politics, subtext or allegory. The film is presented as a video tape that is found after the New York disaster. We’re given little introduction to the film, instead just being shown the tape. The first twenty minutes or so introduces us to a bunch of twenty-somethings. They’re gearing up for a going-away party for Rob, who’s been offered a job in Japan. Inter-cut with this is footage of Rob and Beth, shot a month before the party, who have just spent the night together. Something their friends aren’t aware of. During the party, Rob and Beth have an altercation and she leaves. Rob, his brother Jason and their friend Hud, who’s filming the events have a talk on the balcony. At this point you begin to wish things would just take a turn for the worse and the monster would attack. And it does. Everyone decides to flee Manhattan. But Rob gets a call from Beth who is trapped under a wall in her apartment. So he, Hud and two girls decide to head back into Manhattan to rescue Beth.



The style of Cloverfield is going to split audiences. The format, which is almost like a home-movie will annoy some audience members. Nothing is clear, with all the footage hand-held, shaky and frenetic. We rarely get a clear shot of the monster, which is something I think adds to the film. By shooting the film in this style, it feels more frantic and immediate. There’s little let-up in the action and it’s all about the chasing. Had the film been shot as a conventional movie, we’d have ended up with another snooze-fest comparable to Roland Emmerich’s 1998 piece of crap, Godzilla. That’s not to say that this approach is flawless. There were one or two moments when the camera was pointed away from the action and I found myself almost shouting at Hud to turn the damn camera around.

While the lack of story does benefit the film, it also leaves us with little emotional connection to the characters. The opening twenty minutes is a little slow, and the characters do become a little annoying. I suppose this is all right as the filmmakers are just lining up the fodder for the monster. When the characters do start getting picked off (this isn’t a spoiler, it’s monster movie. People are going to die) you’re more concerned with HOW they die rather than who dies. Maybe that’s a symptom of my desensitisation towards movies, but the point still stands. There’s little for the actors to do other than to run around and look terrified, and they do this adequately.



The monster itself is the real draw of the film, and I didn’t think it disappointed. It’s is HUGE. And it’s pretty indestructible too. It’s pretty amusing to watch the army march towards it, firing their guns at it, to absolutely no effect. There are parasitic monsters that drop off the monster and attack people. While this seems tacked-on, I can understand why it was added to the film. The monster is so big that it would be impossible for it to engage with the characters other than just to stomp on them. So the addition of the little monsters brings the action to a more personal level.

While there are some plot contrivances that boarder on the ridiculous, on the whole, Cloverfield is a pretty entertaining movie. It’s refreshingly brief too, clocking in at only 85 minutes. Short and sweet, it’s by no means a perfect movie. But it achieves exactly what it sets out to do, and provides some fairly tense moments. It suffers some of the same set-backs The Blair Witch Project suffered from. But it’s a better movie than that. The effects are great, the action’s frenetic and it’s short enough so that it doesn’t suffer from having to add in too much filler. Solid entertainment.


7/10

Watchmen's all wrapped up.

Zach Snyder (Dawn of the Dead 2004, 300) has completed production on his adaptation of Alan Moore comic epic, Watchmen. It was a project that spent a long time in limbo, with Paul Greengrass at one time attached to direct. That, I'd have loved to have seen. But Snyder will do! Anyone who's read the comic knows that this is going to be one hell of a difficult project to pull off, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like Snyder's got a good grip on the material. It should be a film that totally subverts the whole convention of the comic book movie. But we wont know for sure until March 09. In the mean time, here's an image of the comic's iconic anti-hero, Rorschach flambeing some unfortunate fella.