Lake
Placid
You know
- cinema is an entertainment medium. We go out for fun. Yes, many times
this may also include films whose artifice is fantastically clever, that
can elucidate problems with the human condition. But unless there is a
level of entertainment, a fiendishly clever plot or style the whole thing
could be wholly pointless. You may have a message, but unless it is couched
in entertaining terms you have lost your audience. This is one of the reasons
American Beauty has done so well, it has some interesting social points
to make but it is all wrapped in a confection of satire, black humour and
an okay (if join the dots) plot. The last month has seen a lot of poe-faced,
serious movies. All done, admittedly, well and with more than a fair amount
of entertainment value. But somewhere along the line - the filmgoer in
me wants to see something unabashedly stupid. And in the absence of a Farrelly
Brothers movie, a flick about a giant crocodile will do me.
Lake Placid
- paradoxically not set in Lake Placid (one of the films subtler gags),
is a four-way bickering buddy movie hidden by a its trappings as a monster
movie. A very small film; it sets out its stall in its very first scene
and plays it absolutely straight with regards to its genre. It just has
lots of lovely little touches which keep you entertained even if you have
seen this plot played out many times before. Lake Placid is just good fun,
a popcorn movie if ever there was one.
With regards
to the plot - which is of course perfunctory at best. Bloke gets eaten
by giant crocodile (we don't strictly know this in the film, but the poster
gives it away). Cue a gathering of our four experts: local Sheriff (Brendan
Gleason with a thoroughly unique accent), Bill Pullman (bland as ever,
this time he is a fish and game expert), Bridget Fonda (New York Palaeontologist,
as shrieky girl and nature hater) and Oliver Platt (nutter rich scientist
who worships crocodiles). They go out, try to find crocodile, and when
they find it they try to catch it. Never has the phrase Bish, Bash, Bosh
been uttered with more feeling after seeing a film. It rattles along nicely,
no sub-plots, no skulduggery. Its just a few people out to catch a crocodile.
Yes, the crocodile shouldn't be there - and this is mentioned. However,
it is there, and as such let us not dwell on any conspiracy theories putting
it there.
What is
so refreshing about Lake Placid is that it does not seek to explain everything.
A lesser film, most films in this genre, think that to lend the correct
degree of verisimilitude we have to know that this could happen in real
life. Fine, and Lake Placid goes to minimal lengths to suggest its science
works (its a crocodile, they live in lakes). It does not alter the premise
if we know that this is highly unlikely - for the premise of the film is
there is a giant crocodile. Similarly there are few points when our cast
is in danger - they have the guns and can really escape at any time. They
are there because it is their job to be there. This is not truly a horror
film in any sense of the word. It is more akin to a dark sit-com, and that
is how the film works.
David E.Kelley
- writer of Lake Placid (and successful TV writer - Ally MacBeal anyone?)
understands the dynamics of sit-com. Four competing characters, all with
reasons to dislike each other - but able to make temporary allegiances.
Add to this some moments of true farce and a couple of fantastically surreal
moments (fishing with a cow as bait is just magic cinema) and all you need
to do is provide the lines. The odd thing is, a lot of the lines in Lake
Placid are actually quite poor. Yet they are played with the conviction
that they are good comedy so they nevertheless make you smile. The film
could have been much funnier, but is never less than amusing. Perhaps this
is at the expense of the horror, though the horrific moments are still
a bit grim, but there is never any suggestion in the film that the tone
was ever meant to be anything different.
Lake Placid
is short. It is funny. It has a fine story and plot and plays out it set
pieces without a hitch. On top of all of this, the special effects are
excellent and the acting top notch. It will never win awards, and in a
lot of ways could have been better. But in a marketplace crammed to the
gills with serious movies - a truly clever dumb movie (as opposed to a
truly dumb, dumb movie like Deep Blue Sea) will do me anytime. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Jaws meets Tremors. Not as good as either, but not
bad either.
Last
Night
There is
a wee trick, you may have noticed to my cinema going. Some films I'll see
pretty much as they limp out in out cinema's. Others, despite intriguing
concepts, rather nifty ads and the prevailing air that I might rather like
them - I leave until there is not a chance that anyone else who might be
interested will go see them. I almost invariably love such flicks. And
Last Night (which I saw last night on its last night), is no exception.
I should be kicking myself though, since a friend Jacqui had advised me
to see it a good month ago. Still, its residency at the Virgin Haymarket
had been putting me off, as had the suggestion that it would be a touch
ponderous. Instead, I turn up a film which will romp into my film of the
year battle (fighting at the moment the wholly different 10 Things I Hate
About You).
The plot
is simple. The world is going to end at midnight. There is nothing we can
do about it. We have known about it for months. What do you do on your
final night on Earth? This is of course the flip side of last years hideously
overblown special effects epics Armageddon and Deep Impact. All we ever
saw there were the people staring upwards, hoping for salvation from Bruce
Willis (man I would have put a bet on him saving us if I was there - Willis
never lets you down). Instead everyone has accepted their fate, and are
now trying to spend this last night in the best way possible.
Last Night
is loosely structured around Patrick, a single man who we discover lost
his girlfriend just as the news of the worlds end was announced. We see
his parents (who intend to relive Christmases past), his sister, who is
going to a huge street party. We also meet Sandra, picking up the last
few things from a looted supermarket who's car gets trashed by a crowd
in the street. Their stories, and those of a number of other characters
intertwine through the evening - until the inevitable end. Despite this
unavoidable ending, the film is fascinating, hanging on each of its characters
and showing each of the dignity of their respective choices. Rather than
having a downbeat ending, its finale is rather life affirming - which is
surely a victory for a film with such a dark theme.
This is
a Canadian film, set in Toronto, written and directed by Don McKellar.
Quite low budget, with no stars (unless you count director David Cronenburg)
stylistically it resembles seventies apocalpytic thriller The Omega Man.
He does not blow a special effects budget on producing a giant asteroid,
we never find out why the world is ending, as it does not matter to the
plot. Instead he uses his art direction and a degree of intelligence. There
would be widescale looting, people would not work. There would be rampaging
gangs of angry youths in areas, but in other areas the streets would be
littered and empty - who would be cleaning the streets. The city looks
normal, but is eerily waiting for something. One thing I always admire
is how a director can turn a potential problem into victory. here this
is the obvious early morning street shoots (for no traffic, and no people).
Though we go towards midnight, it does not get dark - odd when you first
notice it, rather clever when you feel it is part of the plot (it is vaguely
mentioned once, and not again).
While the
film looks great, and the acting is superb, it is McKellars awkward script
which makes the film work so well. He does not insult the audiences intelligence,
he allows us to join up certain dots. He gives us the space to consider
what we would do, and shows us a few other characters. The guy who just
has a huge amount of sex, the couple who want to commit suicide, and Patrick
who wants to be alone. Each of these choices are shown as valid, there
is no judgment - and in doing that the film is making a positive statement
on life. Rather than commenting on how people should be allowed to die
in their own way, we are instead shown how people should be allowed also
to live.
Last Night
is a film which is at turns playful, funny, dark and heart-rending. All
this from an idea which pre-supposes the ending, and hence should potentially
remove any major impetus for us to watch it. We know everyone is going
to die. There is a nominal plot about Sandra trying to get home, but one
which is loose and does not need to drive the storyline. The characterization
of these individuals, coupled with a very clever soundtrack linking device
(the DJ who is spending his last night playing his favourite records).
Overall what makes Last Night work is its visual style, without a special
effect in sight we get the feeling that this may well be the last night
on earth. And those of us who want to be with our loved ones, want to kill
ourselves or just want to shag our way to armageddon have the complete
right to do so. And the final moment of the film, the odd point of justification
for our lives, is as life affirming as any relentlessly upbeat film. (10)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Armageddon hits The Omega Man, but its the little
people we look at. Maybe a touch of Happiness in there too.
Late
Night Shopping
Sometimes
a film hinges on a premise which is so fantastical that the rest of the
film just has to work to convince you of its plausibility. Look at something
like Jurassic Park – its an excuse to get dinosaurs in a film but whilst
the effects are great the plotting has to work overtime to make us really
believe it. Late Night Shopping is equally such a film – although with
a far more modest special effects budget. Instead it has to convince as
that a man working night shift never meets his girlfriend who works days,
despite a 9 to 5 for her and a 10 to 7 for him. If you swallow this contrivance
you could well go on to enjoy Late Night Shopping an awful lot.
This is
a film of contradictions. The credits tell us it is part funded by the
Glasgow film board, yet you would be lucky to see a Scottish accent until
the last ten minutes. Our cast are a bunch of attractive and intelligent
slacker twenty-something’s working dead end jobs when they could obviously
be doing better things. And the dialogue is hyper-real to the extent
that the snappy lines are unlike anything uttered in a early morning café.
The strangest thing is what connects these characters – hanging around
after their various night shifts – would never happen. This café
is their variant of a pub, for the sad yet cool.
All the
above should be problems with the film but the writer and director in the
first two thirds at least turn all these points to their advantage. The
film is stylised, toying with its temporal storytelling technique and presenting
four stereotypes it then fleshes out. Some of this fleshing out is better
than others. Kate Ashfield’s girl in the gang has the least to work with
but like in The Lowdown she manages to create a sympathetic heroine. Luke
de Woolfson’s baby faced hospital porter is the heart of the movie and
his dithering is just about bearable. James Lance as the caddish lothario
of the film has the best lines, and borders on the edge of believability
– which is initially distracting but later you connect that with his insecurity.
And while the core four interact the film is hip, funny and a low key delight.
Unfortunately
in the last third the film feels it needs to get some resolution with the
main love story – and takes its characters on an unlikely road trip. This
brings out some of the films funniest moments, but in trying to create
happy endings for all of its protagonists also undermines the slacker vibe
from the rest of the film. Whilst containing the best crazy golf scene
in cinema since Overboard the film flounders, piling happy endings and
twists upon itself until it outstays its welcome. After fluffing three
potential endings it finishes with a symbolic burst of light which is nowhere
near as good as the other resolutions.
All that
said Late Night Shopping is exactly the kind of film that British film
makers should be looking to when knocking out their low budget epics. The
script contains some great one liners and the cast are fresh faced and
attractive enough to warrant your attention. That the plotting lets it
down is a minor point – you will enjoy it despite these flaws. And any
film which can wrest such humour out of Marillion’s Kayleigh is a good
thing in my book. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: It’d be Slacker hitting Clerks – with perhaps a little
bit too much plot for its own good.
Une
Liason Pornographique
If you go
and see this film (and as you will see below, I strongly urge that you
do) I have found it best not to tell anyone. Not because it is in any way
a bad film, but you will get looks. They will assume that you are off down
Ramonds Revue Bar (or your local tenderloin equivalent) for piss poor Scandinavian
porn and a quick one off the wrist. And while Une Liason Pornographique
is about sex, to some degree, it does not actually include a lot of sex.
So for that matter, if you were after a film to stimulate your onanistic
urges, you probably are better off down Rupert Street.
This is
a fantastically simple film, with a visible cast of just two and only really
three sets (except the one point the action - as it is - moves outside
this closed world). In grand thematic style we have our two main characters
un-named. The film is attempting to almost to be a parable, though one
quite unlike you would get in the Bible. Instead we have a to camera dissection
of an affair between our woman and man. Then in flashback we get to see
what happened. Using grand themes and some simple yet powerful techniques,
the director Frédéric Fonteyne manages to captivate the audience
for the films all too brief running time (80 minutes).
The plot
is very bare boned. The woman - Nathalie Baye - puts an ad in a porn magazine,
or was it the internet, for a partner to perform a very specific and unusual
sexual act. The man - Sergi Lopez - replies. They meet, they have sex in
this particular manner. Hence the name of the film. The basis for their
affair was strictly sexual, hence strictly pornographic. However they keep
meeting and after a while, the pair fall in love. Can a relationship where
both parties don't even know each others name work? Its difficult to discuss
the beauty of the movie without answering that question, but trust me the
film takes its themes to a logical conclusion and whilst its ending may
not be strictly happy it does feel right.
The mere
fact that there is so little plot makes you wonder how it manages to sustain
even such a short running time. It is quite clear from the first five minutes
where the film is going, and yet it is a delight to watch it get there.
This is partially due to the clever way the film is shot and edited. We
never find out what their sexual act is, instead the camera linger outside
in the very red hallway. The device of interview is used to emphasize this
is in the past, but also to highlight how important the relationship was
to both of them. The discrepancies in their accounts are natural, but lead
you to partially distrust first one, then the other - until this is shown
to be a device to mark out the humanity of our characters. Oddly the film
it most resembles is Brief Encounter. Whilst it takes place over a much
longer period, and is not at all chaste, the underlying themes that society,
and our place in it eventually rule our decisions is made abundantly clear.
All of that
said, Une Liason Pornographique could have been a terrible piece of Euro
arthouse nonsense. The thing that saves it is the two lead actors. They
understand their characters perfectly, and play them off each other with
easy. Both in their late thirties there is an assumption that they have
seen some life, and are yet willing to explore and enjoy it. For a film
with such an uncomfortable ending it is amazing to see how much these two
characters smile. You have never seen more expressive smiles either, from
the hopeful to the wistful to ones of pure sexual delight. It is a small
film, but a film of touches, from the set design of their hotel to the
trip hop soundtrack.
In the end
Une Liason Pornographique could be criticised for being a touch inconsequential.
Fair enough, but that does not detract from its almost perfection of the
art of small film-making. Perhaps it appealed to me more than it would
others: I am a hopeless romantic and a hopeless cynic and both sides of
me are pandered here. It manages to make us understand this unusual affair,
and unable to stop getting involved. Perhaps it is a little bit too neat,
a little bit too perfectly plotted but sometimes the rough edges have to
be knocked off of life's imperfections. I just found it breathtakingly
beautiful. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Last Tango In Paris bangs into Brief Encounter but
with ounces more wit and charm
Life
Is Beautiful
(La Vita
è bella)
The logistics
of reviewing movies after I see them is one which tends to render this
whole process pointless, but for my own vanity in expressing my opinions.
Take "Life Is Beautiful", (La Vita è Bella). Winner of the special
Jury prize at Cannes 1998, winner best foreign film at the Oscars, released
here a a good two months ago. I finally got round to seeing it last week.
This at least two weeks after everyone else in the world. Finger on the
pulse, that's me.
There is
a reason I left it so long. Like many other people in the world, I found
the idea of the film uncomfortable. Now I'm not going to launch into a
long diatribe about the sanctity of history, or even that certain things
are so tragic they should only ever be treated with reverence. It was more
that I found the idea of the film (which is as you well know a comedy set
in a concentration camp) too audacious for it to ever live up to my expectations.
Comedy is a medium which can express a lot more than simple belly laughs,
and if done properly this could be a masterpiece. The margin for error
though was hideously slim. I am pleased to say that Bengini hits the mark.
It is a
film of two halves, each perfectly staged and conceived as mini-films in
themselves. Begnini is a very physical comedian, his direct lineage goes
back a to silent comedy, through physical comedians as diverse as Keaton
and Jerry Lewis. The silent movie comparison is one which is important
- first to explain the way the film has played so well to a world audience.
But also this similarity allows us to see both portions of the film as
episodes - the first half would certainly work as a forty minute happy
romantic comedy. That said the second half would be a touch more disturbing
if it was not for the preceding fun. The divide in the film is made clearly
by plot rather than tone. Whilst cinematically the second half is darker,
visually brown takes over from the sunny primaries of the early film, there
is little change in tone. Bengini is our comic everyman, who we laugh at
not because he is funny, but because he is consciously being funny. This
is important, because it means we are in on his plan to preserve his sons
innocence within the concentration camp. All we laugh at in the second
half of the film is our hero's ridiculing of the tragedy, for his sons
benefit. This never reduces the dignity of the characters suffering, and
the film does not shy from the cold hard fact that most of these people
were going to die.
Some critics
have attacked Bengini for the sheer narcissism of the project. To write,
direct and star in a comedy of this magnitude may well suggest an ego of
stupendous size. Perhaps this is true but it does not reduce from the success
of the film. The main character is presented in an idyllic light, there
are perhaps a few two many adoring glances from his wife. But this is a
comedy. Despite it drawing on some desperate themes, the price of success
is - is this film funny when it is supposed to be, and undeniably it is.
It is also important to view the film the way it is couched, as a fable
told by the son who was protected. Why on Earth would he show his heroic
father in a light other than flattering? That said, there are subtleties
in the film which are there to be happily ignored if the viewer chooses
to. The fact that Begnini is tricking his son into thinking this is all
a game gets the lions share of screen time, but the sons complicity in
believing for his fathers sake is also there in the film. The film is also
an indictment on the rise of fascism, which is there in the background
of our happy comedy - but everyone is so distracted by living their lives
to let it concern them, as we are enjoying the film to overtly notice it
too.
Life Is
Beautiful is a triumph of film-making, which everyone should see. It is
so well structured, plotted and written that it is effortlessly successful.
It stands in stark contrast to many films out there which are interesting,
even good, but flawed in some respect. Due to its subject matter it is
almost as if Bengini knew there was no margin of error. It was either very
good, or an abject failure. It is thankfully, very, very good. Please don't
leave it any longer than I have, because as a modern cinematic fable, it
is nothing short of fabulous. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: It would be the po faced BMW of Schindler's List
being ramraided by Safety Last by Harold Lloyd. Chaplin's Great Dictator
would drive slowly past and rubber neck..
Limbo
Audacity,
its an over rated quality. Part of the problem is to be audacious is to
be surprising, shocking and novel - though more often than not someone
who is being audacious is just using novelty as their main trick. It's
the old abstract art paradigm. Anyone can draw a bunch of lines on a canvas
and call it a Mondrian - so the argument goes - and the only interesting
thing about a Mondrian is that its just a bunch a lines. Though Piet Mondrian
was a classical artist beforehand, and finally worked down to the point
of horizontal and vertical lines. He was still drawing a tree. So perhaps
what is so beguiling about a Mondrian is that he using the very basic tools
of art to show us a different aspect of landscape. Its not my field, but
it does relate to the new John Sayles movie: Limbo.
Now I'm
a relative John Sayles virgin, in as much as I only really know Lone Star
(and Alligator). That said, Lone Star is easily one of my favourite films,
as you will see from its review, and certainly shows that he is a director
of more than average talent. Perhaps one of his strongest points is to
build a strong sense of place out of characterisation. In Lone Star it
was the strange tensions of a border town, here we have the dead end land
of opportunity that is Alaska. And whilst Sayles films his canvas with
a large number of locals to construct this feeling of place - this is fundamentally
a three hander.
One of the
problems with doing an ensemble slice of life drama, is that they tend
not to be too dramatic. In Lone Star, Sayles had a mystery on which to
hang his observations. Here he has no such simple device, instead we see
our three main characters slowly interacting around each other, a gentle
love story developing but nothing too pressing. Until halfway through the
film when this becomes a genuine three hander, by shipwrecking the couple
and the daughter on a very remote island. The whole pitch of the film shifts
from the metaphorical Limbo they were previously in (dead end jobs, lives
going nowhere) to an actual physical Limbo of a remote Alaskan island.
That is not the only Limbo we have to deal with however - there is the
achingly open ending too.
Limbo manages
its change from ensemble romance to survival drama well. Indeed the romance
was threatening to overwhelm the film. David Strathairn plays the gangly
odd job man "with a past" to Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's flighty single
mother bar singer. The third member of the triumvirate - the daughter -
is initially built up well but unfortunately left to clichés to
show how lonely she is (self abuse, surly teenage angst). There does seem
to be something missing from the first half of the film, which is soon
replaced by the urgency of their life or death situation. Jessica Fernadez's
daughter comes into her own in the second half, in an almost Scheherzadian
tragedy of storytelling. People come to terms with one another, and then
a plane comes. But does the plane come to rescue them, or bring people
to kill them? That is the question, and that question is not answered.
By ending
the film before its natural end, Sayles does more than annoy his audience
(though this he does to quite a degree). A bold move like this throws up
all sorts of questions about story telling, true resolutions to any fiction
and happy or tragic endings. We a left with a Schrodingers cat of an ending,
we do not know what will happen. This makes the film more interesting than
it previously was, because Limbo's faults were that many of its scenario's
and characteristic were too derived. There is nothing new in what Limbo
is saying about people, and it does not say these things in a new way.
Only the ending, or non-ending, gives us anything different.
Limbo is
a good film. It is very well made, and the acting is sumptuous. Indeed
so are the visuals which show us a countryside many will have never seen.
However the contents of the film, whilst well written and truthfully told,
are a little bit too pat. Only the audacious ending brings in any novelty,
and allows you to reflect on a film which, if it had been genuinely resolved,
would have just been a well made, well intentioned but easily forgettable
film. So perhaps it falls down on audicity for its own sake. But that does
not stop it being interesting. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Robinson Crusoe mixed with Lone Star being vaguely
sideswiped by quirky nineties drama Northern Exposure in its rollicking
TV car.
The
Limey
I'm from
London. You may have noticed this as a vaguely perennial theme in this
website. I am also of the opinion that where you are from colours your
world view to some extent or other. So as a Londoner, and hence as an British
subject, where do I stand with respect to Stephen Soderbergh's follow up
to the exquisite Out Of Sight? Well, I liked it, but even now the memory
is starting to fade. You see The Limey is a very very small picture, with
a teeny tiny plot and nothing much to say. Short, sweet but ultimately
inconsequential.
I am rather
tempted to end the review here. There really is very little in The Limey
to get your teeth into. As a debut picture it would have been fantastic,
if it had managed to sneak out from under the radar of independent films.
It is a hard, gritty crime drama with a few interesting directorial flourishes
but with the most obvious of pitches. Here it is: Point Blank meets Get
Carter. Terrence Stamp plays Wilson, a Cockney ex-con out to avenge the
death of his daughter in LA a few year before. Peter Fonda plays Terry
Valentine the man who killed her. There is a wee bit of cat and mouse,
as Wilson gets closer and closer to Valentine, until we get the fated meeting.
Resolution. End. That's it. Simple story like I said.
There is
nothing wrong with a low key film who's job is just to entertain. It just
feels a little bit disappointing after Out Of Sight, a film also created
merely to entertain - but one which does with so much more flourish. There
is little humour in The Limey, that which there is has been teased out
by the director. And Soderbergh does do a good job. He does his usual playing
with time, lovingly finds some fantastic locations, and wrings the best
out of his actors. Which is just as well, because as a lead Terrence Stamp
would usually strike me as a bit of a let down. I don't really rate Stamp
that highly, he pops up in quite a few films and never really distinguishes
himself. Here he walks the walk very well, playing a somewhat shambolic
version of a British gangster. The only time he looks a little bit unconvincing
is when attampting to over-do the Cockney rhyming slang. He has spent twenty
years moving away from his East End roots, and he does not do cockney with
aplomb. Part of this is the scripts fault, for resting its comedic eggs
so filmly in this one basket. But equally there is something embarressing
about Stamp going "Butchers Hook - Look".
One of the
problems with The Limey is you feel, after the complexities of Out Of Sight,
that Soderbergh is sleepwalking here. Like the previous film, this has
a great soundtrack - in parts. There is an unsettling non-chromatic piano
motife used constantly in the film which does a good just of keeping the
audience on the edge. At the same time, the two main characters are lovingly
introduced with a couple of fine sixties tunes (fine if obvious - Wilson
gets The Who's "The Seeker", while Valentine gets a slightly more obscure
Hollies number "King Midas In Reverse"). Clever use of Ken Loach's "Poor
Cow" for sixties flashback scenes also give the movie a bit of depth. And
there is a nice play off at the end, a vague sting in the resolution. But
in the end The Limey is merely a Play For Today, directed in an excellent
way but still low key.
The Limey
is an entertaining hour and a half, a cat and mouse between a couple of
interesting characters. But it is never, and could never, be any more than
that. There is just not enough in the script for even a film-maker like
Soderbergh to tease any more out. It is an interesting addition to Soderbergh's
films, as a low key showcase for his craft, but in the end its a small
story told well but it don't really mean nothing. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Point Blank hits Get Carter. I've said it before...
Lola
Rente
(Run Lola
Run)
Well aren't
we being Mr Cosmopolitan. (And I don't mean Chocolate, Strawberry and Vanilla
here - m'na m'na). Spanish, Japanese and now a German film - anyone would
think I had picked up a new set of reading glasses. I've often wondered
what they do in subtitled 3-D films, do the words leap out at you too,
or remain resolutely mid-distanced, with the old rubber shark in Jaws leaping
over it. Well, luckily, this German effort was not in 3-D - though that
would not have necessarily harmed the film - as every other imaginable
technique is flung at the screen. But Run Lola Run is pretty much what
it says on the box, its a film about a woman called Lola, well, running.
And they say it twice because she does it a lot.
The action
movie is often seen as a purely American beast. It is true that there are
not a lot of Middle European die hards out there (though Hong Kong occasionally
churns out the odd actioner). The point is, we don't get to see them because
it is believed that the two audiences do not, in general overlap. Which
m,ay be true, but it does not actually make that much sense. After all,
the one thing an action film does not have much of in general is dialogue.
Hence, not too many distracting subtitles. Run Lola Run has used this very
much to its advantage, that and a few other tricks, so that though it is
in German, this is probably the easiest transition for a foreign language
film.
Put simply,
Run Lola Run is an allternate endings movie, a bit like Sliding Doors but
less on the romantic comedy side, and more on the gangster, thriller. Simply,
Lola's boyfriend has lost 100,000 Marks. She has 20 minutes to rustle up
said cash before he goes and robs a supermarket. We then see, unfolding,
the outcome of her plan - three times, depending on what happens as she
leaves - ie how she reacts to a barking dog. Coupled with some relentless
techno, flashy (almost over the top visuals), and some nice tricks this
is the relentless road we follow Lola running down. And it is a very enjoyable
80 minute ride through this twenty somethings life, and briefly the lives
of others.
A simple
premise, the repetative storyline and an attractive lead character is at
the heart of the film, and one would be tempted to say that this is the
secret to this film. It would be untrue however, the secret of Run Lola
Run is all in its packaging. The constant loud music, the montage secquences,
the flashes from 16mm to video to montage even to animation, coupled with
some great action sequences are really what suck you in. The use of obvious
clock face imagery, the slightly different repetition and the low level
philosophical idea that ever moment decsions are made beyond our control
which completely change our lives. So the film gives you enough to think
about, while you are being distracted.
That is
not to say that the good solid story and premise do not make the film work.
If you do not have a solid foundation, any amount of technical camera trickery
will not give you a film. However it is the simplicity of the plot, which
allows the film to then "muck about". That and, as Isaid, a very arresting
lead in Lola, with her red hair, her constant motion, and palpable desperation
as she tries to do the right thing. Of course, with so many things going
on, its not surprising that some things fall flat. The bed based philsophical
discussions which bookend each of the three attempts are weighty and frankly
dull. The techno is not cutting edge, can get rather repetative and - well
is of pretty low quality. And the final, successful attempt, is based on
coincidence and chance - which may well be the theme of the movie, but
nevertheless makes the overall conclusion less satisfying.
Run Lola
Run, for all its flaws, is a hell of a lot of fun - and you tend not to
get to say things like that about German films. Moreover, it is different,
and make Hollywood action films look exceeding bloated in comparison. Cheap,
cheerful but packed full of ideas, it has probably the best female lead
role of the year, and an actress to match. I won't be cheesy and tell you
to Run to see RLR, but a brisk walk would probably satisfy. Its a good
fun film. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Sliding Doors, meets the Long Kiss Goodnight and
Nick Of Time (little seen Johnny Depp actioner told in real time a while
back). In German.
Lone
Star
You know
that the NFT is in North London by proxy. From the Film Bar, you can see
North London, across the river so I always feel comfortable there. The
bar being nice enough, under the bridge and the selection of flicks is
always idiosyncratic with a feel of too much art for its own good running
roughshod with the glourious history of cinema. I like the NFT a lot, because
of what it is. And when I found out, at five on Saturday, that Lone Star
was on at six - I ran pell mell across theis city to make it. Hot, sweaty
and five minutes late (though not as late as the film turned out to be)
I managed to settle down to see one of the most impressive films of the
nineties.
I don't
watch many video's, it comes with being a bit of a cinema junkie. I've
either seen them before they come out, or I'm at the cinema watching films.
It figures. However I did see Lone Star earlier this year, round at Kate
and John's, and was mightily impressed by it (especially as we boys were
pooh poohing it all the way out of the shop). I guess Imissed it when it
came out, I remember it getting excellent reviews but there was something
about the plot - history being raked up in a sleepy border town - just
did not appeal. Well, you know me, the number of times a movie has turned
me off that turns out to be a corker. Well, Lone Star is a genuine ten
out of ten corker (sorry to spoil your surprise about the rating).
Lone Star
was written, directed and edited by John Sayles, who has been in and around
Hollywood for years. Often a director for hire, a script doctor, this is
obviously from the outcome a much more personal project. We start with
two army men finding a skull, which later turns out to be of the town's
sherriff who vanished forty years previous. The current sherriff Sam Dedes,
Cliff, is the son of the Sherriff Buddy who took over, who there were always
vague rumours that he did away with his predecessor. Sheriff Buddy was
seen as pretty much the heart of the town, indeed the only person who did
not like him was his own son - the current sheriff, as he banned a relationship
with his high school girlfriend. The story then wends its leisurely way
through a rekindling of that relationship, over an exploration of the past
and a thorough exploration of the ways in which history can effect us.
History
is the point of Lone Star. This is highlighted in the many flashback sequences,
the sequences which incidentally are the only ones which contain "name"
actors (Kris Kristofferson and Matthew McConoughy). The flashbacks a panned
into, from the present day scene, and therefore there is no hard cut. This
presents the image of a living history, something still vital affecting
the modern day. Lone Star shows us just how much it affects the characters,
how Sherriff Buddy's son is seen as just that and not a man in his own
right. With is ex girlfriend, Pilar, being a History teacher this is also
brought to light early on in a discussion on "what version of history is
taught". While the conclusion of the mystery frees up a bit of the past,
it is buried again for the common good.
Lone Star
meanders, but always with purpose. It has about four or five stories intertwined
of varying degrees of simplicity, and manages to straddle a very fine line
between a mystery, a drama, family saga and a romance mixed with character
based gentle humour. To then have a very thoughtful subtext laid on top
of this is a work of masterpiece. This is in many ways due to the acting,
primarily of unknowns, who nevertheless manage to breathe real life into
their characters. The two romantic leads played by Elizabeth Pinar and
Chris Cooper do deserve a special mention, though this is very much an
ensemble effort of fine character actors. To compare these unknownswith
the established actors in the flashback roles, gives the history a degree
of mythology, as if it is already bigger in peoples minds. This is a beautiful
touch by Sayles, who directs the entire films with such an eye for detail
that it would be impossible to suggest that anything in this film happened
by accident.
I would
be confident in calling Lone Star one of the best films of the nineties.
Its seeming simplicity belies a great deal of complexity, and there is
easily more going on here than in other multi-layered films such as Short
Cuts. On top of that it has an original aim and premise, and relies neither
on star value or flashy directorial tricks to get this across. Its final
conclusion is also lovely and, leads you to believe it is correct - whatever
your ethics (I do not wish to spoil the ending but it is a corker which
may run contrary to many peoples established viewpoint). In the end, it
was an absolute pleasure to watch at the NFT, and it is a film which bears
rewatching again and again and - hopefully not before too long - again.
(10)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, with a bit of Short
Cuts, with a whole new set of tricks chucked in. A very, very good car
crash.
Lost
Souls
Hooray for
the rubbish horror thriller genre. There is nothing funnier of an evening
to see some half decent actors completely destroy their own career by looking
stoney faced at badly written horrors that leap up around them. Especially
if the justification is religious and – super double bonus – the horror
is based on about half a line of the Bible. Last years Stigmata played
this role too a tee, and End Of Days also pitched in for the guffaws. This
year though we have had an embarrassment of riches. Bless The Child (which
unfortunately I missed) and the so bad its actually pretty bad – Lost Souls.
Winona Ryder.
There I have said it – and I was never sure I would get round to it on
this site. Box office poison – of late – personal poison forever. Her acting
skills have always appear negligable to me, and her choice of roles has
been so poor over the last few years it beggars belief. She cannot do comedy,
she can just about do period stiff - and she certainly does not do
action lead. She does vaguely nuts okay, but then any character with goth
style black eyeliner qualifies them for vaguely nuts in this day and age.
In Lost Souls her character is not even one dimensional.
Luckily
Ben Chaplin, the luckiest no mark sitcom actor in BBC2’s history – or at
least he was up until this point, steps in with the other character in
the film. That’s right, there are only two characters of any note in this
movie, and they are not characters as such. Ben’s arc is to be a sceptic
who is slowly won over to the fact that the Devil is coming to town in
his body. Instead of kicking the nutter out from the get go, Chaplin is
intrigued by goth girl – and an absolutely tensionless, charismaless non-romance
follows. They desperately search for a way to save him, whilst Satanist
help save his life and killer priests go on the rampage. The ending is
supposedly nihilistic and shocking but rocks in at a just plain silly and
dull.
There are
so many plot holes in Lost Souls that there really isn’t be anything that
resembles a plot left. The Devil has picked this body, and this has been
planned for quite some time (33 years to be precise). It is never clear
what exactly the Dev will do when he gets in it – except perhaps beat the
shit out of Winnie. Nothing makes this clearer that the ridiculously anti-climatic
ending – when the moment of transformation passed and we are left with
what might have been the only good scene in the movie. How will the Devil
be any different to Chaplin? Well, any “is he – isn’t he” suspense is destroyed
by the in car clock conveniently flickering to the improbably time of 6:66.
The bedtime of the beast?
Lost Souls
is nowhere near as funny as Stigmata, with which it shares more than a
number of similarities. It is a terrible movie, unfortunately it is also
a rather dull one. Anyone hoping for “so bad its good” will probably be
disappointed. Anyone after a film starring that hot chick Winona Ryder
will be satisfied. But in this day and age that must be a pretty small
target audience. Neither scary, nor exciting, at turns tedious, stupid
and inconsistent – Lost Souls should have been renamed. Lost Cause. (1)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: It would be Stigmata hitting End Of Days hitting
Rosemary’s Baby hitting Bless The Child in a big vat of shit.
Love
And Sex
Lousy movie
titles of our time. Well, anyone who saw the base thesis on this subject
in the review for the film EnTRAPment will know that I am in favour of
a films title being vaguely allusive to what the film is about. However,
one may wish not to be too obvious. Love And Sex therefore places itself
in a bind very early doors. Because whilst it is undeniably a film partially
about both love, and to a lesser extent, sex - there has not been a romantic
comedy which have not held these two topics close to its core. It muddies
the waters further by having a title which is a bit like Love and Death
(Woody Allen’s finest comedic hour) mixing it up with the Sex - which Woody
also did a film which told everything you wanted to know about. This would
be fine if the film did not owe quite as much debt to Woody as it so obviously
does.
Next to
an episode of Friends, Love And Sex would stand up rather well as a big
city, romantic comedy. Next to Annie Hall, upon which this film is more
than obviously modelled, it falls down enormously. This has little to do
with its two stars - Jon Favreau and our narrator Famke Janssen. Its Janssen’s
role to anchor the film, which she tries terribly hard to do. But the material
she is given just is not quite strong enough - and she does not really
convince as this unlucky in love, slobby turning into cat woman. She is
too good looking and the lines just are not good enough. Favreau is a lot
more convincing as the artist boyfriend - and when he is on screen the
film does pick up a touch. This is not wholly down to Favreau’s not inconsiderable
charms - there is a palpable chemistry between Janssen and Favreau which
make their romance a lot more convincing than the rest of the film. Ironically,
this is what weaken the whole film considerably.
The main
problem with Love And Sex is that underpinning the odd one liner (a few
of which are really rather good) is a complete absence of plot. Janssen’s
journalist is asked to write a piece on relationships. Having only had
disasterous ones herself she tells her life story as a cautionary tale.
Except she has not actually had a string of bad relationships. Instead
she had one good relationship which ended via the Hollywood boredom method.
Though the film is told from the point after this relationship finishes,
we know that the film will contrive a happy ending for us. Its that kind
of film, and truth be told not much contrivance is needed. Favreau is too
good to be true, as is Janssen. The usual moments of crisis which would
have been sticking points in other movies (the pregnancy in particular)
are dealt with as strengths of the relationship. You want to see them together
too - if there is one aspect of the advertising about the film which is
correct is that its feel good ending will leave you smiling. Then gurning
at the incongruity of it.
Whilst the
end of the film is hideously predictable, the sheer lack of any proper
plot based explanation for it makes the last ten minutes of the film feel
ridiculous. There is much of the film which shows the hand of butchering
in the editing suite. In particular there is a scene which takes place
in Janssen’s past in which she is wearing exactly the same clothes as she
does in the present scenes. Whilst this may be a tip in the direction of
reality (people do wear the same clothes more than once) it just throws
the continuity out and is more than a bit confusing. The film also does
a volta-face on a previous premise too. Writing and direction wise - the
whole movie is a mess.
Like its
spiritual counterpart Keeping The Faith, Love And Sex is a feel good romantic
comedy which seems to assume that the genre is really easy to get right.
Love And Sex has at its core a very believable romance and a lead couple
who are both good actors and have loads of chemistry (apparently Janssen
will rock up in Favreau’s next self penned movie - so they obviously recognise
it too). This is often the hardest part (why do you think Meg Ryan and
Tom Hanks make so many films together - don’t answer that). But on top
of a couple and a few good lines you need to pace the romance properly.
Any amount of post production jiggery pokery will not tighten up a film
that was not tight in the first place. Love And Sex is pleasant, but uneven
and has an ending which is literally a non-sequeteur. Woody should ask
for the words back. (4)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: Annie Hall, with many of its good lines boned from
it mixed with an episode from Friends. Feelgood, nice but makes no real
sense.
The
Lowdown
If I were
to make a film, it occurred to me the other day, it would probably be an
awful lot like The Lowdown. After all, I would have pretentious ideals
about making something real, coupled with the hazards of micro budget filming
which would in effect restrict me to filming in and around the area I live.
My cast would not be starry, probably just a bunch of mates. There would
be a number of other areas where I might pull away from The Lowdown’s technique
- but as a British film its aims are little more than to get a few like
minded people to watch it. Ambitious it is not, and therefore it makes
itself harder to fail.
The plot
- if it can be called that - is an exploration of growing up. The second
coming of age which occurs after college or University where you cling
on to certain ways of your youth - fear of old age and commitment. Its
something I know an awful lot about, so it was rather easy to identify
with the characters. This is tied in with a slow burning love story, or
relationship story as it would be properly posited. All of this (all!)
is intertwined with endless chats in cafes, extemporised dialogue and slightly
more arty sequences which elsewhere might be called fantasy sequences if
they had anything fantastic about them.
Technically
the film is bargain basement. The camerawork is solid if uninspiring and
the cast - with the exception of a couple of the main characters - are
barely convincing. The only interesting stylistic side to it is the dialogue
track not running in sync with the people it is filming. This could well
be due to technical problems of filming in London - extraneous sound -
but actually gives the film a slightly dislocated, almost dreamy feel.
It is one of the best aspects of the film in that it looks socially real,
but plays on a different level. Without it the film may have lost its one
spark which raises it above soap opera.
The Lowdown
is a very small movie, with important themes. It manages oddly to convey
the way that the lead character is constantly lying to himself to protect
himself from the fear of failure. He is a artists who happens to make props
for TV shows, he earns enough to buy a house and has just come out of a
long term relationship. Yet in his new relationship he constantly does
things
to undermine it, turning up late for dates, being moody. These traits are
there almost to allow other people to make decisions for him. So while
the film has little in the way of plot, it does at least build itself a
character journey which it nicely finishes off with a neat resolution.
This is the only time the rules of drama really impinge, elsewhere the
film rambles all over the shop - not always to good effect.
I saw The
Lowdown the same night that I saw The Criminal - another British film.
The Criminal was easily more professional, filmed well with nice set designs
and good performances. It just suffered from a lousy script and a lead
character you cannot care for. The Lowdown is almost its opposite, a film
stuffed with character and realism. The two films are trying to do very
different things of course, and neither are quite as successful as they
could be. But at least the flaws in The Lowdown are those of budget and
inexperience - and therefore can be argued away as such. You get the feeling
that the director, Jamie Thraves will follow it up with something even
more interestiong. A small, gently touching movie - and it is always nice
to see the places you live on screen. (6)
The feel
of Ratcatcher with Ken Loach movies set in London - though with less of
a social message, and more Al Pacino impressions.
