Stop-loss

I had no idea what a stop-loss was before I saw this film. I thought it was the tap that controlled the water supply for your house. I think that's called a stop-cock though. Close enough.
It actually means that when a U.S. soldieris due to leave the army in a timeof war, they can be issued with a stop-loss order and be redeployed to the front line.
It seems like a ridiculous notion to me, I can't imagine any other workplace getting away with that. "Excuse me sir" he said to his manager at McDonalds "I'm handing in my notice as i'd like to further my career, better myself and possibly discover the cure for Aids". The manager would look him up and down, laugh whilst handing him his burger flipper and apron and say "Stop-lossed bitch, get back to work".
The film starts with an ultra-realistic combat scene on the streets of Afghan as the troops are drawn into an ambush, resulting in numerous casualties. So far so good. The film then relocates to Texas and the homecoming of the soldiers, where they unwind with booze, girls and fights. Much the same as any other Texan relaxes.
The acting talent on show is some of the best of the up and coming crop of actors including Channing Tatum, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Abbie Cornish. Ryan Phillipe also gives his best performance to date as the soldier on the run.
Its just a shame that after half the film, what was a gripping character piece resorts to being just another two bit chase movie, with Phillipe trying to avoid being stop-lossed. Its a shame because this looked to be in the same league as The Hurt Locker, being a gripping look into the mindset of battle scarred U.S. soldiers. Director Kimberley Pierce also mishandles a scene involving a severely disabled troop who's injuries are a result of the opening ambush which Phillipe blames himself for, and she seems to insist on hammering home the fact that he's not changed, he's still the fun loving guy he was regardless of lack of sight and limbs. It seems a bit patronising.
I did like this film as a whole, its well made, the acting talent is remarkable and it is an original take on the modern war story. The ending is pretty good as well, even if it does undermine the whole of the film that came before it. Plus its got Abbie Cornish in it, surely the most naturally beautiful actress to grace our screens this century.
Four stars.

Gentlemen Broncos

Jared Hess is the new master of quirky comedy. Napoleon Dynamite was an absolute masterpiece of teenage awkwardness and angst whilst Nacho Libre, although maybe not the greatest film, was still full of originality. Gentlemen Broncos isn't quite as good as Napoleon but its a damn sight better than Nacho Libre.
Although this film didn't get a theatrical release in the UK, I still went into it expecting big things purely because of Hess' name on the director's chair. The screenplay's he writes with his other half Jerusha are the epitome of indie quirk. Every character is unique and every interaction between two people comes across as awkward, intentionally of course.
The presence of Jermaine Clement is probably the best bit of casting this side of Heath Ledger's Joker. He channels the presence of the Mighty Boosh's Dixon Bainbridge into the body of Serpico. The entertainment scale is cranked right up every time he appears and it is surely just a matter of time before he is a proper comedy superstar.
Halley Feiffer is an interesting choice for the leading lady being neither conventionally beautiful nor that gifted an actress, however she is still one of the most interesting young actresses i've witnessed for a while. I can't work out if her stilted performance was part of the act but she is certainly most alluring.
Although it may sound like I thought Gentlemen Broncos was perfect, believe me, it ain't. The scenes with Sam Rockwell set in the Yeast Lords story are way off the mark, bringing the films momentum to a halt every 15 minutes or so. Even the always reliable Rockwell is nothing short of irritating.
To summarise what I know is quite a hurried review, this is a great film if you like Napoleon and Nacho but if you didn't its probably best to steer clear. There's also a scene with a snake having a shit on a mans crisp white shirt if that counts for anything.
Four stars.

Vertigo



As I have mentioned before, it's difficult for me to watch classic films without feeling as if I have to like them. There was no problems in that area with Vertigo.

I'll be honest, being relatively young I have only actually seen three Hitchcock films including this one. The other two are Strangers on a Train and Psycho. Vertigo takes certain elements from both, arriving between the two as it did. For example the famous dream sequence in Vertigo is quite reminiscent of the carousel scene from Strangers on a Train in that they are both dizzying in the extreme. Combining clever camera work with startling imagery, Hitchcock manages to create an environment on the screen that would rival anything of today in terms of film making.

The strength of Vertigo is that it moves so slowly and the suspense grows, at points, to an almost unbearable level. Like when James Stewart begins to tail Kim Novak, the scene is so stretched out and plods along at such an unbearable pace that you really are clueless as to what is going to happen next.

This is the first time I have been exposed to the sheer beauty of one Kim Novak also and my word she is stunning. I actually spend a good ten minutes during the film trying to think of a movie star today who rivals her for looks or even comes close to that classic mould of shapely sirens rife in Hollywood during the 50s and 60's. She actually also forms part of the only distraction in the film with her pairing with James Stewart adding a somewhat unsettling air to proceedings, with Stewart looking like he could easily pass for Novak's Grandfather. But I suppose that still goes on in movies today, although I can't think of any cases where the sexes are reversed. Just imagine Meryl Streep was cast playing the girlfriend of Jake Gyllenhaal  or Ashton Kutcher playing the toyboy of Demi Moore, give me a break.

That being said it takes nothing away from a certain masterpiece of suspense cinema, and the fact that Alfred Hitchcock can make a film to rival any thrillers being churned out today and have it rated as PG by modern day standards is nothing short of remarkable.

Now i'm off to see how many other ridiculous and definitely hypothetical Hollywood couples I can think of. Hahaha, Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. Ridiculous.

5 stars

Australia

Up until Australia I had always managed to avoid Baz Luhrman's films. Not purposely, its just that the sequins and dancing of Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge, and the Hollywood sheen of Romeo + Juliet,  never appealed to a teenage boy. Go figure. Well there isn't anything in Australia to turn me onto them.
It starts slowly, with the arrival of Nicole Kidman's English upper class madam arriving in the land down under. Through a variety of incidents she befriends a small mixed race Aboriginal boy and fires the crooked workers from her ranch, resulting in her having to drove her cattle across the outback to be sold and get the ranch back on its feet. Luckily, Hugh Jackman is on hand to provide some assistance. They really, really, really hate each other so I don't expect they'll end up together. Oh right, thats exactly what happens.
And thats where Australia goes wrong. Its just a mismatch of a lot of different ideas, done a lot better elsewhere. Its clear this is a passion project for Luhrman but it feels like he's tried to hard to make the Australian "Gone with the Wind". The running time is absolutely ridiculous considering that the story only justifies half that amount. Theres a point after the cattle drove where it could have finished, around the 90 minute mark. But then we have about 15 minutes of filler setting up a second story. It absolutely bored me to tears.
Two stars. It would have been one but for the beautiful Australian landscapes lovingly shot. If there had just been a boomerang scene or a Harold Bishop and Lou Carpenter cameo, it could have been five.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

I went into Sherlock Holmes fully expecting to dislike it immensely for a few reasons. First of all its Guy Ritchie's first film where he hasn't had a credit in the writing process. Now those of you who have seen Revolver and Swept Away will say thats not a bad thing, but as he has shown with Rock'n'Rolla, Snatch and Lock, Stock he does have a keen ear for dialogue and manages to make the lowest of the low in the criminal underworld extremely likeable.
Another reason would be the casting of Jude Law as the loyal Dr. Watson. There's something about his name on a film's poster that manages to turn me off straight away, much like Adam Sandler or Katherine Heigl, because no matter what sort of character he's playing its always just his smug face on the screen. However, in Sherlock Holmes he is a revelation, playing the character perfectly understated to allow Robert Downey Jr the time to  shine on screen as the eccentric detective. The chemistry between the two is formidable and somewhat borderline homoerotic. Or maybe thats just me.
I didn't manage to watch this version of Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous character's exploits until after I had watched the BBC's recent, modern day incarnation which was a masterpiece of television and gave the BBC a well deserved hit. But this version stands alongside it rather than in its shadow.
The story and narrative are so wonderfully confusing and multi-layered that there was a point near to the end of the film where I was practically jumping around, cursing and pledging to award this film one star due to several ends not being tied up, but naturally all is explained in Holmes' unique style. To boot we can add a sinister performance from Mark Strong (fast becoming a stalwart of villainy) as the apparently undead Lord Black and Kelly Reilly in the role of Watson's put upon but feisty fiance, she surely deserves to have her character vastlty expanded in the forthcoming sequel.
The only mis-step for me was the casting of Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, the obligatory love interest for Sherlock and "only person to ever outwit the detective". Unfortunately, Holmes is an interesting character in his own right and the relationship between himself and Watson should be the one at the forefront of the story making her inclusion more of a distraction than anything. Her addition comes across as the interference of a studio insisting on some Hollywood glamour to accompany the two male leads.
That being said this is still a greatly enjoyable film and its something of a masterstroke introducing Moriarty as the detective's nemesis but keeping him hidden in the shadows, ready for the sequel. I'm giving this film four stars, it could of been five if it wasn't for the absence of a magnifying glass and deerstalker hat.

Teenage Paparazzo

The fact that I saw Teenage Paparazzo at all was something of a happy accident. I happened to notice Adrian Grenier's name in the synopsis of the film and decided to record it, seeing as it was being shown at the absurd time of 2am on a Sunday night. The film's premise basically stems from Grenier being "papped" in LA late one night by a 13 year old photographer by the name of Austin Visschedyk. We follow Austin as he stays out until 3am outside of Hollywood nightclubs and parties waiting for Britney Spears to appear, so he can take a photo of the backs of all the adult photographers who, being much bigger than he is, stand in front of him to get the picture. Adrian Grenier also tries to get to the bottom of the profession and tries it out for himself, accompanying Austin and some friends around Hollywood for a day in disguise.
As Austin and Adrian's relationship grows and Austin realises the enormity of having a bona fide Hollywood celebrity make a documentary about him, he begins to court fame and the camera himself.
Its an interesting documentary and an extremely accomplished piece of work from Grenier, who also directed, and manages to document a fascinating story without casting judgement on Austin's parents, or Austin himself who is actually an extremely spoilt and petulant child. His camera looks like it cost more than my house.
I'm not going to pass judgement on Austin's parents either (even though they are clearly more interested in letting their 13 year old son dictate the way he is bought up than do it themselves) or even to comment on the profession of the noble paparazzo (they are literally the scum of the earth) but I am going to say that this is an excellent piece of film-making and it even manages to have something of a heartwarming ending when Adrian visits a much grown up Austin a year after filming has finished.
Thats all i'm really going to say about Teenage Paparazzo as I think documentaries are made to present a subject matter to an individual for them to make their own personal opinion. In my opinion, this is fantastic and I highly recommend it.
Now i'm going off to try out my new 1 mega pixel camera phone outside of Chinawhites. Fingers crossed for an upskirt shot of Michelle Heaton.
5 stars.

Lonesome Jim

Lonesome Jim is a 2005 movie directed by Steve Buscemi and starring Casey Affleck and Liv Tyler.
As I mentioned before I am a big fan of Steve Buscemi as an actor. Well i'm just as enthusiastic about his work as a director. I saw his first feature length directorial effort Trees Lounge when I was around 15 years of age and it was the first film of its kind to really resonate with me. I don't come from a family of film enthusiasts in any sense so I was brought up solely on films available in the mainstream. Trees Lounge made me open up to a whole new world of films and inadvertently introduced me to Wes Anderson's feature length debut Bottle Rocket and his later body of work, and also made me realise it was okay to like films I hadn't necessarily heard of, or that maybe my friends hadn't seen.
The reason, I believe, Steve Buscemi's films to have made such a connection with me is because of their sheer realism. These are films about real people in real situations and there is rarely anything other than these characters actions to drive the plot forward, giving the films a more realistic pace.
Coming back to Lonesome Jim, I do consider this to be a truly remarkable film, in the sense that it was shot for $500k and is filmed completely on mini DV handheld cameras. It is the story of a failed writer returning to his rural community after failing to make it in NYC. The cast is a sublime mix of Indie film regulars such as Casey Affleck as Jim, Mark Boone Junior as evil and Seymour Cassell as the quietly disappointed father of Jim and his suicidal brother Tim played by Kevin Corrigan.
In my opinion the lack of budget and the amateur looking filmwork do the movie all sorts of favours, making it more realistic and giving the viewer a sense of voyeurism as we watch these people go about their somewhat mundane everyday lives. My only problem with the film is Liv Tyler. Although I do believe her to be a moderately talented actress, she just doesn't ring true as a small town nurse and single mother. I'm not sure if thats because she is so absurdly attractive its hard to imagine her as anything other than a Hollywood star,  or if its because her range of facial expressions seem to all be suffixed with the word pout. Happy pout, moody pout, motherly pout, their all here. Other than that small qualm, which to be honest was a bit nit picky and perhaps a bit unfair on Liv Tyler, I very much enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anyone. Now i'm off to watch Liv Tyler's car washing scene from One Night at McCools so I can respect her as an actress again.
Four stars

Domestic Disturbance

They say necessity is the mother of invention, which explains a lot about Domestic Disturbance because it isn't at all necessary and it lacks any invention at all. The only reason I watched this film in the first place is because of the infamy it carries with it, due to Vince Vaughn and Steve Buscemi becoming involved in a bar fight with locals during filming, resulting in Vaughn being arrested and Buscemi being stabbed several times. Still, I imagine Steve Buscemi still had a more enjoyable experience making this than I did watching it.
He is one of my favourite actors ever so its upsetting to see him playing such a nothing character. He is by far the best of the cast but its still a relatively tuned out performance by his standards. He can play better weasley thugs like this in his sleep.
I do like Vince Vaughn a lot as well, his comic performances being the standout turns in Wedding Crashers, The Break-up and Old School. Thank god he's given up trying to play menacing characters because with this and the Psycho remake he comes across as more Norman Wisdom than Norman Bates.
Teri Polo obviously only appears to try and establish herself as a serious actress, after playing Ben Stiller's fiance in Meet the Parents, but ust succeeds in proving that she should stick to lightweight family comedy and stripping for playboy. Two things that always go hand in hand I feel (Although her playboy pictures did keep me company some nights in my late teenage years, but thats another story).
I didn't want to mention John Travolta who delivers a performance as wooden as the boats that he builds in the film and not quite as buoyant. I've never been a fan of Travolta because he seems to have sustained a career based on a few well judged hip thrusts.
Ultimately, the blame for this ramshackle excuse for a movie has to lie with the Director Harold Becker and the screenwriters because its the incoherent narrative that grates most. This is a film where a father will believe it when his son who is notorious for lying accuses a man he has made it clear he doesn't like of murder, no questions asked. It doesn't make any sense. Or where a mother will move herself and her son in with a man that she clearly knows nothing about and then marries him.
The ultimate irony with Domestic Disturbance is that I had to slap my wife around for a bit afterwards to make myself feel better.
One Star.

Serpico

I'm always greatly disappointed whenever I watch a film considered an all time classic and it doesn't quite live up to my expectations. There are only four occasions that spring to mind where this has been the case; Chinatown, The Shining, The French Connection and now Serpico.
Don't get me wrong,  i'm not saying that these films aren't enjoyable or they aren't well made but that sometimes, people can build your expectations of a film up so high they can never realistically be met.  Take, for example, the car chase scene from The French Connection. This chase had featured at the top of a couple of best car chase lists in certain publications and, if i'm not mistaken, is considered probably the best of all time. When I finally got around to watching the film, I found that, because of my expectations, the car chase scene was just a distraction and in my opinion has probably aged a lot worse than the rest of the film.
Anyway, I digress, Serpico is actually a very good film, depicting what seems to be a very true to fact account of the corruption that was rife in the NYPD during the 60s and early 70s.
Al Pacino gives one of his best performances, opting to play the character as more of an understated Michael Corleone rather than go chewing through the scenery in full Tony Montana mode. His Serpico comes across as someone not afraid to stand up and be heard, to ignore the advice of his corrupt peers in favour of the greater good. But in the end he gets shot in the face so who knows what to believe.
Four stars.

Up in The Air

I've realised that i've let the initial theme of this blog to get left behind whilst I witter on about films and other guff but, having never done a blog before, I thought I would need a theme to drive it forward and keep it interesting. Instead of taking that forward i'm going to talk about the films i've seen recently and just day to day stuff instead. Deal with it.
After watching Up in the Air, I looked back at it and at first glance it seemed to have everything. Note perfect performances. Check. A cruel sting in the tail. Check. Vera Farmiga naked (again). Check. It just feels like it lacks a certain something to let it be considered a modern classic.
It could be the casting of Danny McBride and Zach Galifianakis in roles not as comedic as they are famous for, making their appearance more of a distraction then anything else. It could also be that Ryan's sisters never develop into anything more than two dimensional charicatures with Melanie Lynskey being criminally underused as Ryan's younger, soon to be wed sister.
Gripes aside, I did actually love this movie. I could have watched George Clooney and Vera Farmiga sparking off of one another for another few hours after the film had ended. They're both ridiculously talented and good looking that it makes it all the more impressive that their relationship never seems forced or anything oteher than natural.
The performance of the film, however, would have to go to Anna Kendrick, who begins the film as just another young corporate drone, climbing over other peoples dead careers to get where she needs to be, and slowly unravels her facade to reveal an insecure and somewhat over conscious 23 year old.
This film is immensely watchable and any movie with a Sam Elliott cameo is fine by me. Exactly right!!!
Four stars

All About Steve

Apologies first of all for the delay between posts and also the shocking grammar and punctuation in my last entry. It was written with some haste during a spare ten minutes at work.
I've watched no less than four new movies since last posting and the first is the infamous Sandra Bullock vehicle All About Steve. Every so often a film will come along with such scathing reviews that it becomes more of a curiosity than anything else. All About Steve is one of those films, being nominated for several Razzie awards and being on some critics Worst Films of the Year lists. I normally resist the temptation to watch a badly reviewed film because I'm not some sort of sadist and watching some films is akin to torture. Saying that, I have seen the likes of Basic Instinct, Body of Evidence, Striptease and Showgirls, but you try telling a 14 year old boy with a fully functioning penis that they aren't stonewall classics.
The reason I made the exception for All About Steve is for the triumvirate of Bradley Cooper, Thomas Haden Church and Ken Jeong as the titular Steve the Cameraman, the arrogant news reporter and the put upon director respectively. At first I wasn't a big fan of Bradley Cooper after seeing him play the character of Sack in Wedding Crashers, but after seeing him follow that up with films like Yes Man and The Hangover, it was clear it was just a perfectly judged performance. With Thomas Haden Church, i've followed his career from Ned and Stacey, the Charlie Kaufman scripted 90s sitcom, through George of The Jungle to his Oscar nominated turn in Sideways, so its disappointing to see such a brilliant comedy actor being wasted on Spiderman 3 and guff like this. And it goes without saying that Ken Jeong frequently steals the show being the best thing about Role Models and The Hangover when he appears on screen.
It goes without saying that you get exactly what is ecpected from the reviews with this movie. From the grating OTT performance of Bullock (who made history with All About Steve and The Blind Side, becoming the first person to pick up a Razzie award and an Oscar in the same year) to the stumbling and incoherent script in which people forge heart warming bonds based on one short car journey or where its okay to refer to a small hearing impaired child as "little deaf girl". My advice would be to not waste your time with this and perhaps read a book or go for a walk. Go on, its good for you.
A generous one star *