aidanbrack's Recent Activity - Spout

Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Group Name: Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!
Group Description:

Have a general question? Need help with some thing on the site? Have a bug you would like to report? Well then, you have come to the right place. No matter what you are having trouble with, we would like to help you find a solution. And maybe, through your own experience with the site, you will want to help other users too. That's what communities are all about.

Created: 8/1/2007
Number of Members: 79
Number of discussion posts: 513

Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMT

Group Name: HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES
Group Description: " I bid you welcome... Enter freely and of your own will..."
Created: 12/17/2006
Number of Members: 414
Number of Lists: 6
Number of discussion posts: 2333

Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMT

Group Name: foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.
Created: 6/4/2007
Number of Members: 322
Number of discussion posts: 56

Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMT

Group Name: Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"
Created: 6/30/2008
Number of Members: 52
Number of Lists: 12
Number of discussion posts: 701

Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMT

Group Name: Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.
Group Description:

A group of Spout's best reviewers.
Read the requirements.

Created: 6/20/2007
Number of Members: 36
Number of Lists: 9
Number of discussion posts: 451

Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMT

Group Name: missing a film - we'll help you find a film
Created: 3/5/2007
Number of Members: 131
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 234

Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMT

Group Name: Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.
Group Description:

At some point you just want more than what's right in front of you.

Created: 4/24/2008
Number of Members: 30
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 92

Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMT

Group Name: The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.
Created: 4/2/2006
Number of Members: 49
Number of Lists: 4
Number of discussion posts: 53

Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMT

Group Name: Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.
Group Description:

Sound on Sight proudly brings you two podcasts each week. Voted best podcast in 2008, these hard working hosts cover everything from mainstream Hollywood films to noir, horror, science fiction, cult cinema, documentary film making and more. Look out for a new show added every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

http://www.soundonsight.org/

Created: 1/6/2008
Number of Members: 104
Number of discussion posts: 150

Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMT

Group Name: Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.
Created: 5/5/2006
Number of Members: 200
Number of Lists: 10
Number of discussion posts: 412

Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMT

Group Name: Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss
Group Description:

Each week I will post a new poll. Please vote in the poll and reply to the discussion thread to discuss the question. Please do not vote more than once.

Created: 11/25/2008
Number of Members: 66
Number of discussion posts: 414

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMT

Group Name: Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!
Group Description:

Join us to discuss your favorite or most horrifying Zombie Movies or just your most memorable Zombie Moments. From Funny to Scary to Gory to Bizarre...

Created: 5/28/2007
Number of Members: 104
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 594

Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMT

Group Name: A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?
Group Description:

Glorify the best show ever (MST3K) with wit, wisdom and downright wackiness!

Created: 4/23/2008
Number of Members: 10
Number of Lists: 2
Number of discussion posts: 23

Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMT

Group Name: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys
Group Description: Year after year, movie lovers and non movie lovers alike discuss ad nauseum the fate of films nominated for the utmost honor, the Academy Award. Some people watch it for the fashion. Some people watch for the haute couture. Some people watch for their fill of celebrity sightings. If you are a member of this group, you love everything about the Super Bowl of movies, especially the movies themselves! You love to make predictions, guess at the politics, discuss and dissect who should have been nominated and who should have won...or, you're just an avid movie lover that likes to pay attention. Come join the group!
Created: 3/4/2006
Number of Members: 41
Number of Lists: 58
Number of discussion posts: 226

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMT

Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

This is a group for members to start and organize movie marathons. Its primary purpose is to get more people exposed to more film. And to watch these films and discuss them as a group.

Anyone can start a marathon and marathons can be organized in many different ways to showcase the films of a director, actor, genre, theme etc...

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.

Created: 7/22/2009
Number of Members: 15
Number of discussion posts: 22

Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMT

Group Name: Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!
Group Description: Want to be a member? Send me a message with a list of at least 5 movies that you do not want to see. There are many movies that I do not want to see. I'm not sure if its right of me to decide never to see a movie without seeing it. You know...like when a kid says they hate mushrooms even though they admit never trying them. So maybe this is a good spot for people to display movies they don't think they want to see, and see if anyone can convince us to try them out.
Created: 3/22/2006
Number of Members: 20
Number of Lists: 3
Number of discussion posts: 190

Spout Post: The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:17:50 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:17:50 AM
Body: Whilst I like to think myself generally well read, I have to confess to there being some very sizeable gaps in my knowledge of literature. I am in my element talking about Dickens, Austen, Chaucer or Hardy but F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway are a different matter. To my shame I have never got around to familiarising myself with the works of “The Lost Generation” - the works of the great American writers based in Paris in the aftermath of the first world war. The Snows of Kilimanjaro is based on a short story by Hemingway and tells the story of an American writer, who falls into a fever after being wounded and reflects on his failures both at love and in his writing. His neglected wife takes care for him as he slips into delirium, trying to keep him alive long enough for a plane to arrive to rescue them. In doing so she must listen to him talking of lost loves and prevent him from destroying himself or giving in to his sickness. The film opens with writer Harry Street already injured, teasing us with two conflicting accounts of how he was injured. Harry argues that his skin was broken by a thorn in a bizarre twist of fate and that led to his leg becoming infected; his wife says he injured it when saving a young man who had fallen in a fast-moving river. Screenwriter Casey Robinson establishes in this early scene each character’s view of Street - Harry sees himself as unlucky and with self-pity, his wife thinks of him as heroic and capable. As the film plays out we learn more about these characters and their relationship, although it is far more interested in Harry’s story than Helen’s. Feverishly Harry’s mind races back to growing up in rural Michigan, breaking up with his girlfriend and running away to Europe where he encounters the striking Cynthia Green. As their romance develops, so does his writing. On a safari trip to Africa, Cynthia falls pregnant and, with their relationship at an end, Harry’s life spirals into turmoil. He remembers another failed relationship before meeting Helen, mistaking her for Cynthia not once but twice. These short flashbacks vary in interest and quality with the strongest being those centred on Harry and Cynthia, first in Africa and then Spain. Ava Gardner is superb as the playgirl who is challenged by the discovery that she is pregnant, realising that she does not want the same things from life that Harry does. In one scene she tries to tell him that their life will change, hoping that he will respond to the prospect of a new life with a family. The look on her face when he replies is heartbreaking and we know that their romance will be at an end. Gregory Peck’s easy charm as Harry perhaps feels a little out of character, yet it does help to explain why women would be interested in a man that bad-tempered and cruel. He handles the sarcastic dialogue well, though at times it seems as if the film would have been better served by someone with a more severe, cutting edge in their performance. Susan Hayward, as his wife Helen, is anonymous for large chunks of the narrative as the script requires her to mop Harry’s brow and be patient with him. Only towards the end of the picture is she really tested as an actress as Harry’s sickness worsens and she is required to treat the infection on his leg herself. The scenes between Helen and Harry take place, for the most part, on what is clearly a soundstage recreation of a camp in an African clearing. Camera movement feels restricted at points, particularly when compared with some of the often spectacular second camera crew work that was done on location in Egypt and Kenya. Director Henry King mostly intercuts between the soundstage material and location footage, doing an acceptable job of marrying the two together although the joins are noticeable. However there is no excusing a sequence on a lake featuring some of the worst back projection I have ever witnessed. I always try to bear in mind the technical limitations of the period when looking at an older film but the poor execution of these shots ruins what ought to have been one of the most tense sequences of the picture. His work elsewhere in the picture however is solid and he uses the camera and lighting well to signify a mood of nostalgia and then melancholy. Sound is used well to give the film a haunting, unnerving texture, the sound of animals in the distance giving the film a real sense of place. The Snows of Kilimanjaro is not a film that has stood up particularly well to the tests of time. It is hard to overlook its bizarre mesh of stylised, staged dialogue scenes and wildlife footage shot on location or the film’s often slow pacing. Yet for all its faults the film still is affecting and, at moments, moving.

Spout Post: Planet of the Apes (2001)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:17:12 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:17:12 AM
Body: As in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this ‘reimagining’ is a very different picture from its inspiration. Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton’s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around. The film’s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader. The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff. Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton’s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders. Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away. And that’s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world’s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston’s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually. Tim Burton’s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton’s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality. The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it’s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti’s quality give such a dull, one note performance. Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his ‘reimagining’ is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth. Thade’s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him. Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg’s Leo than Estella Warren’s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire. Burton’s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters. Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale. The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle’s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 ‘reimagining’; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining.

Spout Post: Impromptu (1991)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:16:13 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:16:13 AM
Body: Apparently a musical impromptu should create a facade of perfect spontaneity, intended to hide the careful, almost mathematical constructions that make them work. It should feel almost improvised, as if it is being created at that very moment. The title of this film by James Lapine refers explicitly to composer Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu but could just as well describe the style of the piece. Here we are introduced to a cast of brilliant, extravagant artistic personalities and we watch them interact and attempt to hide their machinations and true purposes from one another. Impromptu tells the story of noted author George Sand (real name Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin) who became noted for taking a man’s name, smoking cigars and dressing in male attire. She shocked the establishment at the time by refusing to dress or act like a conventional woman and lived a scandalous lifestyle, marrying a baron and then leaving him aged 27 to go to Paris where she led a number of high profile affairs. Judy Davis plays Sand and invests her with an appealing swagger exuding self-assurance and sexual energy. Like many great artists she lives life with a passionate energy, picking an obsession and then chasing it. From the earliest scenes of the movie we see this play out in the creation of her novels as she works long into the night and then sleeps through half the day. We follow Sand’s attempts to ensnare Polish composer Frédéric Chopin, a sickly and timid young man who seems to be permanently at death’s door. When she hears his music she is entranced and is determined to have him, despite making a poor first impression on him. Like a musical impromptu, this film has its purpose but delights in running off in comical whims, such as a duel between two of her former lovers, and throwing in unexpected twists and turns. This lends the film a floaty, dreamy quality as the characters dance around each other and the rhythm of the piece changes. Hugh Grant is cast opposite Judy Davis as Chopin but has little chemistry with her. Characterisation of that legendary composer is slight, consisting of little more than a cough and looking a little bit sorry for himself. The film is far stronger when talking about his maladies and his temprement than when it tries to show them to us. The film also portrays several other notable artists of the period including playwright Alfred de Musset, composer Franz Liszt, Romantic artist Eugène Delacroix and novelist Felicien Mallefille. Each are superbly portrayed by an accomplished cast but all are upstaged by Emma Thompson’s turn as the Duchess d’Antan, an aspiring socialite who wants to be surrounded by the greatest artists of her time. One scene when she welcomes them to her home, giving each a laurel wreath, is a particular delight. These scenes set in the d’Antan estate are lively and frequently very funny, veering from bedroom-hopping farce to slapstick to teasing wordplay and a literally explosive ending. As well as satirising the misguided attitudes that patrons of the arts can develop, these scenes also explore the corrosive relationships that can develop between artists as they push each other to self-destructing ends. Once the characters depart the estate the film sadly takes a turn towards the conventional, morphing into a more traditional romance albeit with female and male roles reversed. In these sections the film’s impromptu facade falls and its structure becomes more evident as we are guided towards an uncomfortably clean ending. Films full of famous figures run a significant risk of revelling too much in the fame of their characters rather than entertaining with a good story. On too many occassions such films can degenerate into checklists of historical figures of the period. Thankfully Impromptu focuses instead on narrative and characterisation. Hugh Grant’s wet Chopin is the weakest link in the film, diminishing the character’s presence to portray the composer’s fragile health. He tells us at one point that he feels almost as if he is a spirit, floating in music yet Grant conveys little sense of detachment from his physical self. It is Judy Davis as Sand that makes him believeable and her passion gives his character the stature it needs. I wished at points that it was more ambitious and more challenging as a film. That the story would match the off-kilter nature of its central character. Yet whilst Impromptu never pushes boundaries as hard as it might, strong performances from Davis and the supporting cast and enjoyable comic moments ensure that it is a film that succeeds more often than it fails.

Spout Post: Be Cool (2005)

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:00:37 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/31/2008 11:00:37 AM
Body: John Travolta returns as former loanshark Chili Palmer in Be Cool, a sequel to Get Shorty - a film made a decade earlier. As with that earlier movie, this is an adaptation of a novel by Elmore Leonard but this is much less successful. Time has passed and Chili has grown tired of the movie business and is wanting to work in the music industry. He has discovered a talented young female singer, Linda Moon, who he would like to work with but her contract is owned by a record label boss with a mobster background. The film pits Chili against the label boss (played by Harvey Keitel) and against an array of other gangsters but never really engaged me. It never establishes a clear sense of threat and, more importantly, I do not buy Chili or Uma Thurman’s record producer as being huge music fans. The film certainly serves up plenty of references to musicians but the characters lack the passion of music lovers when talking about the business. The film’s plot is also very slight, presenting Chili with remarkably few hoops for him to leap through. Instead much of the film is taken up with the various groupings of gangsters talking with each other about how Chili’s an upstart and how they should whack him. Travolta gives a serviceable performance as Chili and he looks like he’s having fun but the character feels curiously uninvolved with everything else that happens. The film’s attempts to emulate the sexual tension of Pulp Fiction by bringing in Uma Thurman alongside him fall flat, with a tribute dance sequence proving neither funny nor sexy. In support, Keitel and Vince Vaughn are both tiresome - particularly Vaughn whose white man who thinks he’s a hip hop artist shtick wears thin within seconds. Cedric the Entertainer is good value though and provides some of the few laughs of the picture. The Rock also makes an appearance as a bodyguard who wants, badly, to be an actor. This character’s joke, boiled down, is that he’s gay and yet is in a brutal job - not exactly the stuff of great laughs and provokes a stream of homophobic gags. Somehow, despite this, The Rock comes off well in this role showing the enthusiasm and energy lacking everywhere else in this flick. His material is the weakest in the film but he commits absolutely to getting whatever laughs he can from it. Be Cool is a mess of a film, missing its beats and lacking a focus. For too much of the film Chili is a bemused bystander and the film’s credibility as a satire of the music industry is repeatedly shown up. Since when would a duet at an Aerosmith gig ever launch a soul singer into the stratosphere? Without reality satire falls flat and this film says nothing about the music business or its characters. Proving neither witty nor smart, Be Cool is a flop that wastes a strong cast and by trying too hard, proves to be much less cool than Get Shorty ever was.

Spout Post: No Country for Old Men (2007)

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:58:26 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/31/2008 10:58:26 AM
Body: No Country for Old Men is set in the Texas of the 1980s - a world that still believes in its cowboy past that is startled by the rise of drugs trafficking across its border. Whilst persuading us that this will be the story of Josh Brolin’s hunter who discovers a drugs deal gone wrong and a suitcase full of cash, this film is equally about the realisation of Tommy Lee Jones’ local sheriff that the world has changed and he no longer has a place in it. These are powerful and lasting themes that stayed with me after the credits rolled, but more immediate is the strength of Javier Bardem’s performance as assassin Anton Chigurh. Cold, dry and terrifying, Bardem is the definition of screen presence here. Just the sight of him sat in a chair can chill, but it is in his relentless movement and relentless pursuit that he comes to life. He seems unstoppable. Chigurh is searching for the suitcase and leaves a trail of bodies in his wake as he tries to track it down, each killed with an unpleasant, compressed air weapon that churned my stomach. The film alludes to this character’s psychology but never tries to explain it to us - a move that makes him the more chilling. From his first, almost sexual, killing experience wrestling with a police officer to the flipping of a coin, it is as if there is a beast inside of Chigurh that drives and compells him. Searching for both Chigurh and Brolin’s hunter is Sheriff Bell, played elegiacly by Tommy Lee Jones. He is one of the old men in the title, nearing retirement and struggling to comprehend a world where killing takes place seemingly without motive and concerned about the impending tide of violence. He asks himself in a stunning opening monologue how would the famous lawmen of yesteryear have coped with such a world, the obvious conclusion being that they couldn’t. The world has changed and left characters like Sheriff Bell behind. The chase takes all three across Texas and, at one point, two of them into Mexico. Chigurh and Llewellyn Moss bloody each other repeatedly in scrappy encounters that are dripped in tension. The Coen Brothers’ allow light and sound to star in these scenes, with Moss noticing tiny changes in the atmosphere as he prepares for the onslaught of violence. We not only see the violence, we see the aftermath too. Both have scenes where they have to patch themselves up before the cycle of violence kicks off again. You sense that this cycle of violence could go on again and again without resolution - Moss and Chigurh are too perfectly matched. It is the unexpected interference of a third party (other than Bell) that proves decisive. Brief mention must be made of Kelly Macdonald, perfect as Moss’ nineteen year old wife, Woody Harrelson as a cocky bounty hunter and Stephen Root as the man who hires him. Although each only has a small amount of screen time, they are so well cast that you know who they are almost immediately. Macdonald is particularly fine towards the end of the movie as she wrestles with the question of what would be best for her husband. No Country for Old Men is a great achievement in film-making. Tense and unrelenting, it only missteps towards the end where it never shows us the confrontation we are expecting, keeping a key incident off-screen. Watching this film, I could not help but be impressed by Javier Bardem’s chilling performance. Yet I was left in the hours that followed turning to Tommy Lee Jones’ quieter performance. This is the heart of the film, the struggle of that older man to understand purpose where there is none and to predict the actions of the unpredictable. No Country for Old Men is an unsettling, brilliance piece of filmmaking that affects as much as it thrills. Its ending prevents it from being immediately satisfying but in many ways that only speaks to the notion that it is the unpredictable that gets us in the end. Not the ending we want, but one that fits perfectly with the themes of Tommy Lee Jones’ speech at the opening of the movie.

Spout Post: Lady Frankenstein (1971)

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:54:05 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/31/2008 5:54:05 AM
Body: Mel Welles’ reimagining of the Frankenstein story is a ludicrous and exploitative film that rejects art for lurid sex scenes and unconvincing violence. Whereas Mary Shelley’s novel was a masterpiece of the gothic literary movement, examining the hubris of a scientist who wishes to create life unnaturally, this story pays only lip service to those themes. Sure, the characters have debates about whether they are doing the right thing and the risks inherent in their choices but the film never convinces when talking about morality. Perhaps it’s the score of topless women that somewhat distracts from any pretence at a greater meaning to this tale. Joseph Cotten plays the older Dr Frankenstein, the scientist experimenting with cadavers in the hope of creating new life. After three years of work he finally succeeds in but the brain he uses in his experiment is severely damaged and the creature wakes up a mentally unbalanced monster. Killing his creator, this monster then embarks on a killing spree, taking vengeance on those who created him. His daughter, discovering the body, reacts as any loving daughter would do. She persuades her father’s assistant not to report the creation of the monster and tells him that she wants to become his lover but cannot bear his elderly body. She proposes killing a handsome but mentally-slow young man and transplanting the assistant’s brain into that body so that she can make her perfect man. Riiight. From that moment on it ceases to even pretend to be a horror film and switches to become melodrama interlaced with nudity. This is not an improvement. This film is schlock of the worst kind, completely lacking in depth or artistic merit. Failing even to frighten, it is grippingly atrocious cinema (and I use that word in its lightest sense). Earlier in his career Joseph Cotten had starred in such great films as The Third Man, Citizen Kane and Shadow of a Doubt. It is humiliating to see him reduced to a role this slight, although he does his best to inject some gravitas into a clunking script. He is fortunate to be able to escape the picture at the half-way mark. Rosalba Neri is not so lucky. With a concept so horrible you wonder if the filmmakers were intending this to be parody but any laughs it may generate are strictly unintentional. Some may find it comically bad but it didn’t work for me on that level either. Lady Frankenstein is a tiresome, grim film that even fails to provide scares. For a horror film that is inexcusable.

Spout Post: V for Vendetta (2006)

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:46:00 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/28/2008 12:46:00 PM
Body: V for Vendetta is that rare thing amongst big budget Hollywood films – a surprise. I came to it expecting a run of the mill action film with a little bit of politics thrown in, but found something more complex and thought-provoking. The film is set in a futuristic Britain under the control of a fascist, manipulative government. The media are puppets of that government, blaming Britain’s problems on homosexuals, immigrants and Muslims and spreading misinformation. The people seem powerless and subdued and isolated from the rest of the world. Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) is walking the streets one night when she is attacked by government thugs for being out after curfew. She is saved in true swashbuckling fashion by a masked figure, styling himself after Guy Fawkes (Hugo Weaving) who stuns her and the government by blowing up the Old Bailey whilst he stands on a rooftop “conducting” the explosions. “V” is an interesting figure with mixed motivations, some personal, some idealistic. We learn more about both in the course of this picture as he talks with Evey. The role is a tough one, played from behind a fibreglass mask, yet Weaving is up to the task and conveys subtleties of character and emotion with his expressive voice and gestures. Weaving also shares good chemistry with Portman that, like the morality of the film, is complex and thoughtful. Whilst relationships in action films often feel incidental, this feels integral to the success of the story. Our understanding of “V” is informed by her own yet never feels prescriptive – we can think what we will of him. Portman is excellent and it is fascinating to watch her character transform through this movie as Evey gets caught up in events, learning more about the events that have caused British society to change. The film calls on Portman to show considerable range and subtlety of performance. In one particularly disturbing scene we see her imprisoned, broken down and tortured mentally. It would be easy for an actor or actress to make the mistake of giving a big performance, reminding us that they are acting. Portman makes no such mistake, almost underplaying the scene and the scene is all the more effective for that as it gives us space to contemplate what it must be like to be treated in such a horrific fashion and to have your dignity stripped away from you. Also impressive is John Hurt in a small but dominating role as the head of state, Chancellor Sutler. For most of the film he is seen on a wall-sized television screen, interrogating his underlings. He gives off an impressive, brutal dignity that is beautifully undermined later in the film. Further support comes from Stephen Fry as a talkshow host who Evey works with, Rupert Graves and Stephen Rea as the policemen charged with tracking down “V” and Tim Pigott-Smith as the head of security. Each are excellent and make significant impacts in relatively short periods of screen time. V for Vendetta is a bold and challenging movie. Some of its ideas will make people feel very uncomfortable and certainly its climax will inspire mixed reactions in its audience. Some may object to the film’s freedom fighting stance, feeling that it is a comment on politics today. Others are likely to take away the message that we have the responsibility to educate ourselves and to take the matter of who rules us seriously. The film’s success is that it prompts discussions and makes us think. It invites us to engage in a moral debate - what would you do if you were in Evey’s position and there was a totalitarian government in Britain. If the world didn’t care and there seemed to be no end in sight. I may not have liked the answer this film gives but I appreciated it asking the question.

Spout Post: Hellboy (2004)

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:44:39 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/28/2008 12:44:39 PM
Body: With the second Hellboy film currently in theatres it seems appropriate to take a look back at the first of Big Red’s big screen appearances, also directed by Guillermo del Toro. The film opens towards the end of the Second World War on an island off the coast of Scotland. The Nazis are working with Russian mystic Grigori Rasputin to open a transdimensional portal to awaken the Seven Gods of Chaos to destroy their enemies and turn the course of the war which, by this stage, is going badly. A small troop of American soldiers, accompanied by occult specialist Professor Thomas Bruttenholm, are sent to destroy this portal. Rasputin succeeds in opening the portal, but only for a moment, being sucked through the portal when it is destroyed. The crisis has temporarily been averted but whilst the Seven Gods of Chaos did not make it through the portal in time a tiny, bright red demon child did. This child, with a right hand made of stone, is coaxed into Bruttenholm’s arms with a candy bar and becomes a mascot to the troop of soldiers who name him Hellboy. The narrative then jumps forward sixty years to New Jersey where an elderly Bruttenholm heads up the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence. Hellboy is now an adult and is employed by the organisation but is not the only “unusual” employee of the Bureau. On his team is the psychic fish-like person, Abe Sapien and there is also a pyrokinetic woman, Liz Sherman, who is unable to control her ability. When followers of Rasputin find a way to retrieve him from the demon Universe the world is once again under threat. Hellboy and his team must find a way to prevent him from reopening the portal and bringing about the apocalypse. As you might expect from a Guillermo del Toro picture, Hellboy encounters a range of bizarre creatures from the Sammael, hellhounds with the ability to regenerate and multiply, to the creepy masked assassin that skulks around the city’s sewers. However none have the impact that the disturbing faun or pale man from Pan’s Labyrinth would do and the hellhounds become less impressive the more you see of them. Much more successful are Hellboy and Abe Sapien, characters that are achieved through make-up and prosthetic techniques. However equally important are the acting performances from Ron Perlman and Doug Jones respectively (with David Hyde Pierce providing Abe’s voice, uncredited out of respect for Jones’ performance). They give their characters real personality and strong mannerisms to not only keep the characters from feeling ridiculous but also making them feel like the most “real” in the picture. Hellboy is at its best during its set-up where the film mixes humour and some interesting character drama. It begins to lose its way with the introduction of the CGI monsters and slips into frustrating, tepid superhero fare as the climax nears. The ending offers far too few surprises, throwing even bigger (and less convincing) CGI at us. The film’s greatest strength is its bizarre and intriguing characters. Hellboy himself is not exactly the model of a hero but his petulant, almost teenage strops and his lust for Liz make him an appealing lead. The film hints at the characters being caged birds, unable to do what or go where they want, yet it never develops that theme. It is frustrating that the movie loses interest in the interplay of its characters and tries instead to deliver sensation. This film is good fun but it could easily have been much, much more.

Spout Post: Kiki's Delivery Service (1989)

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:19:00 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/27/2008 8:19:00 AM
Body: Kiki’s Delivery Service is an adorable, good-natured movie that tells the story of a thirteen year old girl who leaves home for a year to live in the city where she will train to become a witch. When she arrives in the city with her cat Jiji she discovers that the city is less welcoming than she expected and struggles to find somewhere to stay. A chance encounter with the owner of a bakery leads not only to Kiki being offered her spare room but also the discovery that she has a talent for delivering items. Starting her own business, Kiki makes new friends and gets herself into a number of scrapes. These scenes gently amuse, demonstrating Kiki’s sweet personality and determination as she tries to ensure that her customers receive their goods in time. We also see her gain confidence as she begins to feel comfortable in her new home and she finds herself attracting the attention of a young boy obsessed with flying, Tombo. The film’s animation shows the imagination and artistry of director Hayao Miyazaki. It lacks the spectacle of his later work such as Spirited Away or Howl’s Moving Castle, but the delightful hand-drawn animation has a delicate beauty that is mirrored by the film’s score. Well, at least until the credits sequence when we are treated to an obnoxious burst of pop music. At its heart, Kiki’s Delivery Service is the story of a girl learning to become independent. She is helped by several female role models who become her friends who assist her not only to overcome her practical problems of where to live and how to earn money but her philosophical ones as well. Yet at no point does the film become heavy, maintaining its light, delightful tone throughout. Kiki herself is an appealing heroine who has a sweet but determined nature that makes her easy to like. Kirsten Dunst plays her in the English dub and does a good job, making her very likeable. Joining her are Janeane Garofolo as an artist living in the forest and Phil Hartman, in his last film before his death, as Kiki’s wise-cracking feline sidekick, Jiji. Beautifully animated, populated with interesting characters and filled with amusing incidents, Kiki’s Delivery Service is a charming movie that is suitable for all ages. Its use of humour and episodic storyline gives the film a light, frothy touch, yet under the surface it has much to say about the insecurities and difficulties of a girl’s early teenage years.

Spout Post: Talladega Nights (2006)

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:23:54 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/26/2008 2:23:54 PM
Body: Being British I have to admit that NASCAR is not a sport I am particularly familiar with beyond knowing of its existence. If it is televised here I have never watched it and am unlikely to. Racing is just not my thing. Talladega Nights is set in the loud, overblown world of NASCAR Racing but it targets its humour not at the peculiarities of racing but of sports and sports movies imparticular. You need not be a fan of racing to enjoy it, the humour works on its own merits. Will Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, the sport’s hottest and most obnoxious driver. Racking up win after win, Bobby lives by the creed that “if you’re not first, you’re last” and is enjoying the fruits of his success. Living in a massive and overstated mansion with a supermodel wife, he is your stereotypical nouveau riche sports star. Think David Beckham in a baseball cap. For Ricky Bobby, success is a way of life so when his team’s owner hires a talented, flamboyantly gay French racing driver to join the team (hoping to humble his star racer) he feels threatened. Pushing himself too hard in the race, he is involved in a horrible accident and loses all confidence as a driver. The film follows his journey as he loses everything and, in typical sports movie fashion, has to regain his racing mojo. There are a couple of fun twists on the typical formula of such films but the funniest scenes take place outside of the car and in Ricky Bobby’s homelife. Highlights include a hilarious grace scene where Ricky Bobby insists on praying to the “tiny, newborn infant Jesus” and the scenes where he confronts former best friend Cal for stealing his life. Will Ferrell is supported with good performances from the ensemble, including Sacha Baron Cohen, Gary Cole, Amy Adams and John C. Reilly who is excellent as the warm but slow-witted Cal Naughton Jr. Talladega Nights is not a groundbreaking film but it has a number of big laughs and some wonderfully overblown performances. Ferrell’s strong performance is matched by John C. Reilly’s turn as Cal who not only shows good chemistry with the star but also excellent improvisional skills, riffing beautifully in a number of scenes. Sacha Baron Cohen is also a lot of fun as sneering rival Jean Girard, stealing a number of scenes. It loses its pace and sharpness a little as it nears the finish line falling foul of a few too many sports movie cliches, yet by that stage I had enough goodwill towards this unexpectedly charming movie not to mind.

Spout Post: Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:53:43 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/25/2008 11:53:43 AM
Body: Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan. Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians’ short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge. Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections. He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force’s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something. When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America’s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army. Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs. This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny. After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson’s methods are never scrutinised or debated. A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead. Charlie Wilson’s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, “Jailbait”. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring). Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining.

Spout Post: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:37:24 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/25/2008 6:37:24 AM
Body: Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day star as Ben and Jo MacKenna, an American couple on vacation traveling in Morocco in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1956 remake of his own 1934 hit thriller. When a murder takes place in a marketplace the victim whispers a cryptic message to Ben MacKenna. The message he receives makes the family a target for the murderers who attempt to ensure his silence by kidnapping his young son. Unable to trust the authorities to help them and with their boy in jeopardy, the MacKennas try to follow the trail of the kidnappers and rescue him on their own. The opening of the picture, which takes place in Marrakech, is intriguing as we see Ben and Jo out of their depth, both in terms of their understanding of the customs in Morocco and also in dealing with the people they encounter. In one particularly amusing scene, Ben struggles first with the low seating in a restaurant and then with learning how to eat a local delicacy. These early moments amuse and entertain as we take in the sights and sounds of a busy marketplace. That is, before the tourists are witness to the murder. At this point the film becomes less amusing and more focused on driving its far-fetched story forwards. We learn that the murdered man had knowledge of a plot to assassinate a public figure, yet the script is largely silent on motive. In any case, Hitchcock drives the story forwards at such a pace that it rarely pauses to expand upon its background. John Michael Hayes’ screenplay is mostly competent although it packs a few (presumably) unintentionally comical lines, the best of which is “Don’t you realise that Americans dislike having their children stolen?”. Fortunately Jimmy Stewart gives a particularly good, passionate performance and conveys both the panic of losing a child and also a determination to remain calm for the sake of his wife. Doris Day is also good here, although the producers clearly were desperate to make use of her extraordinary voice. She sings “Que Sera, Sera”, a song written specially for the film, on several occassions. She handles it nicely but it sits awkwardly alongside the narrative. Despite this gripe, she performs solidly and does a good job portraying her despair at the loss of her son. It is the second half of the film, which moves the action away from Morocco, which failed to satisfy me. Once we move away from that exotic locale it becomes much simpler to tell friend from foe, reducing the levels of intrigue. It also becomes clear that the plot to this film is never properly set out and we might ponder precisely what the plotters hope to gain with their planned assassination. Wrong turns are taken by Ben and Jo, possibly to surprise the audience but more likely to flesh out the running time of the film. Hitchcock’s introduction of Jo’s friends into the narrative also feels like an attempt to stretch this film’s running time. Given that the film lasts for just short of two hours this feels like a mistake and the film could easily have been improved for being shorter. There is actually little that is terribly wrong with The Man Who Knew Too Much. The problem with the film is that it also does relatively little to stand out from Hitchcock’s other works, feeling more comfortable than thrilling. Attractive visuals and a typically excellent performance from Jimmy Stewart make The Man Who Knew Too Much an interesting film, but it attempts little new and feels too comfortable in its own skin. Hitchcock is always at his best when he challenges himself - here he sets himself no limitations and explores no new ground. Given what he was capable of at this point, he disappoints by delivering a simple, competent romp.

Spout Post: Planet of the Apes (1968)

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:05:27 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/24/2008 3:05:27 PM
Body: Inspired by a novel by Pierre Boulle, Planet of the Apes is the story of a group of four American astronauts who volunteer to be cryogenically frozen and sent into space. When the flight crash lands on a seemingly desolate planet in the year 3978, the surviving astronauts venture into the desert where they encounter a race of primitive humans ruled by fearsome simian overlords. Charlton Heston stars as Colonel George Taylor, a cynical man who volunteers for the mission to escape mankind and its inhumanity towards one another. Captured and isolated, he is unable to speak after being shot in the throat and must persuade the apes holding him prisoner that he is intelligent and that he deserves his freedom. Do I detect the distant sounds of allegory? I think I do. Yes, Planet of the Apes turns our world on its head to make points about man's barbarism to one another, the negative influence religion can have on free scientific inquiry, racial injustice, blood sports and keeping animals caged. Most of this is laid on heavily in philosophical discussions and in a memorable court sequence. Yet these sequences do not slow the film. In fact, they are amongst the most compelling in the picture, energetic and fascinating as we see the ruling apes refuse to allow their beliefs to be challenged. Heston shines in these sequences, full of moral superiority and later frustration as he attempts to reason with his captors. It is not a subtle performance but without the energy he injects into the piece it could easily have fell flatly in its moralistic middle section. Praise should also be given to Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans for achieving captivating performances despite being behind rubber masks throughout the picture. The maks, whilst more flexible than many and simulating speech reasonably well, are not able to indicate emotion particularly clearly and so it falls to the actors to communicate those feelings vocally - no mean feat. The ape characters are handled nicely by the script, being given strong personalities and characteristics. From the inquisitive Cornelius, who privately doubts that apes have always been the dominant lifeform but is scared to speak out, to Dr Zaius, who is scared of order being undermined, it is easy to believe in these characters and their motivations. This film rarely gets it wrong but when it does can provoke unfortunate chuckles. The sight of the three male astronauts naked and running through the woods yet with their modesty completely in tact is ridiculous, and several traditional sayings switched to refer to humans ("human see, human do") sound ridiculous. You may also find yourself questioning why the apes are able to speak perfect twentieth century English whilst the humans cannot. Despite these weaker elements the film still holds up reasonably well if treated as a campy science fiction adventure rather than a more serious effort. It is entertaining and intense, leading to a highly satisfactory ending. Unfortunately the film's shocking twist is now so ingrained in pop culture that its effect is slightly dulled. Yet Heston sells it so well that it still has a powerful impact as we watch Taylor realise what has happened. Planet of the Apes features compelling performances, a couple of exciting set pieces and a fanastic conclusion. It is a less serious movie than it clearly considers itself to be but is no less enjoyable for that.

Spout Post: Definitely, Maybe (2008)

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:35:35 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/24/2008 7:35:35 AM
Body: Definitely, Maybe cleverly twists the romantic comedy genre with its memorable set-up. Ryan Reynolds plays Will Hayes, who is about to get divorced from his wife, who is unseen at the beginning of the movie. His daughter Maya, played by Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine, demands to hear the story of how Will met her mother. He agrees but he creates a challenge for Maya - he will tell the story but he will not use real names so she will have to figure out which character is her mother. It is, Maya says, "a love story mystery". Will has three romantic interests in this film who are very different in personality and style. And yes, one's a blonde, another a brunette and a third a red head. So far, so typical. This film does a nice job though in the way it presents them and it is easy to see why Will could pick any one of the three. Running parallel to the romantic storylines (and often contributing to them) is the story of Will's career. At the start of the movie he is working in advertising yet in the flashbacks he is political and idealistic, dreaming of some day being president. As much as this is a story of relationships, it is also a story of growing up. Ryan Reynolds is fun as Will, particularly in scenes with Breslin who is as cute and adorable as ever. Their chemistry is good and I can buy their relationship, though Reynolds looks far too boyish and young to be the father of a girl her age. The three love interests are played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher. They fade into and out of the story as Will grows up but each establishes themselves well. Fisher is cute as a copygirl working on the Clinton campaign who does not have faith in politicians, Weisz as a columnist involved with an older writer (played superbly by Kevin Kline) whilst Banks brings a girl-next-door charm to Emily. We know that Will marries one of those three characters yet we also realise that things will not work out for them. They will get divorced at the end of this film. The mystery plays out with several twists though perhaps lasts a little long before Will completes his story. The character realises in telling the story that he still cares for one of the characters and seeks her out in a typical romcom ending. It is the only thing that feels out of place, ending in a kiss that doesn't match the build up, nor the situation. There is a moment when he looks up at the apartment building that could have been a satisfying and unusual end to the film. It is a small complaint in a film that touches and is prepared to admit the truth that love and relationships do not always work out. That people get hurt and we are not always sure what we wanted until after the chance has passed to get it. Definitely, Maybe is an interesting and unusual romantic comedy that is cute, playful yet also reflects on idealism, growing up and missed opportunities. Sure it's contrived, but the film is witty and charming enough to remain enjoyable throughout although I will be amazed if you don't see the answer to the 'love story mystery' coming a mile off.

Spout Post: All the King's Men (2006)

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:47:49 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/23/2008 8:47:49 PM
Body: There are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey. Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry. We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration. Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd. Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity. Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him? We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election? The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes. Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible. The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story. For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction. All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark. This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century. Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two. The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity.

Spout Post: Wall-E (2008)

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:10:35 GMT

Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/23/2008 6:10:35 AM
Body: From one of America's most creative and inventive studios comes a picture that is packed with intimacy and surprisingly adult themes. Wall-E is a small, trash-compacting robot who has the task of clearing up a world covered in junk. Now on his own, he only has a cockroach for company and has become obsessed with a copy of the film Hello, Dolly! that he has found on a Betamax tape. The first thirty minutes Wall-E is on his own, going about his job and picking up ‘treasures’ that he takes back to his home. This part of the film features lots of slapstick comedy but also really touches the heart as we see that Wall-E has developed a very strong personality and longs to be loved. Into the flick comes a real force of nature, another robot EVE. Appearing from nowhere, this robot is sleek and heavily armed and our shy hero instantly becomes smitten. When this robot disappears Wall-E is devastated and tries to track it down. On his adventure, Wall-E’s infectious personality encourages those he meets to break out of their conformist shells and actually explore and experience the world around them. This is a truly remarkable film that says enormous amounts about what it means to be human and chastises its human characters for not caring enough, either about the planet or about experiencing life. It handles its themes well, never going too far by preaching at its audience. Instead the film focuses on its story, a romance between the robotic odd couple. Wall-E’s courtship is endearingly awkward as he tries to tell EVE how he feels – no easy task given that neither character can really speak. It is one of the most pleasing film romances in years, perfectly capturing those feelings you had the first time you find yourself liking a girl. Wall-E’s shyness and childlike innocence makes him a truly appealing lead character, Pixar’s most interesting to date, and I was rooting for him right to the end. Less successful are some of the incidental robot characters he encounters in a defective robots centre. They serve little purpose other than to be wacky, colourful and possible merchandising tie-ins. Animation fans may be disappointed at the lack of visual wonder in this picture compared to previous Pixar pictures. Certainly I was never amazed by the way the film looks in the way I was by the gorgeous Finding Nemo, yet the more subdued visuals allow the story and its themes to really shine. There were long stretches of this film where it is possible to forget that this film is animated. Sequences look like they were shot with a camera and the result is a film that is more easily compared with its sci-fi or romance film influences than its animated stable mates. Those influences can be seen in frame after frame in this film from Soylent Green to Blade Runner, from Star Wars to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fans of the science fiction genre will find that this film pays homage to many of the classics. For those who are not sci-fi aficionados there is still plenty to enjoy here, from its silent movie influences to the touching love story at the heart of this film. Wall-E and EVE work as a couple because they are robots who long to be something more than they were designed for. The film’s central message is that love is transformative and can bring out the best in us, making us want to be more than we are programmed to be. This film is a joyous celebration of love, humanity and individualism. It is an original, interesting story that strikes a change of tone from Pixar and shows that despite producing nine pictures in thirteen years the studio is more creative than ever.

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: The_MOW
Name: Mickey Micklon
Interests: movies, sci-fi, professional wrestling
Occupation: Unemployed
Location: Salem, NH
Films listed: 369
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Blog posts: 372
Blog post views: 11337
Number of times tagged: 25
Member since: 4/4/2009
Last login: 10/13/2009

Spout Member:horror

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009

Spout Member:butterknife

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008

Spout Member:rnt2630

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007

Spout Member:dsalaski

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:jennkp

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:Don0262

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007

Spout Member:martinluthar

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:bofo

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:nny921

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008

Spout Member:mr_lol

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007

Spout Member:fire1311

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007

Spout Member:Argueta

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007

Film:Funny Games

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Title: Funny Games
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Haneke
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Dark Knight

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMT

Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4

Film:H2

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMT

Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMT

Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1

Film:Black Test Car

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMT

Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4

Film:Dumpster Baby

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMT

Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1

Film:Rick

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMT

Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2

Film:Speed Racer

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMT

Title: Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 41
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMT

Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Raven

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMT

Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMT

Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:New York, New York

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMT

Title: New York, New York
Year: 1977
Director: Martin Scorsese
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 57
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:St. Nick

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMT

Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5

Film:We Are the Strange

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMT

Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4

Film:The Sadist

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMT

Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Alligator People

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMT

Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2