Some people say I have a heart of stone. Maybe because I don’t like to emote in public. I’d rather hold in my feelings and let them fester until they erupt in bouts of depression or rage. So when a film makes me shed a tear, it’s a safe bet to say it’s got some power. Some films, like When Harry Met Sally or (in my foolish teenage years) Titanic, can chip at the stone and create a little hole and thus a few tears. Very few films manage to blast the rock away completely. This is one of them.
Tsotsi (Oscar winner for best foreign language film) is about a thug (‘Tsotsi’ literally means ‘thug’) who comes into the possession of a baby, which makes him question his approach to life. It’s a pretty simple story, but it doesn’t need any more than that. This film is all about the emotion. And right from the start it got me.
Now, when I talk about emotion I don’t mean ‘weepy weepy tear-jerker’. I mean it just made me feel. The opening mugging scene chilled me to my very core. It’s not that it’s particularly gory – I’m completely desensitised to violence on film anyway. It’s just the reality of a horrible act. And it’s the reality of the film that is strike one in the attack on my defences. This film deals with poverty – we’re talking little kids living in concrete cylinders. I’ve seen ‘poverty films’ before, and let’s be totally honest here. They make me shudder, but I can’t relate them to my perfect white middle-class world. We all watch them and see the dusty grounds and crappy little huts and think ‘god, that’s awful. But it’s not here.’ It’s so removed from our own existence that we may as well watch a sci-fi. But Tsotsi balances the shanty towns with towering cities and quiet little neighbourhoods. Places that we know. And then it cuts back to flats built on wobbly bricks with metal sheets for doors. Ouch.
Strike two is Presley Chweneyagae, who plays the title role. He could have gone through the whole film without saying a word and it would still have packed the same punch. We see just enough of his past to get why he is what he is, and the rest is explained through his eyes. Crikey, those eyes can convey everything he’s feeling as clearly as a big caption coming up on the screen. And as he stares mournfully at his new child companion, we start to see it through his own tortured childhood. That baby is one tubby, gurgling little cutie. And I’m not even a big fan of babies, especially babies in films. They could’ve gone down the ‘bumbling guy can’t figure out how to handle bawling baby, oh the hilarity’ route. But they didn’t. Sure, it’s amusing as he discovers the joys of a full nappy. But it’s not clown-like comedy. It’s touching. And, for me at least, it’s always darkened by this underlying fear, brought on by my own pre-conceptions of what happens in films about bad guys who aren’t bad at the core and try to do good. I won’t say whether I was right or not. But as the film built to its climax, my fear of what would happen grew and grew. The more I watched, the more I cared, the more I feared what was going to happen, and the more I knew that if it was to happen I was going to handle it badly. At the end I was experiencing so much emotion that my stomach was crumpling under the pressure (I’m pretty sure it wasn’t due to too much ice cream.) My tears mirrored Tsotsi’s. I couldn’t help it. And afterwards I was left with a wedge of emotion in my throat that was so big it took at least an hour to subside.
I know I’ve said previously that I’m not a big fan of weepy films (see Brokeback Mountain.) But this film wasn’t exactly ‘sad’. It was just… I can’t even put it into words. I will say that anyone who feels nothing after watching this film doesn’t just have a heart of stone – they’re soulless evil. Tsotsi makes the much sought-after 8.5. S’good.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
19th April 06 - Junebug
I actually woke up this morning and forgot I had been to the cinema last night. Oh dear.
Junebug is one of those rare films where I went in knowing absolutely nothing about it. It makes a nice change to watch a film with no expectations. This was a conscious choice, by the way. I’m not one of those idiots who don’t know anything and blindly stumble into the cinema (who fall on two levels – the general dimwit: ‘I didn’t know the Producers would be a musical!’ And the dangerously dense: at the end of Fellowship of the Ring ‘is that it? Where’s the end?’)
Anyway, it took me a while to figure out what I thought of this film. On the one hand it has moments of, well, not brilliance, but ‘fairly good-ness’. Gentle humour, kooky characters, a lolling plot that softly lifts up ideas about relationships and family. It’s inoffensive, amusing, and offers enough tid-bits to ponder (compare the three relationships and see how those that at first appear strongest may well be the least likely to succeed.)
On the other hand, this is one of those films that feels twice as long as it is and makes you feel very tired at the end. There’s endless shots of nothing, with no sound (not an easy film to eat Skittles to) and very little point. If you scrape the bottom of the arsey analyst’s barrel, you could maybe come up with ‘oh, they’ve shown that car reversing up that long drive to show the backwards nature of the area’, but really that’s pushing it. You get the backwards nature of the area with all the scrotum paintings, anyway. There’s no need for anything else.
So, if you took a pair of scissors to this film and cut out all the shots of empty rooms and forests, then you’d get a sort of interesting film with sort of interesting characters and a sort of interesting plot. As it is, you get a sort of interesting film with huge chunks of boring fluff. At every piece of fluff I decided the film was slow and pointless, but there were just enough sparks of fairly good-ness to stop me from disliking it. So what score do I give it? If I was the editor, then it would have reached 7. As it is, it makes 6.5.
Junebug is one of those rare films where I went in knowing absolutely nothing about it. It makes a nice change to watch a film with no expectations. This was a conscious choice, by the way. I’m not one of those idiots who don’t know anything and blindly stumble into the cinema (who fall on two levels – the general dimwit: ‘I didn’t know the Producers would be a musical!’ And the dangerously dense: at the end of Fellowship of the Ring ‘is that it? Where’s the end?’)
Anyway, it took me a while to figure out what I thought of this film. On the one hand it has moments of, well, not brilliance, but ‘fairly good-ness’. Gentle humour, kooky characters, a lolling plot that softly lifts up ideas about relationships and family. It’s inoffensive, amusing, and offers enough tid-bits to ponder (compare the three relationships and see how those that at first appear strongest may well be the least likely to succeed.)
On the other hand, this is one of those films that feels twice as long as it is and makes you feel very tired at the end. There’s endless shots of nothing, with no sound (not an easy film to eat Skittles to) and very little point. If you scrape the bottom of the arsey analyst’s barrel, you could maybe come up with ‘oh, they’ve shown that car reversing up that long drive to show the backwards nature of the area’, but really that’s pushing it. You get the backwards nature of the area with all the scrotum paintings, anyway. There’s no need for anything else.
So, if you took a pair of scissors to this film and cut out all the shots of empty rooms and forests, then you’d get a sort of interesting film with sort of interesting characters and a sort of interesting plot. As it is, you get a sort of interesting film with huge chunks of boring fluff. At every piece of fluff I decided the film was slow and pointless, but there were just enough sparks of fairly good-ness to stop me from disliking it. So what score do I give it? If I was the editor, then it would have reached 7. As it is, it makes 6.5.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
12th April 06 - Inside Man
You can look at this film in two ways.
The first is from the perspective of the Easter holiday teenage pleb. This is your basic ‘bank robber vs hostage negotiator’ as seen in films like ‘The Negotiator’. Not exactly a new concept. There’s the clever robber, Clive Owen, with his usual ‘trying to be cool by speaking slowly in a silly accent’, and the kooky detective, Den-ZEL Washington, whose mouth and speech patterns are so much like Adam Sandler’s I wouldn’t be surprised if they were brothers, apart from the obvious difference of course. There’s an extra notch to the plot as Jodie Foster, who has the weirdest shiny legs I’ve ever seen, is called in to protect a very sensitive item inside the bank. And that’s about it. The robber’s plan is sort of clever, but the end reveal isn’t jaw-dropping, just makes you go ‘oh’. It’s fairly enjoyable, but a bit too long.
The other perspective is from the person who reads things and knows that the director is Mr Spike Lee, who likes to make statements about things, you know, like racism blah blah. This is what I’ve read, anyway, because the only other Spike Lee film I’ve seen was Summer of Sam, which I turned off half way through due to rigid boredom. I was younger and therefore less intelligent, so I could have been wrong. I doubt it, though. Anyway, Spike has things to say, so what’s he saying with this tale of bank robbery? The answer is lots. Some points are strikingly obvious (“Nazis are bad” – oh really? You’ve so changed my view of the world) and forced down your throat (let’s have a scene with little Tommy playing a violent video game for no reason other than to highlight the violence of video games and rap, how clever). Other points sort of pissed me off. Example: put all the hostages in masks and they all look the same. Oh look, race is inconsequential, we’re all just human beings. Look how the police react when one mask reveals a white man, and the other reveals a Sikh. Racism is bad. Very true. But how come masks can conceal race, but not big titties? The women in this film are either sexual objects or (the intelligent one, of course) the essence of evil wrapped in skirt. Come on Spike – you’ll stick up for one ‘ism’, but what about the others?
Anyway, you don’t learn much about Clive Owen, so whether he wins or loses doesn’t really matter. Denzel is good, but isn’t he always. The plot is reasonable, but not mind blowing and with a few little holes (how did the robber know about the ‘sensitive materials’?) And the messages are convoluted and a little bit arsey.
BUT, despite all this, I didn’t hate the film. In fact, I sort of enjoyed it, in a brainless way. With Spike on board, it should have had a meatier message. But on face value, this is a robber vs. negotiator film that’s pretty good. Wouldn’t watch it again. Didn’t change my life. But it killed a couple of hours. It makes a rating of 7.
The first is from the perspective of the Easter holiday teenage pleb. This is your basic ‘bank robber vs hostage negotiator’ as seen in films like ‘The Negotiator’. Not exactly a new concept. There’s the clever robber, Clive Owen, with his usual ‘trying to be cool by speaking slowly in a silly accent’, and the kooky detective, Den-ZEL Washington, whose mouth and speech patterns are so much like Adam Sandler’s I wouldn’t be surprised if they were brothers, apart from the obvious difference of course. There’s an extra notch to the plot as Jodie Foster, who has the weirdest shiny legs I’ve ever seen, is called in to protect a very sensitive item inside the bank. And that’s about it. The robber’s plan is sort of clever, but the end reveal isn’t jaw-dropping, just makes you go ‘oh’. It’s fairly enjoyable, but a bit too long.
The other perspective is from the person who reads things and knows that the director is Mr Spike Lee, who likes to make statements about things, you know, like racism blah blah. This is what I’ve read, anyway, because the only other Spike Lee film I’ve seen was Summer of Sam, which I turned off half way through due to rigid boredom. I was younger and therefore less intelligent, so I could have been wrong. I doubt it, though. Anyway, Spike has things to say, so what’s he saying with this tale of bank robbery? The answer is lots. Some points are strikingly obvious (“Nazis are bad” – oh really? You’ve so changed my view of the world) and forced down your throat (let’s have a scene with little Tommy playing a violent video game for no reason other than to highlight the violence of video games and rap, how clever). Other points sort of pissed me off. Example: put all the hostages in masks and they all look the same. Oh look, race is inconsequential, we’re all just human beings. Look how the police react when one mask reveals a white man, and the other reveals a Sikh. Racism is bad. Very true. But how come masks can conceal race, but not big titties? The women in this film are either sexual objects or (the intelligent one, of course) the essence of evil wrapped in skirt. Come on Spike – you’ll stick up for one ‘ism’, but what about the others?
Anyway, you don’t learn much about Clive Owen, so whether he wins or loses doesn’t really matter. Denzel is good, but isn’t he always. The plot is reasonable, but not mind blowing and with a few little holes (how did the robber know about the ‘sensitive materials’?) And the messages are convoluted and a little bit arsey.
BUT, despite all this, I didn’t hate the film. In fact, I sort of enjoyed it, in a brainless way. With Spike on board, it should have had a meatier message. But on face value, this is a robber vs. negotiator film that’s pretty good. Wouldn’t watch it again. Didn’t change my life. But it killed a couple of hours. It makes a rating of 7.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
5th April 06 - The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
No matter how many times they said his name, I still can’t pronounce Melquiades. But this doesn’t matter too much, because the majority of cretins haven’t heard of this film, and the few who have can understand if you say "that Tommy Lee Jones film, The Three Burials" and then mumble something Spanish. Anyway, the first cinema trip in two months, and a refreshing film to kick off my return with. Three Burials is a ‘Western’ in theory, but set in the present day (clue: mobile phones and celebrity magazines) and with cowboys but not Indians. Plus I liked it, and I rarely like Westerns. They’re all the same. Little towns, Clint Eastwood (with his squinty little eyes, or “acting”) a shoot out, the end. I know that’s a generalisation, but that’s how my young eyes see them.
Anyway, the first half is a jumbled mix of scenes, jumping back and forth without using ‘visual cues’ like different colour tones aka many other films that jump back and forth. A lesser person may have had trouble understanding which scene belonged where. However, I found this approach intriguing, a sort of Pulp Fiction-esque style that wasn’t hugely necessary, but made the simple story have more depth, as I gradually added more information to the plot that was forming in my brain. The second half straightens out into a normal narrative structure. And what a strange narrative. At times amusing, sometimes affecting, there’s shots of humanity (very generous humanity at that) and beautiful scenery and clippity clop horses. And it ends without a massive resolution. It reminded me of a scene from Adaptation (one of my favourite films) where Charlie Kaufman says he wants to create a film where there’s no character arcs. Apart from Mike Norton (Barry Pepper – the creepiest looking person in the world) who sort of learns a lesson, though it’s a pretty easy lesson to learn (random shooting is bad, m’kay) no one else really changes. This I like. I’m fed up of neat films (Crash – ooo we’re all racist but we’re really good at our hearts and we learn beautiful lessons and we’re up our own LA arses) and this was just simple. Different enough to be interesting, but simple enough not to piss me off.
My one gripe is with ‘Pete’ (Tommy Lee Jones, with big sad puppy eyes). I don’t know much about Pete, or why he did what he did, or if he’s a little bonkers, or why he’s a little bonkers. It gives him an air of mystery, yes, but I couldn’t connect with his character in any way. He was just a blank space to me. I was waiting for something to give me more of a hint of who he really was. There were little nuggets, but just too small to be satisfying. But, I’ve sat and thought about him. And films that make me think are generally good. So that’s my opinion. Three Burials is generally good. It makes the magic rating of 8.
Anyway, the first half is a jumbled mix of scenes, jumping back and forth without using ‘visual cues’ like different colour tones aka many other films that jump back and forth. A lesser person may have had trouble understanding which scene belonged where. However, I found this approach intriguing, a sort of Pulp Fiction-esque style that wasn’t hugely necessary, but made the simple story have more depth, as I gradually added more information to the plot that was forming in my brain. The second half straightens out into a normal narrative structure. And what a strange narrative. At times amusing, sometimes affecting, there’s shots of humanity (very generous humanity at that) and beautiful scenery and clippity clop horses. And it ends without a massive resolution. It reminded me of a scene from Adaptation (one of my favourite films) where Charlie Kaufman says he wants to create a film where there’s no character arcs. Apart from Mike Norton (Barry Pepper – the creepiest looking person in the world) who sort of learns a lesson, though it’s a pretty easy lesson to learn (random shooting is bad, m’kay) no one else really changes. This I like. I’m fed up of neat films (Crash – ooo we’re all racist but we’re really good at our hearts and we learn beautiful lessons and we’re up our own LA arses) and this was just simple. Different enough to be interesting, but simple enough not to piss me off.
My one gripe is with ‘Pete’ (Tommy Lee Jones, with big sad puppy eyes). I don’t know much about Pete, or why he did what he did, or if he’s a little bonkers, or why he’s a little bonkers. It gives him an air of mystery, yes, but I couldn’t connect with his character in any way. He was just a blank space to me. I was waiting for something to give me more of a hint of who he really was. There were little nuggets, but just too small to be satisfying. But, I’ve sat and thought about him. And films that make me think are generally good. So that’s my opinion. Three Burials is generally good. It makes the magic rating of 8.
Monday, March 27, 2006
And so into 2006...
It's the end of March and I've seen 5 films at the cinema. Pathetic. A foot operation has rendered me immobile, thus missing the entire Oscar season (secretly grateful, otherwise I'd have spent two months being morbidly depressed)
As my cinema days approach once more, I'll recap briefly on the start of the year.
7th Jan 06 - March of the Penguins (7)
Look at the little penguins. I do think they're cute. And oh, they fell over. Ha ha. This is a documentary along the same lines of the recent BBC series Planet Earth. It's stunning to look at, but the information content is a tad sparse. What was that big thing that just attacked the babies? Oh, you're not going to say. Ok. (Luckily I'm incredibly knowledgable when it comes to topics like this, so I can guess albatross)
This film was 'nice', probably difficult and cold to film, but I didn't come away knowing anything more, and was entertained for a short while. You can't see the facial expression I'm making, but imagine eating something very sour, while being patronising to a small child.
11th Jan 06 - Brokeback Mountain (7.75)
Ah Jake. Lovely Jake. Yeah, Heath played it well, even when he was being affectionate he was rough and gruff and mumbly like a big bear. But lovely Jake with his lovely little grin. Branded 'the gay cowboy movie', it pulls away from the labels almost immediately. You can see the love between these two. The fact they're both men loses its novelty, and you're left with one of those very long, drawn out, crushingly depressing tragic love stories, that I usually hate. If I wanted my despair to be very slowly dragged across time I'd employ someone to follow me everywhere and mutter 'you will die someday' into my ear every five minutes. So, this is why, what is essentially a 'good film' (albiet a little too long) doesn't score the magic 8. I just don't like films like this that much.
25th Jan 06 - Jarhead (7.5)
Ah Jake. Lovely Jake. More importantly - Jake in a santa thong. He's bald and beefy and struggling to cope with the violence that's been trained into him, and that's used for narthing. Usual army training scenes with shouty guys doing shouty things, and it looks like hell but the shouty ones do it because it's their life. What saves this from being another bloody war film is that its focus is purely on the mental effects on the soldiers, before and after. It won't blow you away, but it ain't half bad, and you see Jake in the shower.
1st Feb 06 - A Cock and Bull Story (8)
Some might say this film is so far up its own arse you can't even see anything except a little tiny dot of light in the middle of the screen. Thankfully, because I'm so far up my own arse, I saw this film in its entirety. The comparison between Steve Coogan and his character is all too clear in my poncey analyst eyes, and with that in mind this film makes for a bold, different take. Sometimes amusing, but not an out-and-out comedy, I found this to be a refreshing attempt at something new. Imagine!
8th Feb 06 - Munich (8)
Being the last cinema venture before I was in a different type of theatre (the operating kind) I decided to opt for a jolly tale. Long and brutal and unclear. Yep, that's my idea of jolly. I watched this film with unease, not because of the frank violence, but because I could tell my brain would be a'thinking afterwards. Trouble was, I didn't have time to be a'thinking during, because there were too many other things going on. This is a dark film that digs up everything you thought about terrorism and makes you sit and ponder it and the people involved. I wasn't alive when this all happened, so I didn't know very much about it. I still don't, really. I'm not entirely sure why these two groups were fighting, but, as this film suggests, did they?
As my cinema days approach once more, I'll recap briefly on the start of the year.
7th Jan 06 - March of the Penguins (7)
Look at the little penguins. I do think they're cute. And oh, they fell over. Ha ha. This is a documentary along the same lines of the recent BBC series Planet Earth. It's stunning to look at, but the information content is a tad sparse. What was that big thing that just attacked the babies? Oh, you're not going to say. Ok. (Luckily I'm incredibly knowledgable when it comes to topics like this, so I can guess albatross)
This film was 'nice', probably difficult and cold to film, but I didn't come away knowing anything more, and was entertained for a short while. You can't see the facial expression I'm making, but imagine eating something very sour, while being patronising to a small child.
11th Jan 06 - Brokeback Mountain (7.75)
Ah Jake. Lovely Jake. Yeah, Heath played it well, even when he was being affectionate he was rough and gruff and mumbly like a big bear. But lovely Jake with his lovely little grin. Branded 'the gay cowboy movie', it pulls away from the labels almost immediately. You can see the love between these two. The fact they're both men loses its novelty, and you're left with one of those very long, drawn out, crushingly depressing tragic love stories, that I usually hate. If I wanted my despair to be very slowly dragged across time I'd employ someone to follow me everywhere and mutter 'you will die someday' into my ear every five minutes. So, this is why, what is essentially a 'good film' (albiet a little too long) doesn't score the magic 8. I just don't like films like this that much.
25th Jan 06 - Jarhead (7.5)
Ah Jake. Lovely Jake. More importantly - Jake in a santa thong. He's bald and beefy and struggling to cope with the violence that's been trained into him, and that's used for narthing. Usual army training scenes with shouty guys doing shouty things, and it looks like hell but the shouty ones do it because it's their life. What saves this from being another bloody war film is that its focus is purely on the mental effects on the soldiers, before and after. It won't blow you away, but it ain't half bad, and you see Jake in the shower.
1st Feb 06 - A Cock and Bull Story (8)
Some might say this film is so far up its own arse you can't even see anything except a little tiny dot of light in the middle of the screen. Thankfully, because I'm so far up my own arse, I saw this film in its entirety. The comparison between Steve Coogan and his character is all too clear in my poncey analyst eyes, and with that in mind this film makes for a bold, different take. Sometimes amusing, but not an out-and-out comedy, I found this to be a refreshing attempt at something new. Imagine!
8th Feb 06 - Munich (8)
Being the last cinema venture before I was in a different type of theatre (the operating kind) I decided to opt for a jolly tale. Long and brutal and unclear. Yep, that's my idea of jolly. I watched this film with unease, not because of the frank violence, but because I could tell my brain would be a'thinking afterwards. Trouble was, I didn't have time to be a'thinking during, because there were too many other things going on. This is a dark film that digs up everything you thought about terrorism and makes you sit and ponder it and the people involved. I wasn't alive when this all happened, so I didn't know very much about it. I still don't, really. I'm not entirely sure why these two groups were fighting, but, as this film suggests, did they?
Top 10 of 2005
In no particular order (because they're different genres, therefore you can't lump them together) these are the top ten films I saw at the cinema in 2005.
1. Team American: World Police
2. The Woodsman
3. Sin City
4. Batman Begins
5. War of the Worlds
6. The Descent
7. A History of Violence
8. Serenity
9. Nightwatch
10. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Watch them all now and tell me I'm wrong.
1. Team American: World Police
2. The Woodsman
3. Sin City
4. Batman Begins
5. War of the Worlds
6. The Descent
7. A History of Violence
8. Serenity
9. Nightwatch
10. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Watch them all now and tell me I'm wrong.
Film 2005
In 2005 I saw 41 films at the cinema. Not bad. Not a film a week, though. Because a full review would bore you (and me) to tears, this is a round-up of all the films I saw, the rating I gave each out of 10 at the time of viewing, and a summary sentence.
5th Jan 05 - Napoleon Dynamite (7.75 )
Amusing, slightly pointless, better on second viewing.
12th Jan 05 - The Aviator (8)
Epic, should have won an oscar, DiCaprio is excellent.
19th Jan 05 - Team America World Police (8.5)
Hilariously stupid, mindless entertainment. Class.
26th Jan 05 - Ocean's Twelve (6)
Not a patch on Eleven, badly acted, painful.
2nd Feb 05 - Closer (5.5)
A stage play that doesn't adapt well to screen, with unrealistic dialogue.
9th Feb 05 - Vera Drake (6)
Oh God, not oscar season. Well acted, but fairly loose on plot and so, so dreary.
16th Feb 05 - Sideways (8.5)
Breath of fresh air, amusing although a tad slow in places. Better on second viewing.
18th Feb 05 - Ray (8.5)
Captivating performance and story, though the rise and fall thing can get a bit tiresome.
23rd Feb 05 - Million Dollar Baby (8)
Oscar fodder. Boo hoo, let's have terrible things happen so Clint can squint and look sad.
2nd March 05 - The Life Aquatic (7.75)
Refreshing change from oscar blues. Unusual. Just missing something to get it to 8.
16th March 05 - The Woodsman (8)
Superbly acted by Kevin Bacon, should've won an oscar. Uncomfortably fantastic.
23rd March 05 - The Machinist (8)
Disturbing, intruiging, might lose it at the finish, but Bale is impressive as a skeleton.
30th March 05 - Constantine (6)
Only teenage boys know what's going on in this confusing mess that should've been more fun.
6th April 05 - Melinda and Melinda (6)
The drama wasn't dramatic, the comedy wasn't funny. Clunky dialogue. Disappointing.
13th April 05 - The Assissination of Richard Nixon (7.75)
Great acting, jarring finale. Good, but not enough depth to the story to make it to 8.
4th May 05 - Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (7.5)
Wanted to like it, but on retrospect would lower the score. Messy editing. And acting.
18th May 05 - Mean Creek (7.5)
Good crop of new actors, seen the story before though.
25th May 05 - The Jacket (7)
The writers didn't really know what they were doing. Interesting. Would be nice if there was a point.
8th June 05 - Sin City (8.5)
Visually fantastic. The story improves with second viewing.
22nd June 05 - Mr and Mrs Smith (7)
Brainless fun with pretty people.
29th June 05 - Batman Begins (8.5)
Dark, edgy, British. Takes the camp out of Batman and leaves him formidable and fantastic.
13th July 05 - War of the Worlds (8)
Fun, thrilling summer blockbuster. Enjoyable fluff, no matter what people say.
20th July 05 - The Descent (8)
Fabulously jumpy, claustrophobic, British horror. Ace.
2nd August 05 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (7)
Colourful, Depp is fun, but strangely empty despite all the chocolate.
3rd August 05 - The Wedding Crashers (7)
Should've been much funnier, but a few scenes bump it up to 7.
10th August 05 - Herbie: Fully Loaded (7.25)
Don't care if it's kid's crap - fun, fun fun.
17th August 05 - Crash (7.75)
Oscar 06 winner. Yes, racism, very good. But too polished to be truely affecting.
24th August 05 - Unleashed (7)
Good premise, good fights, but loses it somewhere in all the silliness.
31st August 05 - The Island (7)
Two McGregors. Fab. But Bay needs to cut the chase scenes. We get it.
14th Sep 05 - Green Street (7)
Dodgy accents aside, grittyish drama. Made me want to start a gang.
21st Sep 05 - Wolf Creek (7)
Disappointed. After all the good reviews, not scary enough. But the characters were well-developed.
28th Sep 05 - Howl's Moving Castle (7.5)
Bizarre, interesting, bit too long.
4th October 05 - A History of Violence (8)
Viggo is excellent. It's a simple story that's been twisted to unearth some interesting ideas about violence.
12th October 05 - Serentiy (8)
I'm a Whedon fan. Good dialogue, good characters, good action, good story. It's dead good.
19th October 05 - Nightwatch (8)
Choppy, dirty horror with fab effects and wibbly story. Can't wait for the next one.
26th October 05 - Lord of War (7.5)
Good premise, Cage is usual sardonic self. Makes you think and then be depressed.
9th November 05 - Corpse Bride (7)
Burton dissapoints again. Good, but just no Nightmare Before Christmas.
16th November 05 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (8)
Confirms Downy Jr is a stupendous actor. Funny, dry, needs to be seen again and again.
30th November 05 - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (7.5)
Best one so far, but the books are getting too big to transfer competently on to film.
21st December 05 - King Kong (8)
Jackson should've let go and cut half an hour, but there's no denying some of the set pieces are bloody fantastic.
28th December 05 - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (8)
Not Lord of the Rings, but still enjoyable, with non-irritating kids, fabulous effects and a solid story to back it all.
5th Jan 05 - Napoleon Dynamite (7.75 )
Amusing, slightly pointless, better on second viewing.
12th Jan 05 - The Aviator (8)
Epic, should have won an oscar, DiCaprio is excellent.
19th Jan 05 - Team America World Police (8.5)
Hilariously stupid, mindless entertainment. Class.
26th Jan 05 - Ocean's Twelve (6)
Not a patch on Eleven, badly acted, painful.
2nd Feb 05 - Closer (5.5)
A stage play that doesn't adapt well to screen, with unrealistic dialogue.
9th Feb 05 - Vera Drake (6)
Oh God, not oscar season. Well acted, but fairly loose on plot and so, so dreary.
16th Feb 05 - Sideways (8.5)
Breath of fresh air, amusing although a tad slow in places. Better on second viewing.
18th Feb 05 - Ray (8.5)
Captivating performance and story, though the rise and fall thing can get a bit tiresome.
23rd Feb 05 - Million Dollar Baby (8)
Oscar fodder. Boo hoo, let's have terrible things happen so Clint can squint and look sad.
2nd March 05 - The Life Aquatic (7.75)
Refreshing change from oscar blues. Unusual. Just missing something to get it to 8.
16th March 05 - The Woodsman (8)
Superbly acted by Kevin Bacon, should've won an oscar. Uncomfortably fantastic.
23rd March 05 - The Machinist (8)
Disturbing, intruiging, might lose it at the finish, but Bale is impressive as a skeleton.
30th March 05 - Constantine (6)
Only teenage boys know what's going on in this confusing mess that should've been more fun.
6th April 05 - Melinda and Melinda (6)
The drama wasn't dramatic, the comedy wasn't funny. Clunky dialogue. Disappointing.
13th April 05 - The Assissination of Richard Nixon (7.75)
Great acting, jarring finale. Good, but not enough depth to the story to make it to 8.
4th May 05 - Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (7.5)
Wanted to like it, but on retrospect would lower the score. Messy editing. And acting.
18th May 05 - Mean Creek (7.5)
Good crop of new actors, seen the story before though.
25th May 05 - The Jacket (7)
The writers didn't really know what they were doing. Interesting. Would be nice if there was a point.
8th June 05 - Sin City (8.5)
Visually fantastic. The story improves with second viewing.
22nd June 05 - Mr and Mrs Smith (7)
Brainless fun with pretty people.
29th June 05 - Batman Begins (8.5)
Dark, edgy, British. Takes the camp out of Batman and leaves him formidable and fantastic.
13th July 05 - War of the Worlds (8)
Fun, thrilling summer blockbuster. Enjoyable fluff, no matter what people say.
20th July 05 - The Descent (8)
Fabulously jumpy, claustrophobic, British horror. Ace.
2nd August 05 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (7)
Colourful, Depp is fun, but strangely empty despite all the chocolate.
3rd August 05 - The Wedding Crashers (7)
Should've been much funnier, but a few scenes bump it up to 7.
10th August 05 - Herbie: Fully Loaded (7.25)
Don't care if it's kid's crap - fun, fun fun.
17th August 05 - Crash (7.75)
Oscar 06 winner. Yes, racism, very good. But too polished to be truely affecting.
24th August 05 - Unleashed (7)
Good premise, good fights, but loses it somewhere in all the silliness.
31st August 05 - The Island (7)
Two McGregors. Fab. But Bay needs to cut the chase scenes. We get it.
14th Sep 05 - Green Street (7)
Dodgy accents aside, grittyish drama. Made me want to start a gang.
21st Sep 05 - Wolf Creek (7)
Disappointed. After all the good reviews, not scary enough. But the characters were well-developed.
28th Sep 05 - Howl's Moving Castle (7.5)
Bizarre, interesting, bit too long.
4th October 05 - A History of Violence (8)
Viggo is excellent. It's a simple story that's been twisted to unearth some interesting ideas about violence.
12th October 05 - Serentiy (8)
I'm a Whedon fan. Good dialogue, good characters, good action, good story. It's dead good.
19th October 05 - Nightwatch (8)
Choppy, dirty horror with fab effects and wibbly story. Can't wait for the next one.
26th October 05 - Lord of War (7.5)
Good premise, Cage is usual sardonic self. Makes you think and then be depressed.
9th November 05 - Corpse Bride (7)
Burton dissapoints again. Good, but just no Nightmare Before Christmas.
16th November 05 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (8)
Confirms Downy Jr is a stupendous actor. Funny, dry, needs to be seen again and again.
30th November 05 - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (7.5)
Best one so far, but the books are getting too big to transfer competently on to film.
21st December 05 - King Kong (8)
Jackson should've let go and cut half an hour, but there's no denying some of the set pieces are bloody fantastic.
28th December 05 - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (8)
Not Lord of the Rings, but still enjoyable, with non-irritating kids, fabulous effects and a solid story to back it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)