It's far fetched to say the least, and sadly the film itself is equally as bad. The problem with it is that it has no real depth to it, it's more just a series of events that happens. Whilst it could be assumed that the message of the film is the importance of voting,as well as highlighting the flippant nature and hypocrisy of modern politics and media; but the film oversimplifies it and the film lacks the punch to make these statements powerful. It also becomes a bit too farcical as both candidates use over elaborate campaigns (as well as sacrificing their own values and ideals) to try to secure this one vote. Though it could be argued that it is a microcosm of modern election campaigns on a wider scale. The film is caught somewhere between a drama and a comedy, but neither really to suit the film and it all comes of a bit of a mess.
There are also some big names in this film in the supporting roles, such as Stanley Tucci, Nathan Lane and Judge Reinhold; but it comes off as a low budget, made for TV affair unbefitting these star names. Even as a fan of Kevin Costner, this film is admittedly one of his weakest. Even the much maligned Waterworld, The Postman and The Bodyguard are very engaging films and certainly provide some moments of real entertainment, that despite their flaws are quite fulfilling.
Sightseers was one of the first British films I had seen at the cinema for a while. It was a black comedy that followed a couple of outcast's caravan journey across some of Britain's most eccentric landmarks. Soon the trip takes a turn when they accidentally run over a fellow visitor to one of the landmarks, and so play out there blood lust by murdering everyone who antagonise them along their journey.
It is a very offbeat film, and for me personally it's just a bit too detached from the audience for one to really fall for it. The main problem is that the main characters are pretty unsympathetic, which I suppose is important considering they are serial killers; and indeed both stars (comedy writers Alice Lowe and Steve Oram) play the very characters one imagine British serial killers to be like. Both are socially awkward and the film is reminiscent of Natural Born Killers and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, albeit distinctly more British.
Despite this main negative, the film does have it's moments; and whilst it isn't necessarily laugh out loud funny, it maintains a certain level of amusement throughout. It's the type of humour that has become a stalwart in British comedy in the last 10 years; that awkward to near the mark type, that leaves many uncomfortable. It was also a film that lingers in the mind, which is never a bad thing, and although many have likened it to Mike Leigh's Nuts in May (a television play I've yet to see), I found it quite original. Ultimately it was just a bit too challenging, and is probably a film I wouldn't go back to.
The Three Stooges was a reboot of the classic 40's comic trio, which I had little desire to watch, especially after seeing the trailer for the film and having never even seen the original comedy troupe. However, the casting of one of my comedy heroes Larry David, was enough to sway me into giving it a chance. I was glad I did, as it was one of the more pleasantly surprising film's I've seen this year.
Full of slapstick and simplistic humour that were tantamount with the original Stooges, as well as the directors of this version the Farrelly brothers; it's a film that may not be everyone's cup of tea. In my opinion though, it was refreshing to see a comedy film that was simple, silly and family friendly. It never tried to get clever and become something it was never going to be, and whilst like most comedies it resorted to inserting contemporary culture to win the casual viewer with the inclusion of Geordie Shore; it seemed more like the Farrellys were making a veiled attack on modern day television programming. It was for the most part stupid, immature and crude (like most Farrelly movies), but it was also obviously made with a lot of heart by the directors who wanted to share with the world their own love, and what influenced them. It was great to see a reboot made, with such affection, rather than simply a money making opportunity. I could certainly see where they were influenced in previous works, most notably their greatest work Dumb and Dumber and Jim Carrey's Lloyd Christmas was clearly based on Moe. It also opened my eyes to other ways The Three Stooges has influenced some of my other favourite comedies, such as The Simpsons, Futurama and Robin Williams. Sometimes there's a bit too much love as the skits and catchphrases are a bit overplayed and overexposed, but it still generates a chuckle. The film also gets a bit stale on the laughs in places, and maybe a bit over the top; but it was certainly amusing and entertaining enough to keep me interested for the 90 minutes.
I also thought that for the most part the acting was handled well, and though I've only seen brief clips of the original Stooges I thought Sean Hayes, Chris Diamantopoulos did good jobs, and Will Sasso was particularly notable as Curly. Larry David worked well as Sister Mary-Mengle, as did Sofia Vergara who was quite funny as the conniving villain; but I was a bit bemused as to why Jennifer Hudson cast, as she was given limited screen time considering her Oscar winning status.
It's a shame that a film such as this can quite easily be swept aside, when there are so many more forgettable, generic comedies that are praised by critics, that are both more shallow and mediocre than this. I also feel a bit for the Farrelly brothers, as whilst their output may not always be the funniest; they do manage to create more often than not, enjoyable films, that on first look seem simplistic, but actually a bit more wit and depth than first glance; an ability that not many other comedic film makers manage to emanate. If The Three Stooges delivers one thing above all else, it's that it will make most movie-goers want to discover the original Stooges.
Moonrise Kingdom was the antithesis of The Three Stooges, but again directed by a comedic director with a certain style. The offbeat Wes Anderson comedy was very much of the same ilk as The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums, with another all star cast that we have become to expect from his films. Despite the big name, the plot actually resolves more around the children in the film as a young boy scout runs away from a camp with a local school girl. They are soon hunted down by the adult stars (including Billl Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton); as well as the belligerent remainder of the scout troop.
As with the other Wes Anderson comedies, it had that melancholic underbelly to the humour, as well as the retro style of the set and production. Though I can respect and sometimes admire his style, I do at times find his work frustrating to get into, whilst Moonrise Kingdom is probably one of his most accessible films; I still struggled to immerse myself into the film. It is undoubtedly witty and endearing, and even entertaining, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it is a stalwart of modern comedy, again something I can say about any Wes Anderson comedy. I always come away from his work with the same overall impression, as if I'm missing something that others have found with them. I did prefer this latest effort to his previous The Royal Tenenbaums and it possibly just pips The Life Aquatic and Rushmore too; but for me it's still short of greatness. It was though helped by some good performances, especially Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and an impressive film debut for Kara Hayward. The dialogue at times is also sharp, but with a bit of sentiment too.
I suppose one thing that can certainly be said about Wes Anderson's films, is that he always puts a lot of heart and soul to all his characters, and even the smallest role is fleshed out with even the most minor nuances. Admittedly Moonrise Kingdom is one of the better films released this year, but it has been a poor year overall from Hollywood.
William Friedkin is a man responsible for two of the most memorable movies of the 70's (The Exorcist and The French Connection). Since then it's fair to say that he's failed to match those heights, with a fair amount of low key output. Killer Joe certainly reminded people that Friedkin still directed films though. Based on a dark plot, where a small time drug dealer (Emile Hirsch) decides murdering his mother for the insurance money is the only way to pay off his large debts. He plots with his family to kill his mother, with the help of bent police detective (Matthew McConaughey), who also doubles up as a hitman.
Naturally it is a very dark film, and is at times a tough watch, with uncomfortable levels of violence and equally disturbing sex scenes. But this is the William Friedkin that we like, and it seems that the veteran director has rediscovered his magic, as well as his passion for film making. The film's unabashed style is certainly akin to The Exorcist, and I personally revel in the masochistic manner of some of cinema's darkest films. During a time when another gun slaughter has taken place in North America, the ignorant amongst the world, will turn to blaming films' such as this in order to gloss over the more obvious problem of gun control. All art forms should never be censored, it is through censorship that humanity's greatest crimes have come to fruition. It's for this reason that I can't help but admire Killer Joe. It is over the top, but I don't think it goes too far, films should be allowed to offend as well as challenge, and this does both. If there was any issue with the film it was possibly an underdeveloped plot, but a few nice twists maintained the interests. As for the stars, I'm not a McConaughey fan, but he is beautifully sadistic as the eponymous Joe, and Emile Hirsch is always engaging. Juno Temple probably gives the most impressive performance as the naive 20 year old sister of Hirsch's character; who becomes part of Joe's payment. The young Brit will hopefully be given more substantial roles in the coming years.
It's not without it's faults, but for sheer two fingers up to modern sensitivities, it get's my vote. Alhough that may sound a bit unfair on the film, as it does have a lot of merit to it. Maybe Friedkin still has one last swansong in him too, judging by this effort.
Conquest was the last dramatic role of Greta Garbo's career, and it would signal the beginning of the end of her film career. After the enormous success of Camille, Conquest told the story of Napoleon's Polish mistress Marie Warlewska and their illustrious affair. Charles Boyer was the ideal casting as Napoleon given his shorter stature and French accent; the Academy thought so too, awarding him the Oscar.
Despite solid performances from the leads, the film suffers a bit from questionable plot devices. For instance the first love scene between the two comes across as tantamount to rape; and it becomes pretty unbelievable after that point that she would fall in love with this man. At least in Gone With The Wind, it's still believable that Scarlett O'Hara would swoon after being violently taken by Rhett, due to their previous relationship history and Scarlett's character. The script is the main problem with this error, and it is also at fault for the characterisations of both characters and why these two would fall in love with each other. As for Garbo herself, she looks very radiant in the piece and adopts a similar style to her appearance in Camille.
The film overall is largely forgettable, but for Boyer and Garbo and the natural draw of Napoleon's life. It's also interesting to see these two on screen together as he was one of her few co stars who she remained friendly with in both their later tragic lives. (The full movie can be viewed below)
No comments:
Post a Comment