Magnolia
I was going
to accuse P.T.Anderson of elephantiasis, but after thinking it through
and being reminded that that is what John Merrick had I felt it might be
a touch unkind. What I really meant to say is that PT Anderson has no restraint.
Boogie Nights, the film that shot him to fame as a director, was too long.
It was a great film, but it had a wholly pointless final quarter which
soured the rest of the film. Boogie Nights was two and a half hours long.
Magnolia runs in over three hours. And while the scope and aim of Magnolia
is greater than that of Boogie Nights, it still feels too long. Which is
a great pity, because despite its gargantuan length – Magnolia is a really
good film. But, it is a really good film about nothing.
Magnolia
is an anthology of tales, intertwined expertly with each other. There is
the tale of the dying man’s nurse searching for his son. There is the tale
of the ex-quiz show star desperately trying to get some money for corrective
oral surgery that he does not need. The tale of the dying man’s wife who
married him for his money, and now finds that she really loves him. The
tale of the quiz show host who may have abused his daughter. The tale of
the daughter who is a coke addict who has a tentative relationship with
a cop. The tale of the quiz show kid who is dying for a piss. The tale
of the cop who loses his gun. And more. A lot of stories which may suggest
a lot of time. But this is all done at a leisurely pace, with dashes of
humour and heavy on the soundtrack. You see, unlike Short Cuts – the film
it most structurally resembles – Magnolia has a theme. And trust me, you
know its going to be a long movie when that theme is extrapolated from
not one, not two but three prologues.
The theme
of Magnolia is coincidence. It explains it quite some depth three coincidences,
and archly suggests that these things cannot be just chance. This could
be used as an excuse for the more far-fetched occurrences that happen in
films, and indeed there are a number of occasions when Magnolia hits the
self-awareness button – it knows it is a film. But actually, the true theme
of Magnolia is quite the opposite. Amazing, film like coincidences do not
happen in real life all that often, and like a painting of a bright orange
sunset, actually do not appear realistic when presented on film. Instead
we have a selection of stories, which are only vaguely linked (by the game
show), all of which occur in the same area, at the same time and all of
which end with an unusual phenomenon. What Magnolia’s thesis is can only
be derived after a bit of examination. Instead of presenting itself as
real life guided by amazing conjunctions (as most films do), we have a
real life which is merely a few inconsequential stories and one wholly
unusual act of nature. By pretending to be one thing, but doing another,
it is testing its audience.
Of course,
none of this would work if Magnolia were not an enjoyable film in its own
right. Setting up a number of rather inconsequential stories, then mixing
them up and dragging them over three hours could well be seen as a recipe
for disaster. And while it does not always work, on the whole you remain
riveted by these small tales. This is largely due to the hugely talented
cast that Anderson has assembled. Much of the cast of Boogie Nights is
back (unfortunately including a gurning Julianne Moore who is acting-wise
is slowly disappearing up her own posterior). In addition we get a fine
turn from Tom Cruise, a touch of self-parody but more than a liberal amount
of character growth. But Anderson also coaxes fine performances out of
much of his largely unknown supporting cast – especially John C.Reilly
as Jim Kurring – a very mixed up policeman.
Magnolia
is an impressive film, even if it teeters very close to the line of failure.
What is most impressive about it is its lack of convention, whilst telling
very conventional stories. Even Altman’s Short Cuts, pretty much stuck
to one story at a time. Magnolia tells all its tales at once; therefore
stretching very short stories over three hours. This does lead to a true
panic at about the two hour mark where you really cannot see an end in
sight. And indeed there are a couple of false endings in here, one point
in particular at about two and a half hours where it really feels like
the film will end. This is done by the clever use of soundtrack, and indeed
Magnolia has a very idiosyncratic soundtrack. It wavers from the long drawn
out repetitively overpowering strings which predominate, to four Aimee
Mann songs which a wholly inoffensive and pretty but played in full – and
often more in full. The soundtrack often predominates over even dialogue
– interesting if unsettling technique. Magnolia is a loud film in that
respect, and visually inventive too. Most importantly, Magnolia does not
feel like an American movie. It has broken the mould of the traditional
storytelling style, and therefore has conclusions which are equally loose.
Magnolia
is too long. I’ve said it once, I’ll keep saying it. That is pretty much
its only flaw (well, Juliana Moore gakking instead of crying – but that
comes with the territory). It cannot be over emphasised how much a flaw
the excessive length is though. When you should be marvelling at its deft
touches, your arse is aching. Films of this length can and do often work,
but they will have an overbearing story – B from which we a leaving A from
without many digressions. Magnolia is all digression, all tricky and will
piss a lot of people off. But look through that and you see a rather original,
clever and affecting movie. Just see it in a comfy cinema. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Short Cuts hits Boogie Nights and Ferngully: The
Last Rainforest. Trust me, it all makes sense in the end.
Malcolm
X
Part two
of my Prince Charles sponsored "getting to know Spike Lee better" session,
presented us with what was probably Lee's biggest film, certainly with
regards to publicity. A biopic of the black activist Malcolm X, a controversial
character in his day murdered - like most important people were back then,
in the sixties. X is quoted in Do The Right Thing, and it is obvious that
Lee finds the moral ambiguities in much of what Malcolm X said a lot more
realistic than that of say, Martin Luther King. So potentially an obvious
project for Spike Lee, and therefore one with no end of pitfalls.
The major
drawback of Malcolm X is actually clear from the photo in Do The Right
Thing. Malcolm X has a startling resemblance to Denzel Washington. This
may appear, on the face of it, a fantastic bonus. Washington was in the
early nineties a major serious black actor, a star who was known purely
for acting - not as a comedian. But in reality, this saddled Lee with Washington:
saddled because Denzel Washington is one of Hollywood's worst actors. I
can go on for hours on how much I dislike Denzel Washington, and more importantly
his films. I have done, as the denizens of The Pillars Of Hercules might
attest after a viewing of The Siege last year. The problem I have with
Washington is his moral values. Washington cannot play a villain, never
has done, and the kind of hero he plays is always of the finest character.
One might suggest that in playing X, here was a chance for him to branch
out, but instead we see the man portrayed almost evangelically. This has
much to do with Lee's writing and direction, but you cannot avoid the importance
of the actor who is in nearly every scene.
The problem
with biopics is they are necessarily one sided. Especially a film with
is eulogising the subject. In a lot of ways you are able to see through
it in Malcolm X, so obvious is the films admiration for the man that it
is quite easy to read between the lines. I do not think it is being overly
charitable to Spike Lee to suggest this is done on purpose, to placate
a black audience and yet again to promote dialogue within that audience.
Lee is well aware though that he is making a film that should also be entertaining
as well as didactic - so he tries to wring as much excitement out of X's
life as possible. This results in a rather diverting first hour of zoot
suits, numbers games and a rather lovable rogue that was Malcolm X. This
part of the film is well designed, in the style of gangster films and looks
tremendous. It is, in the scheme of the film, overlong but at least it
is enjoyable for itself. Because when Malcolm goes to prison, it all goes
to pot.
Lee is rather
even handed with his presentation of The Nation Of Islam, showing obviously
how it completely rehabilitated Malcolm, but at the same time how certain
of its teachings could be seen to be offensive to many people. He also
does a good job of showing why The Nation Of Islam is important to the
black struggle in the US. He does this with a completely different character
than the bloke we have been watching up to now. You see, post religious
conversion, Malcolm is merely a walking talking Nation Of Islam textbook.
Its true he is a spirited preacher, but this skill certainly does not refer
back to anything in his character before his conversion (except perhaps
his preacher father). So the final two hours, and this is a very long film,
merely concentrating on the life of a very devout activist. Unfortunately,
in the end this is rather boring.
The film
is based on Malcolm's autobiography, and is therefore overtly focussed
on the man himself. It therefore becomes rather difficult to really see
his true importance in the national arena. In the end this turns into a
mass of petty in fighting ending in a tragic murder. Washington sleepwalks
through all of this, and there is a particularly misplaced voice-over -
told from an unknown point of view considering Malcolm X is dead. Spike
Lee does his best, and the film turns out watchable but inconsequential.
And then there is the last five minutes a cringe-worthy set of epithets
which completely harms any of the good work the film has tried to do to
be balanced.
There is
an awful lot that could have gone wrong with this film which Lee manages
to avoid. But in the end, the pitfalls of a biopic are too much for him.
This is an interesting film as it shows what happens when Spike Lee's excesses
get the better of him. Overlong and mawkish it suffers from a lack of context
and the cardinal sin of just being inconsequential. That said, it still
shows that Lee can handle a camera adeptly and certainly in the first third
of the film directs a mean dance scene. Its not as bad as it could have
been, but its another Denzel disaster nevertheless. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Patton hits Do The Right Thing (I know that's cheating,
but hey I make up the rules) leaving something less than the sum of its
parts.
The
Matrix
Hype. Its
what the movies are all about. Not what cinema is about, cinema is about
artistry, clever ideas, small character studies. But the movies is about
hype and explosions. And for your money no film was better hyped, or contains
such good explosions. That said, there is something insidiously clever
about The Matrix, which makes it more than the sum of its parts. Part of
that is that for the first time since probably The Terminator, we have
an auteurs piece of populist entertainment. So while The Matrix pretends
to be an awful lot cleverer than it is, that does not make it stupid.
I don't
know Keanu Reeves, so I won't go out of my way to call him stupid. He is,
however, most certainly a star - if the definition of a star is to always
play the same role. If Schwartzenegger always played the overly muscled
Scando superman, Keanu plays the perpetually bemused buff boy. That he
appears to be playing up to this is only to be aplauded. When halfway through
someone hails him as being "pretty but none too bright" - it gets a racous
laugh. It is an odd moment of self consciousness in a film which otherwise
tries to immerse you in its world. Or to be more precise, its worlds.
The Matrix
is the archetypical, bog standard VR conspiracy thriller. It is also your
bog standard, archetypical expouser of reductionalist sceptical philosophy.
Good ideas, after all, never really go away and that Descartes "Evil Genius"
tricking our protagonists into believing in a fake world is here replaced
by artificial intelligences does not mean any of the ideas here are new.
Except this. There have certainly been VR films before. There have been
sceptical films before too, where the blurring of reality and fantasy was
complete. What has never been done before is such a straight, simple take.
VR films are always quirky, using the VR as a licence to let the Art Director
run riot. Here the VR world is our world, it is the real world which is
alien (or - if you want to be a touch unkind - Alien). It takes its premise
to its logical conclusion, and sets up a thoroughly consisistent world.
The only plot holes would be in the explaination of certain tricks, the
use of the telephone as a safe exit point from one world to the next. However,
this is - like the acceptance of intergalactic space travel in science
fiction epics - wholly consistent with the world the Warshorski Brothers
create.
The Matrix
is actually a rather slow, ponderous film. For all its presentation as
a gung-ho action movie, it really only kicks into that gear in the last
half hour. When it kicks in, it kicks with some force, again within the
framework of the film. The rest of the film is equally imaginative, if
slow, world building. This may be because as a reader of science fiction,
and as a philosophy graduate, I am completely au fait with the ideas being
toyed with. That such ideas can be toyed with in a mainstream action movie
is surely a cause for celebration. That they can be toyed with, and then
used to create some of the best special effects which serve the story I
have ever seen is a nigh on miraculous. And that the whole thing can be
packaged as dumb escapism by casting the lead with a notoriously dumb actor
is next to genius.
There is
much to be said about The Matrix, the way it toys with mythology and religion
for instance it tries to give itself additional depths. That most of these
allusions are either obvious (Neo as Christ, Trinity as Mary Magdelene,
Morpheous as John the Baptist) or hideously shallow should not be a concern
to the average film goer. These references are there so that the film appears
clever to people who don't like clever films. The fact that they have been
presented by a simplistic, but nevertheless thorough first course in basic
sceptical philosophy on the wayside is fantastic. The fact that the whole
film builds a mythology, presents us with iconic archetypes and plays the
whole thing straight is surprising in the post modern worlds we live in.
The film even gives us a clever ending - which is also a begining. The
Warshowski Brothers have already suggested sequels and prequels and the
are for once justified - there is a whole world at war here, and we come
in at the beginning. As PT Barnum said - leave them wanting more. The Matrix
may leave some people wanting more eye-candy, but it left me wanting more
of this story - because there so obviously is more. The Matrix, much like
its treatment of its lead characters, takes the action film to another
dimension, and I for one think its lovely there. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: A Hong Kong flick, say Bullet In The Head, smashed
into a good VR thriller - said Existenz but played straight. Yet again
Alien would probably get a look in for crimes against set design.
Me,
Myself and Irene
Minder used
to do that you know. Give its episodes amusing spoofs of phrases or even
existing film names. So if I remember rightly the was an episode called
Ticket To Rhyde (amusing Welshman episode), 24 Hours From Tulse Hill and
a confusing episode called play Myska For Me - where Myska was played by
Rula Lenska - Dennis Waterman’s main squeeze. Most amusing it is too, like
all plays on words, for at least ten seconds. That said - the Farrelly
Brothers are not all about comic subtlety are they?
Looking
back at the history of the Farrelly’s is one of grudging respect. No-one
critically like Dumb and Dumber, and Kingpin was pretty much sunk by virtue
of it being a movie about ten-pin bowling. Whilst the first saw the Farrelly’s
lumped in with Carrey - who was equally critically reviled at the time
- the later showed a mature approach to story - if not humour. There’s
Something About Mary got all the plaudits of course, for the shocking revelation
that you can be crude and lovable at the same time. Films like American
Pie took note (gross out humour coupled with moral messages - yuck). Carrey
too has gone through a critical renaissance after Man In The Moon and The
Truman Show. Which leads us nicely to Me, Myself and Irene a supposedly
tasteless romantic comedy exploiting split personality disorder.
That supposedly
in the last sentence should be stressed. Me, Myself and Irene is a great
disappointment. That is not to say that it is totally bereft of humour.
There are a few good jokes in there. But the film lacks the heart of their
previous efforts and the scattershot humour appears to be relying too much
on Carrey overacting in a less than lovable role. As the dual personalities
we are supposed to like the docile and despise the stupid aggressive one.
However the docile one is not very interesting, and the aggressive one
is just stupid and obnoxious. Instead our sympathy falls wholly on Renee
Zellweger - who has a massively underwritten role that she cannot do an
awful lot with.
Plot is
perfunctory Farrelly road movie. Laconic set-up (which no matter how amusing
just appears to take forever) is followed by hugely lacklustre back of
crisp packet mafia witness plotline. The split personality is drawn in
to primarily bring on the laughs but fails to do so. We are left with the
supporting cast and visual gags to do all the work. And in a two hour film,
that is two much works for a bunch of very funny fat teenagers and an albino
to do. Even the bad taste jokes appear to be less than inspired. I can
think of more to do with a dildo than is on display here - and the cow
wrestling is gratuitously unfunny. The film is amiable enough, it has the
Farelly’s usual attention to soundtrack and supporting cast - but the whole
thing appear to have been shot hoping for inspiration to strike.
Me, Myself
and Irene just does not work as a comedy. This is not to do with any aspects
of poor taste, indeed there are a number of much better jokes to do with
split personality which could have been exploited. But Carrey is not sympathetic,
and overdoes the mugging somewhat. He cannot be blamed too much, there
is a whole in the writing in the middle of the film which says “Jim Carrey
does schtick” which is unforgivable. Let’s hope Shallow Hal, their next
film, has a bit more bite. (4)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: Picture a crossroads where Dumb and Dumber rolls
out of control towards a maniacally driven Raising Cain - John Lithgow
grinning at the wheel.
The
Mexican
I’ve been
to Mexico. A lovely country it is too. Very big, spread wide from the United
States up top then curving round to Guatemala. Bordered by the two major
oceans on both sides and with one of the largest cities in the world hemmed
in by some volcanoes. Lovely country like I said, and full of Mexicans.
I know this is picky, but when I see a film called The Mexican, I kind
of hope it is about Mexicans. Or at least the Mexican in question is the
lead character. Not a ropey old Macguffin like plot device of a pistol.
So I was already on the back foot when it came to The Mexican.
Of course
the lead character was never going to be Mexican, since the film happens
to star Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts - never of whom could convincingly
pass off as Hispanic. Of course problem is here neither of them really
pass themselves off as anything that human either. This is a script where
“despite their obvious bickering there is chemistry between the lead characters”.
This is a film where this line was taken as read as the two leads happen
to be two of the biggest box office draws in the world. The chemistry either
got left on the cutting room floor, or never really existed. This is not
all Brad and Julia’s faults. Their characters are one dimensional at best,
or based on other characters they have played before at worse. (Brad in
particular appears to be riffing on his character from Twelve Monkeys without
the over the top madness.)
So a screwball,
action , romantic comedy is what the Mexican bills itself as. We know its
a comedy because people keep pulling faces and bumping their heads. This
is - of course - very funny. It is also very funny when Brad Pitt’s job
in Mexico keeps getting worse. It is also funny when Julia Roberts gets
kidnapped by James Gandolfino’s hitman, pretty much a reprise of Tony Soprano
but with the comedy twist that he is gay. However there are no jokes, the
action is sloppy and fundamentally you do not care about these losers.
The plot keeps twisting itself into knots, hoping that absurdity and narrative
will help it out of its sluggish rut - but it just drags.
The Mexican
is a half decent idea dragged in the wrong direction. This may be partly
due to its stars not really being suited to the material. It may also be
due to the director not quite knowing when to play for laughs, and when
the drama kicks in (for a romantic comedy there is an awful lot of death).
It also needlessly plays on lazy Mexican stereotypes for the plot complications.
Brad and Julia are watchable, Gandolfino even more so, but the air of pointlessness
does hang over the entire project. In the end the film fails because it
does not understand that whilst loveable stupid characters do exist, stupid
does not necessarily equal loveable. (3)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: It wants to be a Hitchcock hitting a Nora Ephron,
and oddly enough it is about as bad as that would suggest.
The
Miracle Of Morgan's Creek
I would
say I am awfully lucky to live in London - if it did not suggest that it
would be possible for something which resembled me to actually live anywhere
else (if you think about that sentence hard enough it does make sense).
I have said it before and I will say it again, the NFT is a marvellous
place - and at the moment they are treating us to a Preston Sturges season.
Now I previously have only been vaguely acquainted with his work (The Lady
Eve at a young age seemed to make an impression, and The Palm Beach Story),
but well aware that he is the kind of director I would like. I am not sure
how many of these films I'll get to see, But I don't think Sullivan's Travels
will be bettered as a film. As a comedy it might be. And that is precisely
what the Miracle Of Morgan's Creek is.
Almost as
if he was making the very kind of film Sullivan would have made after his
ordeal, Morgan's Creek is nothing but light hearted frippery. A romp full
of mistaken identity, pratfalls and ludicrous character names the film
has to be seen in context of its times. Not only is its plot rather racey
for the day but the finale is a rather cynical and sly jab at the cult
of fame which is more than relevant today. That the humour is less complex,
and the plot only barely makes sense is perhaps the fault of Sturges over
simplifying his technique and just pressing the button marked frenetic.
Trudy -
a smart and fast talking character the kind that Sturges appeared to enjoy
painting - fools her father, the preposterous (in both name and deed) Constable
Kockenlocker to go to a Army party. Having had too much booze she returns
both married and pregnant, by parties unknown. (But lets call him Ratzkywatzky
- because its funny). Her physically incompetent and sickly childhood admirer
attempts to do the right thing by her, but legal shamanism's and stupidity
get in the way. All is redeemed in the final reel when Trudy produces a
miracle, one which appears to set right all that was wrong in the first
place. It is in this final reel when Sturges manages to sneak out his most
cynical and satirical jibes. Its on the way to that reel that the film
somewhat flounders.
Its clear
that Sturges was a great fan of physical comedy - which is to be applauded
as film is a visual medium. Nevertheless, in The Miracle of Morgan's Creek
he takes this a touch too far. There are only so many times we can see
Constable Kockenlocker fall over. Not to mention Eddie Bracken, playing
his hyper-tension as a proto Woody Allen meets Harold Lloyd, with neither
of their physical genius. Bracken is unfortunately the weak link in this
film - and it is not all his fault. The character has to be a degree incompetent,
to not qualify for the forces. Also his lack of strength only goes to underline
the power of the female characters (a metaphor for the increased role of
women in wartime). Unfortunately these traits push the character into being
more annoying than sympathetic - and as amusing as his hopelessness is
(especially in the jailbreak scene) it is not endearing. Instead our sympathies
wholly lie for Trudy, played with impeccable timing by Betty Hutton. What
little sympathy we feel for Bracken merely comes out of our empathy with
her put upon character.
The rest
of the cast fill the film out well, and almost make up for this unfortunate
flaw. The films framing device foretells the surprising denouement without
spelling it out - and in the title Sturges is even being a touch blasphemous.
However the film is structured well enough so that when we reach the final
scene, when all hope is lost we get the miracle. The question can be asked
if the miracle is actually in the unusual birth, or what this unusual birth
precipitates. That we had a man on trumped up charges of bigamy, assault
and sundry others is suddenly released, given a commission and made a hero
merely for his involvement. Sturges manages to provoke a strongly satirical
line here, showing the politicians manipulate the story to their own ends.
And then the media - leading to the films funniest moments in the tried
and tested newspaper reaction gag (Hitler asking for a recount is priceless).
But the point made is a good one, not only were the charges unjust but
for the unusual birth - nothing would have been done about them. But for
political ends, and for propagandist ends - the facts are changed.
The Miracle
Of Morgan's Creek was made in 1943, halfway through the second world war.
As such it is a feel good propaganda movie, a film whose only function
is to entertain. Physically, structurally and in terms of character depth
it does not touch the complexity of a film like Sullivan's Travels. It
is unashamedly light and frothy, with plenty of silly laughs. However even
in here there is a clever twist, a message snuck under the radar of the
filmgoer. Its not a serious point, merely an observation - but it does
have a few interesting things to say about the power of both the media,
and propaganda. That said, its central thesis is a touch dated now - the
insistence of marriage upon Trudy would certainly not be there in this
day and age. The film is from a different age, one which was changing,
which Sturges acknowledges with a couple of very strong female roles. All
in all fine, if flawed entertainment. And the real miracle is it was not
the miracle of Dawson's Creek. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Grapes Of Wrath hits His Girl Friday - with
a bit of a Buster Keaton movie thrown it. Not to mention Pluto.
The
Misadventures Of Margaret
Oh how I
love low-key art-house movies. There is the cultural kudos that no other
fucker has seen them, the possibility of raving about them even if they
are shit knowing that if anyone else goes to see them they will do an "Emperors
New Clothes" and agree it was fantastic. And every now and then, they are
actually quite good. They are often slapdash, full of good intentions and
not so good direction - but on average they are a breath of fresh air from
the humdrum of Hollywood. "Happiness" was like that, and in a lot of ways
so is "The Misadventures Of Margaret"
First, it
stars the current queen of the art-house movie - Parker Posey (this must
be her real name). Posey (Parker?) has a uniquely expressionless face,
which can contort itself into an intriguing number of emotions, though
mainly abject confusion and mischevious happiness. These are used to great
effect here, as she bounces from one member of the excellent ensemble cast
to another trying to cure her seven year itch, whilst being terrified her
husband is doing the same. He is played by Jeremy Northam, English actor
to go, and he makes a relatively good fist of it too. Margaret is an academic,
lauded for her successful translations of French diaries of the eighteenth
century. As she writes her new, sex heavy, book she slowly feels her life
is falling apart around her, and tries to seek solutions in a number of
places (and to be fair sexual positions).
So far,
so Woody Allen - albeit with a female lead. And there is certainly something
in that comparison, there are fantasy sequences (all lovers of male full
frontal nudity sign up here), gags and epigrams are thrown into the mix
with regular timing, and each character certainly has their own neurotic
cross to bear. The comparisons to Happiness as well would stand up, except
the sex on display is nowhere near degrading (though there is some phone
sex, which dovetails nicely with that film). However the comparison it
would like you to make, and you do end up making, is with the great screwball
comedies of the thirties and forties. Posey is very much cut from the fast
talking Katherine Hepburn, Carole Lombard mould - and the posters in the
marital flat of Lombard's films ('I Married A Witch' in particular) underline
this. Northam has a harder job playing the Cary Grant he unfortunately
intimated he is at the start of the film (Posey is disappointed that he
is English, he replies "What's wrong with being English, Cary Grant was
English"). This means the film is aiming at a level which will be difficult
to attain. There are probably more epigrams, quips and one liners in this
film than in any since 'Annie Hall' (or if you want to be a bit more accurate,
'Manhatten Murder Mystery'). Mostly they are all very funny. And yet there
is something wrong with the film.
At the start
of the credits we are paraded with no less than ten various production
companies and funding bodies which made this film. I fear what ails this
film is too many cooks poking their fingers in. As it rolls on certain
things start falling out of place. The soundtrack jars, leaping from underground
American indie to slushy romantic strings (we'll get to that shortly).
The direction goes from light, and even handed, to over blown theatricals.
And what was a witty, amusingly frothy examination of said seven year itch
turns into a full on romance, not even a romantic comedy. The last ten
minutes are possibly one of the least satisfying I have ever seen in a
film, yet strangely that is not due to the conclusion. I would keep exactly
the same ending, just rewrite the dialogue and get rid of those strings.
These characters deserve more. The one good line in the last ten minutes
("Isn't it bad luck for the bride to see the groom on the night of the
divorce") leaps out with its quality, illuminated by the dross that surrounds
it.
I liked
the Misadventures Of Margaret a lot. But I left with a bitter taste in
my mouth. This is often worse than seeing just a bad film, but in this
case I can excuse it. It is very much the flip side of Happiness; where
that film revels in its uncomfortable silences, Margaret positively sparkles
with wordplay and wit. I would love to see Posey in a remake of The Thin
Man, or any fast talking comedy, and so merely for reminding me that wit
is not dead, I will recomend it. It is certainly the most quotable film
I have seen in years. And anyway, it'll probably never be on again so none
of you lot can see it. Ha ha. (8 - 2for the ending = 6)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: It would be "I Married A Witch" sideswiped by "Annie
Hall", and then when the emergency services turned up, inexplicably, "Love
Story" rams the whole thing making a complete mess of the proceedings.
Miss
Congeniality
It seems
remarkable that something as innocuous and vapid as beauty pageants can
be a recurring theme in the cinema. Over the last couple of years we have
had Drop Dead Gorgeous (a toothless satire), Happy Texas (gently amusing)
and now we have Miss Congeniality - a fish out of water comedy set in the
bitchy in fighting world of beauty shows. An odd action comedy which we
should be thankful was rescued and produced by Sandra Bullock - for surely
it would only have ended up as an hilarious Martin Lawrence or Eddie Murphy
dragging up comedy.
Bullock
produces, Bullock stars and its probably her best role since While You
Were Sleeping. This is of course not saying an awful lot when you think
28 Days and Practical Magic prop up that career - but it is at least vaguely
amusing. And Bullock is game in it - she dresses herself down relatively
well to start off with. It is never completely convincing that she is unattractive,
but it is certainly convincing that she is a workaholic. Bullock plays
the kind of FBI agent which only exists in the movies - the type that is
kooky and makes mistakes but is brilliant underneath. It then is required
- via the magic of plot inventing machines - that they need someone to
go undercover at the Miss United States competition and Bullock is unwillingly
put forward. Cue makeover but a faxing in performance Michael Caine, and
a few nice jokes at the expense of the pageant - then its off to the action
based finale. It hits the mark, its winsome enough. And it finishes and
you have not been rained on for a couple of hours.
Its such
a simple formula that you wonder why Bullock has floundered so much in
the last few years. She is still a big enough name to open a movie despite
not having a serious hit for quite some time. Yet she seems to have forgotten
the films that made her were not romantic comedies at all - rather action
comedies (Speed is after all quite a funny film). Girl next door looks
equal identification, but what the boys like about Bullock is her feisty
side. Miss Congeniality gets to display that again - which is a welcome
return. And oddly while the set up is vaguely amusing there really aren’t
that many jokes in here. The film ends up relying on Bullock as a comedienne,
and she is a pretty good one when she puts her mind to it, and her charm.
It survives better than expected - especially when all around her - Benjamin
Bratt in particular - are overly lacklustre.
Of course
the film has at its heart a decidedly dodgy moral. Bullock learns to be
more like a girl, and becomes a better person. Beauty contests are not
bad things, they are staffed with intelligent and pretty girls (not that
this intelligence is in any way obvious - one of the best gags in the film
is the dimmest of them being cited as a Particle Physician). Yet the film
never seems to make up its mind, and does not wholeheartedly get behind
the objectification of beauty. After all its not beauty that Bullock finds
completes her - though its handy she gets it - but making friends. Sickly
I know, but at least the film almost gets its moral in the right place.
That the film is effectively neutral on the political position of beauty
contests is unsurprising - but you don’t go to see a film like this to
be surprised.
Miss Congeniality
is probably the most formulaic Hollywood film I have seen for quite some
time. There are absolutely no quirks in here at all, and as a star vehicle
it relies dangerously on its star. Luckily it is the kind of role she is
particularly good at - and that coupled with a pretty good poster (note
- no close ups of Bullock laughing) has made this a hit. Now hopefully
for the sake of her career we won’t have to wait another five years until
she works it out again. Not great, but it never hurts. (6)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Well lets say Big Momma’s House without the fart
gags hitting Drop Dead Gorgeous. It wants to be My Fair Lady - but completely
gets the makeover bit wrong (should have made more of the gag about the
FBI Manicure and Pedicure squads).
Mission
: Impossible 2
That colon
always got on my nerves, but I'll let it slide. Why? Because there is altogether
far too much in this steaming pile of toss to get on your nerves first.
Tom Cruise, John Woo, doves - and doves will get mentioned again - get
thrown into the pot to make a movie which bangs, crashes, chases and makes
Brian De Palma's original look almost like a stroke of genius. And when
you consider that Mission: Impossible 1 (as original movies tend to get
retro labelled) was also a steaming pile of nonsensical toss you can see
why M:I2 does not convince.
Tom Cruise's
name is above the titles in M:I2, and for much reason. He produced the
thing, and is the nominal hero of the piece. He also gets to play the villain
a couple of times - due to the old Miss staple - the perfect latex mask.
Now the perfect latex mask, voice modulator, and dodgy science aside -
none of that matters here. What does matter is that this is not a film
in any way based on the concept of Mission: Impossible. What also matters
is that in a vain attempt to rip of the James Bond franchise (a damn fool
thing to do in the first place) they have given us a hero with no back
story, no heroism and a name that rhymes with Cunt.
Cruise wanders
through this film with about as much conviction as anyone - after all he
does stand to make a lot of money out of it. Equally the supporting players
also get to sashay around looking various pretty (Thandie Newton), dastardly
(Dougray Scott) and black (Ving Rames). Replacing the original films elephantine
criss-crossing plot with a simple good agent vs bad agent one (last seen
in Goldeneye) should free up room for character development and nice, clever
tricks. After all the best part of M:I1 was the clean room break in - a
nicely written piece of trickiness which was pure Mish. There is nothing
in M:I2 which matches this scene for wit, verve or excitement. Put it like
this, they won't be making any Immac adverts out of this baby.
So while
the script is perfunctory, and the actors don't make a fool of themselves
why is Mission: Impossible 2 such a chore to watch. Laydeez and gennelmen
- step up Hong Kong action director extraordinare and dove fancier John
Woo. Foolishly Woo tries to impart heavily serious intensity on to this
popcorn flick, which in the Woo big book of directing means slow motion
gunfire, people bursting through flames, choral music and of course: doves.
This was all nonsense in Face/Off - but at least Face/Off had a ridiculous
plot worthy of its ladled on intensity. Here we have a bad guy who is bad
for no obvious reason, a good guy who is equally amoral and lots of gunfire.
And doves. Did I mention the doves.
Things blow
up, guns are shot and your pulse will not be raised an iota. You see -
you don't care about the plot or the characters. (Except maybe Ving Rames
who is only given about eight lines anyway.) The film has performed, has
been hyped and has a new rockier version of the theme tune. There is no
doubt we will see M:I3 somewhere along the line, and I will go and see
it and it will be rubbish. Plus ca change in the action movie world. M:I(2)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Mission: Impossible 1 hits Commando. Really - that
bit with the secret island compound. Sheeesh.
Mission
To Mars
Sometimes
you wish that movie titles were more literal. And sometimes, you don't.
There are actually two missions to Mars in mission to Mars. And in a lot
of ways the missions are not in the eighteenth century evangelical way.
But at least they are not in search of a bar of chocolate which will help
them work, rest and play. That would have been really dull. Instead, MTM
is just pretty dull.
The basics
you need to know: Mission To Mars is Brian De Palma's follow up to Mission
: Impossible (or, as you could unkindly put it, Mission: Indecipherable).
This could also be titled Mission: Interminable, in a way that only big
budget blockbusters can be. I'll come back to this later, but nearly all
of Mission To Mars would have looked good on paper. Indeed, there is the
feeling that if you wrote down a list of all the things which happen in
Mission To Mars, and the add the proviso that this all happens in just
over two hours (short on today's standards) you would assume you have a
shoe-in blockbuster. Admittedly a shoe-in blockbuster which apes 2001 more
than a little bit, but hey - this is a Brian De Palma movie. He from the
planet of the ape-ing other directors.
The main
problem with Mission to Mars is, as Marshall Mathers (Eminem) would put
it is - you just don't give a fuck. There is nothing about these characters
which are remotely realistic, nothing which gives you cause to care. Look,
there goes Gary Sinise: (not a leading man by any stretch of the imagination)
his wife died a couple of months ago and he gave up leading the mission
to nurse her. That's all well and good, but it takes more than this info
being fed to us, and a few mooncalf looks for us to care. Tim Robbins and
Kim Delaney are husband and wife astronauts, undoubtedly shagging all the
way to Mars. Of course this will both piss off Sinise, and up the ante
when they are put in mortal danger. Except it does not, the presentation
of a married couple with no personality is twice as bad as giving us just
the one character sans dimensions. Often a Brian De Palma failing, yet
again he concentrates on the visuals over the characters.
The visuals
are good. There are a number of set pieces, which look like they are just
that. The rotating spaceship, which the camera pans around in a single
take way whilst people are upside-down and wandering at a ninety degree
angle is a tour de force. But it does not surmount the fact that not only
do we not care about these characters, but at a number of occasions we
openly wish they would die. You see for all their training (and much is
made of their disaster training), these astronauts are a pretty darn stupid
bunch. Here's a test: you are on Mars, and something very strange starts
happening. A localised dust storm spontaneously kicks off, blowing not
just dust - but fist sized rocks about too. Do you just stand there, or
do you return to the safety of your vehicle. Do you keep staying there
as the storm gets significantly worse. Or just stand there gormlessly?
The film is full of daft moments like that. For the want of twenty seconds
delay getting his spare helmet, Sinise almost asphyxiates as he tries to
save the crew. Or was it more to make it exciting? Well, it certainly did
not work. Tedium is the mettier De Palma is working in here, flashy tedium.
It is quite obvious that the writers and director still are of the opinion
that because astronauts appear to move relatively slowly, they must think
slowly too. This is certainly true of Sinise, Robbins et al, but it does
put paid to the idea that the astronaut is the best of the best. Half of
them are ex fighter pilots. Sluggish reaction time anyone?
It behoves
me now to slag off the plot, which is as hackneyed as that esteemed London
borough. There are, as you will be well aware, only two kinds of aliens
in the Universe. The hostile kind - who are invariable hostile because
nature endowed them with more teeth and jaws that are strictly necessary,
and plenty of drool (see Alien, Predator and ID4). And there are the nice
aliens, who are superior to us in every way, and a nearly always tall,
willowy and sylph-like. The nice alien wants to nudge us on to the next
step of evolution, though often being so superior they accidentally kill
us along the way. Mission To Mars has the second type of alien, and has
them very badly computer animated. The effects at this part of the film
are truly appalling, not to mention any of the logic which is set behind
the reason they are on Mars, their relationship to human's and the shocking
destruction of technology which follows. The alternative might have made
a less exciting film, but on this evidence I would have been willing to
risk it.
Perhaps
it was about time someone ripped of 2001; its stood as a testament to its
plot that very few people have. That said, 2001 is in itself a rather dull
movie. Longer than Mission To Mars, more psychedelic and the ending is
anyone's guess. This is why 2001 works though. Not only is it graceful,
beautiful and a real slice of proper science fiction which really cares
about the science - it is a big movie. Mission To Mars is 2001 lite - stripping
away the depth and replacing it with pratfalls, stupidity and indecision.
Yet again De Palma has emulated a director and pretty much missed the point.
You would have been better going to the sweet shop Brian. (3)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: 2001 hits Entrapment. Yes, it really is that dull
and stupid.
The
Mummy
For some
reason the good people at Universal did not decide to release this film
in conjunction with Mothers' Day. Whilst its true that the Mummy in this
is less of the nurturing type, and more of the ripping out eyeballs and
tongue variety, it still shocks in this day and age to see marketing divisions
missing out on good and obvious free advertisements.
What to
say about this one then? Well, I'll couch it in a wee story. My flatmate,
Paul, has a wee bit of a thing for Rachel Weisz. So much so that whilst
on his Mexican holiday he caught this flick. Now we will have to get this
in perspective - Paul is not a cinema goer. I don't think he's ever seen
a film whilst I've lived with him, and rarely sits through them on television.
Indeed he has pretty much an aversion to all things fictional, finding
it relatively difficult to grasp the intricacies of "obviously made up
plots". Therefore anything science fiction or fantasy really sinks his
boat.
Paul thought
"The Mummy" was rubbish.
I thought
"The Mummy" was great. You know me though, I like films. I like big dumb
movies as long as they are supposed to be big dumb movies. And while your
mummy isn't exactly ground breaking in any way, its a hell of a lot of
fun. The kind of film where someone can ask "What do we need to do", and
someone can deadpan back "Well, we've got to save the girl, destroy the
bad guy - oh and save the planet". That it is Brendan Fraser, a particular
favourite of mine, saying this adds to the whole experience. That the film
is the first proper comedy thriller horror (very much in that order) since
the wheel on the Evil Dead movies wagon fell off makes it all the more
sweet.
What has
The Mummy got going for it? Firstly it has a plot. A stupid plot it may
be, but a plot none the less and a plot which goes from A to B without
any meandering. It has got its stars: I have mentioned before (Gods And
Monsters) how much I like Brendan Fraser and here he has got just the right
lightness of touch to pull this off. Weiszy (as Paul calls her) is prim
and proper and again lots of ditzy fun, and John Hannah - whilst being
rubbish at his accent - is a real draw here, even if he is playing a role
tailor made for Hugh Laurie. This gives us heroes we root for, who are
vaguely heroic for their own reason. This is very important when we have
a film which literally throws the special effects at us.
And what
effects. I did not get the usual problem I get with CGI, this was all perfectly
intergrated, and looked great. The Ray Harryhausen homage, with Fraser
fighting the armies of undead was executed perfectly and done with glee.
Which is something which can be said about the whole film. The writer/director
Stephen Sommers may well have thrown too much into the mix, he might have
over egged the pudding and written some of the corniest lines committed
to celluloid. But what the hell, it looks like he and his cast are having
a ball out there. Even when the scary walking skeletal Mummy regenerates
into a member of Right Said Fred, we notice how much fun is leaping off
the screen. In that respect it is a perfect summer blockbuster, certainly
in terms of pacing and adventure it knocks The Matrix into a cocked hat.
Of course,
The Matrix is a better film than The Mummy. It deals with new ideas, is
visually innovative and is an experience which leaves you talking about
it for days. The Mummy doesn't. Its an old story, full of old gags and
some really nice but conventionally used special effects. Quite a few people
have been disappointed that this film is so funny and is played as a comedy,
They wanted a proper horror movie, like the originals. What is often forgotten
is that a lot of those 1930's horror movies were made at least in part
as comedies (as James Whale says about Bride Of Frankenstein - again to
Brendan Fraser in Gods & Monsters). Why begrudge it anyway: The Mummy
is fun. Fun like entertainment should be. And fun like an awful lot of
films aren't. (Look at franchise movies, pressing the same buttons over
and over again, and compare it to this.) Perhaps its just that The Mummy
promises little, and gives loads. It has nice period details, an idiosyncratic
cast and cheap, cheap thrills. Dammit, buy yourself some popcorn. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Mummy (Boris Karloff) hits Romancing The Stone
(Hah - you thought I was going to say Indiana Jones, didn't you?)
The
Mummy Returns
I think
this is the first sequel I’ve got round to reviewing where I reviewed the
original. And if you remember (or refer to the original review) I rather
liked The Mummy. I also went on to say that it was not rocket science,
but that it had a nice line in comedy, action and was instilled with a
peculiar sense of overwhelming fun which meant it was quite possibly the
best popcorn movie of that year. Of course the general rule of sequels
is the law of diminishing returns, and whilst Stephen Sommers did the decent
thing in not calling this The Mummy II, is that the case here? Sadly -
I have to report - it is.
Not that
The Mummy Returns is bad as sequels go. Its a rollicking action adventure
comedy which touches bases on many of the original points of the first
movie and has a much expanded special effects budget to do an awful lot
more. Indeed most of the failings of The Mummy Returns are the fault of
the original film. What the Mummy did well was concoct a world of derring
do and Egyptology which the second film takes for granted. The first film
had an opposites attract love story - which is resolved at the end. Here
Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are married, its ten years on so they even
have a kid. So bang goes your sexual tension. Take out the effective (if
cartoony) characterisation and romance of the first film and you have to
pad it out with something. Which pretty much equals more action.
What was
nice about The Mummy was its attempt to bring even small snapshots of ancient
Egypt to life. The Mummy Returns does this in spades, partially to justify
this second convoluted plot (the Scorpion King is terrible idea, and not
much better in action) but also to give us a Crouching Tiger-esque bit
of girl on girl action. Mummy wise we don’t just get the return of Arnold
Vosloo, but we also have the crazily accented Patricia Velasquez as his
reincarnated beau. Of course reincarnation is the order of the day since
Weisz now appears to be a reincarnated Nefertiti - albeit a pasty Egyptian
of Eastern European Jewish extraction. The padding in the plot is also
not helped by a proliferation of bad guys - human or dead - acting for
little obvious reason. The heroes are plunged from one action sequence
to the next with little idea or scale on what this means to the rest of
the world - something the original film quite happily dealt with. This
lack of depth is what eventually scuppers the film, that and its relentlessness.
You only really end up caring for the characters because you cared for
them in the first film.
All that
said The Mummy Returns is not an unmitigated disaster as a sequel. Parts
of the film which would make you cringe in synopsis actually work rather
well. The kid, rather than being thoroughly irritating, is actually sympathetic
- if a touch too skilled at sand castles. Rachel Weisz revels in her expanded
duel role, and she gets most of the chops in the action sequences. Infact
it is Fraser who has the least to do here, and the fact that he is now
a happily married man is what undermines much of the comedy. And whilst
the trials and tribulations are ridiculous, the flashes of imagination
(especially the pygmy mummies) makes the film much more watchable.
One of the
things which made the original so enjoyable was that it happily skipped
genre. You went in expecting a low key horror, you got a comic action adventure.
The problem wit The Mummy Returns is that you get what you expect. Instead
of cramming the film with characterisation as well as special effects Sommers
has gone on with a frenetic plot heavy epic which makes little sense and
does not allow the film to breathe. For a frenetic special effects movie
with flashes of comedy and eye popping action The Mummy Returns is not
a bad movie. But compared to the original it is a bit flat. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: It would be The Mummy (obviously) with a lacklustre
sequel, say Ghostbusters 2. Its not that lacklustre, but its no great shakes
either.
Mystery
Men
Why do they
make films of comics? It's as moot a question as why do they make films
of novels. A books a book, it was written that way and any attempt to translate
it into another medium is a minefield of complexities. Out goes the internal
narrative, all we get is action and dialogue. Couple this with the perennial
comparisons which will be made, and you are doomed to either failure or
a begrudging admittance that your film is almost as good as the book. Of
course comics are not seen as high art in the same way, and appear on the
surface at least to be a lot easier to translate. After a comic is just
a storyboard right? Not quite. And here in lies the problem. The comic,
in particular the American superhero comic, runs pretty much on rigid conventions.
Whilst it would be harsh to describe them all as formulaic, there are certain
givens at any one point, cliches which must be employed. Of course cinema
is much like this - the hitch is - it has different rules.
The main
problem associated with superhero films is with the plot. You see, its
not a particular story which is being translated across - rather a set
of characters, often just one character with a cool costume. Half the film
is set up with the complex origin stories, which leaves very little room
for any complexity - and of course there is not character development.
Take Batman, this character has been around for sixty odd years, you certainly
could not marry him off. The status quo is as rigid as his pectorals. Which
brings us the last, but nevertheless important, reason why superheroes
don't do it on the big screen. The look silly. The rest of the film is
couched in a real world clothing, normal sized actors, there is the usual
film verisimilitude. A bloke in a cape does not fit into it. Which is why,
when Tim Burton made Batman he also remade the world in which he inhabited.
A large gothic city needs a large gothic hero. It was about as close as
they got to making a comic film work.
All of which
is a long pre-amble to Mystery Men, a comic book movie, a comic book comedy.
It is not however a comic book parody. Sure it plays with the concepts
and the innate ridiculousness of the whole superhero idea, but in the end
it is happy to exist within the world it creates. Mystery Men is an ensemble
comedy, and one of the best kind. It uses the lack of character development
in comics as a touchstone, and instead loads us up and throws us some very
good gags and some pretty okay action. It is a concept comedy, a film of
ideas - but a lot of those ideas are good.
Mystery
Men is a good natured comic-take on superheroes, and as such any fan could
easily enjoy it. Equally any kid could enjoy it too, the complexities of
some of the gags not withstanding. The cultural artifact it most resembles,
in as much as it creates its own consistent world, is The Simpsons - and
the layering of humour is very similar to that show. The film also has
a top-notch comic cast - with Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria and Janeane Garofolo
on good spiky form. Special marks for William Macy as well, who has the
most sympathetic character here, and is in a lot of ways the heart of the
movie. The whole thing looks a treat, and works well plotwise. It is actually
quite light on plot, it certainly is sacrificed for more gag mileage, but
the whole package does whip along at a good pace, I felt entertained when
I came out.
The film
is probably the most successful comic book adaptation, which does not necessarily
mean it is any good. That it is quite a laugh is therefore a bit of a relief,
and it is certainly the best family action movie of the season (The Iron
Giant is a better movie full stop, but its better than most of the movies
out last year). The film is a bit self satisfied in places, content that
its got some good ideas which will paper over some of the crack, but when
it is funny - which is often - it really is rather funny. Perhaps there
are too many fart gags, perhaps the bad guys get short shrift, so what?
It shares the endearing quality that Mike Myers films often have, that
everyone is having a whale of a time. And any big budget Hollywood movie
which implores you to "go and see more independent movies" is a good thing
in my book. (7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Batman And Robin hits The Dirty Dozen and There's
Something About Mary.
