East
Is East
It is symptomatic
of the British Film Industries general lack of success that anything that
comes out that may have the vaguest smidgeon of box office success is hailed
as the new "Full Monty". There are two films out at the moment which have
this appendage tagged to the bottom of their posters, East Is East and
Mad Cows. Now I do not intend to see Mad Cows, the book was bad enough
and the idea of Anna Friel doing coarse and bawdy - badly - tempts very
little in my moviegoing heart. But East Is East was more interesting, a
shameless comedy about arranged marriage in England, a cross cultural effort
which seemed truly ground breaking. Indeed so ground breaking that surely
it did not need "The New Full Monty" tagged to it as that is your sure
fire kiss of death to the British comedy.
East Is
East (a title who's significance now appears lost in the mists) has a novel
setting. There have not been many films set in a Pakistani household in
Salford in the early seventies. The period feel is set up well from the
beginning, the opening sequence is almost out of the "Whatever Happened
To The Likely Lads" movie. Also we are quickly thrown into the dillema
of the second generation son who has an arranged marriage. He bolts, illustrating
the main crux of the film - the fathers desire to have a Pakistani family,
against the childrens desire to be English. A good plot, which is easy
to identify with, and one handled lightly and in a socio-political context.
That said,
most of the gags are pretty basic. You have never seen more piss than in
this film, though interestingly the piss quite often forwards the momentum
of the film. There is the humour of embaressment, the social situations
and conventions which belong to another culture, yet are still recognisable
as creating the same emotions in all cultures. The shuffling of feet, the
long, slow Sundays. And the underlying theme of railing against your parents,
all surface, and do not require explaination. All fine fodder for a nicely
balanced, simple comedy of manners. But. And there is a but because I know
in my heart of hearts where this but is coming from, and its from a white,
liberal point of view as well as from someone whole really likes films.
East Is East does not stay as a light, frothy comedy. It gets dark. It
does not manage to maintain a tone.
Let me explain.
About three quarters of the way through the film, there is some violence.
It completely changes the relationships in the film, as well as the general
tone of light-heartedness. The importance of the characters action suddenly
are raised. East Is East stops being a comedy and starts being about something
completely different, parental abuse and wife beating. Not funny subjects,
and ones the remaining humour steps around carefully. Whilst I have no
doubt that the storyline works, and is perhaps more realistic to this particular
case, I feel it would have worked without it. Now I have already had an
argument about this with Julie, and she feels the opposite - so take your
pick. I suppose, and this is the liberal in me, I did not want to see a
film about a predominantly Asian family show them off in such a bad light,
for fear of stereotyping. This is a bad reason to dislike it, but that's
just me. I was also a wee bit uncomfortable about how the "undesirably
ugly" potential wives were portrayed - for obvious reasons.
Here is
a better reason for not being completely won over by the film. There is
no viewpoint character. Initially you feel the film might be about the
sons who will get married, then your interest is turned to the mother,
and the youngest son. Whilst it is obvious that the father is the main
antagonist, you even get to feel a wee bit sorry for him. So with five
kids, and two parents, the focus is blurred. This may be where my initial
problem stems from, if we saw a single character's individual development,
we might work through the problems the shift in tone changes. As it is
we are unsure of who we are supposed to care about, and why.
It sounds
like I did not like East Is East, which would be wrong. I liked it an awful
lot. I laughed my arse off. It is a clever film, full of lovely little
touches, and a really good cast. It is an interesting view of the period,
with a new slant and is therefore very instructive to people from outside
to see. Nevertheless what you get is a racous comedy with the plotline
and resolution of a piece of social realism and it jars. It is not the
new Full Monty, though it may have similar pretensions about its social
statements, it is a period piece and therefore no longer up to date or
relevant. Luckily for it that it is not the new Full Monty though, as the
only successful British film which has been launched this year was instead
pitched as the new "Four Weddings And A Funeral". But hey - Notting Hill
was pretty much the old Four Weddings And A Funeral without a lot changed.(7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Full Monty - ahem - I mean, er, My Son The Fanatic
meets No Sex Please we're British.
EDtv
Sometimes
you past life creeps up on you when you least expect it. For me, it was
sitting of an afternoon with the sniffles and a bottle of water watching
edTV, a thoroughly equitable if unadventurous US comedy. The film y'see
concerns itself with Real Life Television, and I - in a dim and distance
past was also involved with something similar. A thoroughly exploitative
piece of pseudo-documentary which to this day still rocks up on MTV with
alarming regularity - The Real World.
So, am I
in a position to judge the authenticity of edTV? Well, perhaps, but edTV
is not about authenticity. If it was, no fucker would ever sit around watching
this most tedious of shows. Any show that follows an individual twenty
four hours a day would be most dull, a fact which is conveniently glossed
over in the film. Nevertheless, the film does cover the manipulative side
of the TV company, and the effect of the camera on the hero and his relationships.
These ideas are all really simple, and not really discussed in depth. But
hey, edTV is not about that. edTV is probably the best example released
this year of the light ensemble comedy.
It is, too
a fault, light. There are plenty of serious issues to be made about intrusion
and the power of television. But edTV merely wants something to hang its
light farce on, so these serious issues pretty much go my the wayside.
And anyway, we've already got Man Bites Dog and Henry Portrait Of A Serial
Killer - why not let Ron Howard whip up a bit of harmless fun. Which he
does with the aide of a very attractive and well chosen cast - all built
around Ed - as played by Matthew McConoughy. A more unselfish lead actor
you could not wish for. He plays Ed as possibly the most easy going guy
in the world, and this also works with the supporting cast. He's quite
happy to let Woody Harrleson whoop and rave, to let Jenna Elfman be coy
and frankly gorgeous - and he is a little bit too kind to let Liz Hurley
on to the screen at all.
EdTV is
pretty much perfect at what it does. It knows it is a sitcom without enough
steam for a full series, but more than enough ideas for a feature film.
It even feels episodic, there is the brother adulery episode, the shy girlfriend
episode, and the unfortunate Liz Hurley episode. And Ron Howard, no stranger
to sitcom as Richie Cunningham in Happy Days, handles his large cast with
aplomb. And this is no mean feat, what with Harrleson, Rob Reiner, Ellen
DeGeneres, Martin Landau and Dennis Hopper all thoroughly accomplished
scene stealers. But he also knows when to concentrate on Ed, which is helped
by such a thoroughly likeable lead.
EdTV was
never going to change the world. It has been unfairly compared with The
Truman Show, whilst it has a completely different aim, theme and thesis.
EdTV is more about chances, and taking them - than any big lie about television
being evil. Like The Truman Show it does rely on its audience interacting
with the show, and like the Truman Show it is somewhat unbelievable that
anyone can truly subsume themselves in something that would be on a minute
to minute basis quite this dull. That said, the aspect of following an
individual around is handled correctly, and the resulting farce is pleasantly
amusing.
EdTV is
the kind of film which will always be damned by faint praise. Perhaps this
is because its aims are so mundane. It merely wishes to please, it never
wanted to be big, or important. It is nice, wholesome (-ish) fun, played
very attractively by a very talented cast. If this means it dips below
your radar then so be it, but its plot is neatly stitched up, and there
is a good enough ending. If it increases the star potential of its two
main players McConoughy and Elfman, all for the better as they are both
great to watch. I almost feel like I have to apologise for enjoying it,
its fluff, but its pretty good fluff. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Real World television programme does not even
get anywhere near The Truman Show. Or alternatively Man Bites Dog hits
M*A*S*H, which completely knocks the Bite bit out - but leaves it fun enough.
Election
The day
job creeps in occasionally. F'rinstance, this time of the year, I start
to get a wee bit busy. I run a Students' Union, and we've got all the new
students coming in a couple of weeks time so its busy, busy, busy. Being
involved in the day to day of student politics can be a tiring effort,
so there is nothing I like better than going off to the cinema and seeing
a film about - er - student politics.
Election
is not just about student politics, but on the surface that's what you
get. Delve a wee bit and you'll find a really rather sophisticated little
satire, that admittedly tries too hard in places, but cannot really be
faulted for its intentions. It has some very funny moments, a great use
of freeze frame and multiple narrators and again is different to anything
else out there. Its strange when the two most "unusual" films I've seen
this year also happen to be two set in schools (see this and Rushmore),
but then this is a year which has also thrown us a fantastically good high
school flick - as well as a few duds.
Tracy Flick
(the ubiquitous Reese Witherspoon) is the school over-acheiver. She does
everything, runs every club and is now running for student president. She
is very much the flip side of Max, the over-acheiver in Rushmore, she is
actually good at everything she does. She is made up of steely ambition,
and as played by Witherspoon is a towering political creation. Thoroughly
dislikable, yet she gets the job done and does not alienate people. She
is going places, and is pushed in that direction by the rarely seen but
obviously highly influential mother. This is compared with Mr McAlister,
the popular school teacher who lives to teach, and is in charge of the
election. Tracy perturbs him, partially due to a career ending affair she
had with another teacher, and he sets about subtly manipulating the election.
First by getting a popular quarterback to run, and then in more deliberate
ways.
Unlike Rushmore,
the ending is never in doubt. The nice aspect of Election is the meandering
route we take to get there, featuring teen lesbianism, porn and down and
out spite. Unfortunately there is a little bit too much plot stuffed into
the whole thing, Mr McAlisters downfall is primarily instigated by an odd
affair which does not quite work. The film is based on a novel, and it
this shows withthis excess of plot. Equally the film does not quite know
when to end, leaving you waiting for a sucker punch that never quite comes.
But it is in its form, script and sly humour that Election wins out.
There are
four narrators to Election, and they are the four protagonists. Tracy,
McAlister, Paul and Tammy Metzler (brother and sister who both run against
Tracy - for various reasons). This is a difficult technique, and their
narrations bring out different sides to the story, and make you understand
their characters. It would be easy to paint Tracy as a hack, all ambition,
but whilst her narration does damn her as much as it makes you feel sorry
for her, it at least paints her as a rounded character. Paul is painted
as a dim-witted but genuinely nice character, whilst his sister is shown
as the epitomy of teenage angst. It is in Brodericks narration we see the
most interesting transitions. He is no stranger to narration, or teen movies,
and as McAlister he is contrasted nicely with Ferris Bueller - uber-slacker
of the eighties. Flick is also contrasts well with Bueller, and Reese Witherspoon
adds to her already inpressive tally of roles this year with a subtle performance
that shows the steel behind the smiles. And just her agreeing to a number
of the freeze frames in Election earns respect, you look at one particularily
odd gurn for about thirty seconds, and its very, very funny.
The best
thing about Election is its very reality. This is no Hollywood High School,
and the characters are not pretty. It is also easily the best political
satire to waltz out of the States in a while. The satire is in its subtlety,
in exposing the lengths people go merely to win an election, it exposes
more truths than we would like to think about elections in general. It
beats last years big three hands down, and in its heart remains a small
story about a small event which had a big impact on a few people. Whilst
flawed, it is genuinely funny, and enjoyable. Its biggest flaw however
is in the running of its election. And I could bang on for hours how the
proceedure was alwasy going to lead to this type of shenanigans, but I
won't bore you. Just go watch the film, and Pick Flick.(8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Wag The Dog meets The Breakfast Club, with Ferris
Bueller driving past in that wee sporty roadster he borrowed from Cameron
(who was played by Alan Ruck and not Edward Norton as one of my mates constantly
swears).
The
End Of The Affair
I don't
like Graham Greene. I think I may have mentioned this before, probably
around the Third Man review. I read a lot of Greene when I did my A-Level's,
and whilst I appreciated his constant struggle with his faith and the deeper
questions of life - I cannot say he ever enthralled me. Seemed an awful
lot of fuss about nothing, I thought firm in my lack of beliefs. That the
substance of his novels (not the "entertainment's" - as patronising a thought
as ever committed to page) was neither that exciting or resonant with my
life meant I really was left cold. So I looked forward to The End Of The
Affair like a trip to the dentist. And since said dental profession has
not had the pleasure of my company you know what I am getting at. I only
ended up there after missing both Any Given Sunday and Once Upon A Time
In The West. I had to see a film however, so the Greene based film it was.
I am glad
I did. The End Of The Affair is, until perhaps its last twenty minutes,
an artful vision in simplicity. Of late we have seen a number of flashy
attempts to show what happens when you look at the same story from different
viewpoints. Here there is no glitz, no flash. Just a very, very simple
story shot perfectly illustrating an intriguing plot point. Metaphysical,
yet with no pre-conceptions of faith: The End Of The Affair asks how far
do you go to keep a promise. Especially when you keep that promise to a
higher being you cannot be sure even exists.
Set in London
during the war we see the aftermath of the affair between Ralph Fiennes
and Julianne Moore. She is in a loveless marriage with a coinsumately pathetic
Stephen Rea. We come in with Rea confessing to Fiennes that he believes
that Moore is having an affair. This has happened, but the twist is that
Fiennes and Moore's affiar was over. Jealousy kicks in, as Fiennes wishes
to know who she dalies with now. A detective is hired, preliminaries are
made and then the truth comes out. The end of their affair is something
viewed quite differently from the opposing viewpoints - something illustrated
perfectly by the dual running of both opinions. Unfortunately - for both
symetries sake and because up to this point the film has been nigh on perfect
- the film ought to end. Instead it limps on into a third part, symbolic,
tragic and extraneous.
Back to
what is good though, because when The End Of The Affair is good, it is
exceptional. It is another example of what I call pure cinema, something
that work so much within its own world that it creates it requires no other
reference. The trick is to have a good plot, a fine setting and performances
which compliment each other (the best recent example of this is A Simple
Plan from last year). Here we have four actors on the top of their game.
I expect Fiennes to be good, he always is and he can pick the coldly jealous
roles like this to perfection. Rea is a surprise as the very proper, very
droll Englishman - showing pathos and sensitivity beneath his stiff upper
lip. Julianne Moore is the best I have ever seen her, which I could cruelly
say would not be hard. Backhanded insults aside, she understands the moral
dilemma her character has. The film would not work without this conviction,
and it is a great pity to watch her slip away at the end - the whim of
a hackneyed plot point. In addition to these three we get oddly cardboard,
yet oddly perfect comic relief in the form of Ian Hart's detective. A malapropism
here, an innuendo there adds needed relief to what would be a hideously
dark movie otherwise.
Neil Jordan
is a hit and miss director (with almost exactly that strike rate), and
here he was due for a hit. He too understands the centre of this story,
and sets the film up perfectly to illustrate this. If you promise God something
in return for a miracle and get that miracle, you must stand by your promise
- even if you had no true belief in God beforehand. It is a promise to
oneself, to not tempt fate - and stands by as an almost perfect parable.
The desperation in the promise is mirrored nicely by Jordan's depiction
of a war torn London - still with its privilige, but making promises to
a future population it has to keep. The depiction of a love affair is torrid
enough to convince, whilst leaving more than enough to the imagination.
It is difficult to say how, but up to one hour fifteen this was a pretty
perfect movie.
So damn
the source material? The last third is in the book, so its in the film.
Whilst it cannot weaken the power of the first two parts, it does feel
like a spare wheel. The promise of happiness, then the enforced tragedy
may have been necessary to put a tangible cap on the story. I would have
preferred to leave the final fate of these characters to my imagination.
Especially when Jordan concocts a slightly hopeful ending which lies at
odds with the nihilism and despair inherent in the story. Minor gripes
however. Whilst this last third is unnecessary, it certainly is not bad
and still tootles along watchably. Just from a narrative point of view
I could have done without it.
The End
Of The Affair is a dark and dour film, which holds at its heart a simple,
yet powerful moral dillema. If cinema is to encourage debate, to force
discussion on people there is no greater way of doing it that presenting
a package such as this. It is a pity that the film continues past this
point, there is much that is judgemental - however ambiguously - about
the last third. But Neil Jordan, like Carol Reed before him, has managed
to take an author I have an intense dislike for, and craft a nearly perfect
film. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Brief Encounter meets A Matter Of Life And Death,
with all the religious symbolicism we expect from Greeney.
Enemy
At The Gates
Not really
been a lot of films about the Russian side of WWII, or World War Two as
it should be known in polite company. Well, let me rephrase that, there
have probably been loads of films about the Russian side of World War Two,
its just they probably haven’t been in English. Or - to be fair - a bundle
of laughs. The scale of the tragedy of the Eastern Front is still one which
is difficult to conceive - and that at least a film set there like Enemy
At The Gates may prompt a few interested souls to look with more depth
into the history of that particular part of the conflict. But I daresay
the main problem was that the Amercians were in no way involved with the
battle on the Eastern front so they cannot claim in anyway that they won
that particular part of the war.
Well, that’s
okay, because there is only one American in Enemy At the Gates, and that
is Ed Harris playing the bad guy. That’s right, this is a film set in Stalingrad
- during one of the bloodiest battle of the conflict - but it is the kind
of film that also has a bad guy. The idea I suppose is by telling a small
story occurring within the conflict, we also manage to tell the big story.
Its a nice idea, but possibly the scale of the Stalingrad story is too
much for the film to handle. Or, and to be fair this seems to be more likely,
they’ve picked a duff story.
As it is
that story is one of Jude Law’s heroic, proletarian sniper - Joseph Fiennes
less heroic propaganda officer, Rachel Weisz’s spunky proletarian heroine
and Ed Harris’s posh German aristo. So what we have actually been dished
up is a love triangle and a class struggle. Whilst these are universal
themes, and often a strong base for films in general - here the plot pretty
much defines the characters. To call the lead characters two dimensional
would be to insult the majority of portraiture even made. Its a cookie
cutter plot and all the will in the world, and interesting setting will
not liven up a tale when you do not care about the characters. Even when
real historical figures are thrown in the mix (Bob Hoskins’ bizarre version
of Kruschev) the lack of verisimilitude is still plain. Which is a great
pity because in almost every other - less important extent - the film is
pretty good.
As has been
de riguer in war films since Saving Private Ryan the film opens with an
extended battle sequence which illustrates the horrors of war™. Enemy At
The Gates shows us a different mindset to the gung-ho but basically patriotic
SPR - where you are just as likely to get killed by your own side as the
opposition, and this sequence is frankly stunning. Its just when we focus
on our characters that the film falls down. The city is recreated in the
film with fantastic accuracy (I can say this because I saw the World At
War - Stalingrad episode directly afterwards), and the terror of the city
is well recreated in many of the well paced sniper segments. Jude Law is
a leading man, he captivates even though he has little to work with. Indeed
the actors cannot be blamed for their characters, maybe merely for the
choice of accents which equates growing up in the Urals with an East-End
barrow boy. And there are genuine moments of innovation in the action sequences
- sniper films will always have a degree of tension. But in the end even
the plotting is subject to the vagaries of bad writing, relying on coincidence
and luck just too many times to make us think that Law does not earn his
unsurprising victory.
The biggest
tragedy of Enemy At The Gates is that it does not do its own subject matter
justice. As well as a film about Stalingrad it wants to be a film about
media exploitation, class, race (Weisz and Fiennes are - handily - Jewish),
war, loyalty and a love story too. That is too much for this little film
to bear, despite looking good and having decent actors. Despite what the
film says about the historical existence of Law’s character, he seems no
more real than Harris’ well played but ridiculously conceived gentleman
sniper. There are better films about Stalingrad, and even better documentaries.
Not a bad film, but it could have been so much better. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: It would be the first third of Saving Private Ryan
hitting the second half of Full Metal Jacket and bits and bobs of The Day
Of The Jackal. And no sniping.
enTRAPment
There was
a time - I think it was 1995 - when I had managed to string together a
run of about twenty really good movies. None had hit me as being really
bad, and then I wondered. Was it perhaps me. Were my critical faculties
being eroded by too much pop culture. Would I spot a rubbish movie if it
creapt up on me, or would I make excuses and still see something good in
it. So I went to see the worst film I could find, the one with the most
appaling reviews - and you know what - I think I rather liked it. Still,
that's not my point. My point is, sometimes a film is so glaringly bad
that it really does reset your faculties. Now I've seen some rubbish films
this year (Virus and Clockwatchers especially spring to mind). But they
are masterpieces compared to the heap of shit I saw on a hot summers day,
when I could have being dying of sunstroke. My friends, Entrapment is almost
definately the worst film of the year.
It starts
terribly, with the film name. Or at least the word "Trap", which "En" and
"Ment" join slowly afterwards as if to explain the meaning of this rather
tricky word. Then we are plunged into the first of three hi-tech robberies,
and the first of our movie cliches. ie - Our thief is full clothed wearing
what looks like a cycle helmet. We never see the face, and hence it is
so obviously a women, and therefore our lovely insurance investigator Catherine
Zeta Jones. This, of course, is not revealed for a good hour and surprises
no-one in the world, even people who have never seen films, or women before.
The master
thief is a profession that only exists in the cinema. From Thomas Crowne
(in his affair), to Cary Grant in To Catch A Thief, these are high class
burglars, who by dint of their profession are rather dull. Think about
it. To break all this security requires meticulous planning. Meticulous
planning is not exactly an action scene. Secondly, if their plans come
off, they are in and out like no-one was there. So no real opportunity
for conflict. If things go wrong, then its a matter of running away (y'see
your master thief never, ever likes guns or even fighting). So mainly you;ve
got hours upon hours of training and planning, which is ingenious in a
Great Egg Race sort of way, but deathly dull in a - well Great Egg Race
sort of way.
Through
all of this we get possibly the most consumate display of beard acting
you'll ever see. Sean Connery, obviously too rich to really bother doing
anything these days, just sent his beard on assignment. He is full of appaling
non sequitus one liners: "I'm never late, if I'm late I'm dead" - which
you know isn't going to be true the one time he is late. Connery has not
been in a good film for a very long time, and he has not been good in a
film for even longer. Yep, he's got his iconic looks, and that voice, but
it does not make up for anything near a acting job. What makes it worse
is, while I daresay he's in good shape for a man his age, sixty is getting
on a bit for your master thief (though Eastwood gave it a go in Absolute
Power).
Entrapment
is the laziest kind of film, with the most inconsistant script I've ever
seen. In favour of some (what it thinks are) surprising plot twists, all
logic goes out of the window. Characters do things, reveal themselves as
something else, which makes their original actions seem ridiculous. What
there is of a supporting cast have ridiculous lines which are just ambiguous
enough to work, and therefore do nothing of the sort. Worst of all, it
all drags sooooo much. Like I said about Clockwatchers, there is never
an excuse for a film to be dull. When you are willing the cops to catch
the heroes just because you want to go get a pint, frankly that's a bad
film you are watching.
I like Catherine
Zeta Jones. She is drop dead georgeous, has worked pretty hard to get to
this point and was great in Zorro. She's not bad here, but has so little
to do. That she carries what there is that is watchable could be a credit
to her. That the film has made more than enough money for it to be a good
career boost for her, is also a plus point. But I never, ever want to see
this film again, and it may well be the last time I ever go see a Sean
Connery film. Trust me on this, if you never trust me again. Avoid this
film. It is absolute rubbish. (1 - and that 1 is for CZJ's arse).
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: Absolute Power hits The Real McCoy, making a real
mess and doing it so damn slowly.
Evolution
The problem
with science fiction is that it tends to think that the fiction word should
equally apply to the science word. Therefore the science ends up being
the most fanciful thing about the story, which is - of course - a great
pity as good science fiction is fundamentally about ideas. The beauty of
thinking of science, especially complex science, as a latter day rationalisation
for magic is that it allows us to imagine the impossible. If you are trying
to say something serious, or slip in some sort of idea of verisimilitude
- your science should try to be at least grounded in something which works.
Of course
Evolution is not trying to say something serious. If its trying to say
anything at all then it is probably something along the lines of “Wasn’t
Ghostbusters good, I wonder if I can do that again”. For the director of
Evolution is Ivan Reitman, the crown prince of the fantasy comedy. Director
of Ghostbusters, Multiplicity, Groundhog Day and lest we forget Bedazzled.
What all these films have in common is that they have fantastical plot
devices which are then used (in the better ones) to tease the humour out
of everyman characters. To be brutally honest though, what the good ones
of this list actually have in common is that Bill Murray was in them. Evolution
is a sci-fi redux of Ghostbusters (anti-establishment misfits save the
world) - but lacks the key ingredient that made that film work so well,
the deadpan charms of Murray.
Instead
we have the deadpan charms of David Duchovney. Now the X-Files star is
a lot funnier and more sardonic than previous roles may suggest, however
he is now scene chewing comedian. Yet the script keeps thinking he is Murray
- down to a mooning gag which is reminiscent of one in Stripes (a - surprise
surprise - Reitman film.) His chemistry teacher with a past is too one
dimensional, which can equally said of his love interest Julianne (oh dear)
Moore. Reitman is also known for his lousy female characters (or at least
picking lousy actresses) but even this does not excuse a lack of timing
and the work slapstick you will ever see. Only Orlando Jones and Sean Michael
Scott leave the film with any dignity and Orlando Jones gets the special
kind of dignity you get from being inserted up an aliens anus and covered
in goo. There is no reason for Scott’s character to be in this film, yet
he does the best with his material. As an ensemble buddy comedy the film
flounders.
It is summer
though, how does Evolution fare as a summer blockbuster? Well the special
effects are great, and oddly despite the silliness there is a sense of
impending danger. And whilst the science drops the ball big time near the
end, the threat itself is credible. Evolution was originally a horror movie,
which Reitman retooled as a comedy. Looking at it you might be hard pushed
to see how the horror aspect would have worked - but certain ideas about
evolution are never followed through so the aliens always seem alien (unless
they are for comic effect). As an action movie it again has a few moments
- usually punctuated by a lame gag. It does feel badly put together, and
this is eventually its downfall.
All that
said, Evolution is not a terrible film. It is full of ideas and its comedy
approach is an oblique look way of getting to these points. Whilst its
science is bad, or at least its scientists are bad (you would wonder if
they might test the effect of heat on the organisms…) it at least offers
something new in the monster movie category. It entertains and is just
a pity that it is too reminiscent of another much more superior film. And
“Who ya gonna call, a couple of college teachers” just doesn’t have the
same ring. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: It would be Ghostbusters without Bill Murray. Or
Slimer. And with a much fatter Dan Ackroyd.
eXistenZ
I often
find that my film going hits little stages. You get stuck in a rut, and
then a few good films come along. This week was a good double whammy, two
interesting, idiosyncratic and rather good movies came along. First Orphans
and now eXistenZ. A film which pays as more attention to theme, plot and
characterisation than it does to spelling or grammar.
I'm not
a Cronenberg nut, but I do appreciate his feel for style (wheras I've always
had a soft spot of Kronenburg. You know - the 1664 one.) That I've never
overtly cared for that style is more my problem. The fact that he has taken
on some difficult material and made good fists of it impresses me. I never
cared for the source material in The Naked Lunch, or Crash - but obviously
he can command some good actors and create a general uneasy air which works
for these films. Equally Videodrome, The Dead Zone and The Fly are scary
as fuck, and I still cannot watch the end of The Fly as it is just too
disgusting for my otherwise unassailible constitution. (Look, I managed
to sit through all of "Almost An Angel" so don't you question my constitution.)
Despite
all this I was rather looking forward to this one. It had a good trailer,
it starred actors I really like (I have always liked Jennifer Jason Leigh,
and this Jude Law is pretty good too). And I am a sucker for "idea" movies.
I like about the concept of films afterwards, and anything about Virtual
Reality is usually going to give you a nice little headfuck. So I had a
few beers (Hogshead, Holloway Road) with Kate and John, my perenial partners
in crime for this kind of film, and we settled in nicely, and we did something
I have never done in a Cronenberg film. I laughed my tits off. Not only
is this film rather clever, and well played, it is funny as fuck, and quite
possibly the funniest film I've seen this year. The beauty of it is, that
the majority of people will not even see it as a comedy - albeit one with
an interesting storyline.
The story
is pretty bog standard for a film like this, world reknowned game designer
Allegra Geller (Leigh) is attacked and goes on the run with young PR guy
Pikul (Law). Of course, along the way they end up testing the game, and
we then get old hoary game within a game scenario, and the pretty usual
conclusion to these things. But this is both a toying with the old ideas
of metaphysics which have been messed about with before. What is more amusing
is the whole running comentary on the film. Certain things don't gel, some
characters have appaling accents, the acting doesn't always seem quite
there. I twigged the reason for this early on, and even though it is all
explained at the end an awful lot of people in the cinema with us just
didn't get it. As we walked out, a large proportion of the audience moaned
about how crap it was. Which made us feel even better (intellectual on-upmanship
doncha know). The key line come halfway through the film where, immersed
in the game, Pikul utter words he had not meant to say. "Sometimes," Geller
says "you have to say something just to make the game progress, even if
you wouldn't normally say it". This is not so much a commentary on the
game, as a commentary both on the film, and films in general. Why are people
out of character, when that's all their character is? To hide this intriguing
message in the heart of a supposedly serious sci-fi thriller, with the
decoy theme of violence desensitzation (yawn yawn), is a masterstroke.
You sit there saying Jude Law's accent is shit? Wait until the end and
it all makes sense.
This is
thefirst original screenplay Cronenburg has written since Videodrome, and
its obvious that the novelty of doing so again has been liberating. He
is having an awful lot of fun with lots of ideas, and this comes through
on the screen. This film is funny because it is so much fun. To help him
he has cast a lead couple which, like in The Fly, there is a real uneasy
chemistry between. His cameos are all amusing, yet further the plot (well
- they are supposed to - as the film explains.) And of course, like time
travel films, VR films are always confusing. Yet here everything is tied
up neatly, even giving us the pay-off line we expect, with a sly wink and
a nod to those in the knois most outstanding about eXistenZ though is the
urge you get to see the damn thing again. Like any tricksy movie, you want
to check back and see if it all makes sense. And you can't build a cult
movie any better than that. Bravo David Cronenburg. (1664)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Twelve Monkeys, Videodrome and Young Frankenstein.
Or something. Maybe a Coen Brothers movie drives in too. Ah, fuck it, this
movie just ain't a car crash.
