The Other Guys (2010)

The Adam Mckay / Will Ferrell partnership is one that has provided much comedic fruit since the pair broke out of the Saturday Night Live mould. Their first collaboration, Anchorman was both a blessing and a curse in a way as it's (rightful) status as one of the funniest comedies of the last twenty years has added an extra layer of expectation upon every new collaboration. With The Other Guys the pair turn their attention to the buddy cop genre of action films, a genre seemingly ripe for the picking with its myriad cliché's and caricatures, however in the execution a lot of this promise feels undercooked and unfulfilled, and this is [partly down to a difference in expectations, as well as wanting to parody the genre there is a distinct effort here to also create an actual buddy cop story and my problems with the film stem from this slightly awkward juxtaposition.

The Other Guys starts strong, a funny parody of the OTT action scenes that litter buddy cop films is a great way to set the tone, and the Rock and Samuel L Jackson have a lot of fun playing up their own images, but as the film progresses this initial promise is never delivered on. We quickly switch to the relatively boring lives of the titular Other Guys, desk cops who never catch a break, Ferrell's uptight and repressed Allen Gamble and Mark Wahlberg's short fused disgraced Terry Hoitz. Together the pair have good chemistry, Wahlberg is an actor who has a specific skill set, and his constant frustration and confusion play well against Ferrell's more subdued straight man. The problem that the film runs into though is that it wants to have it's cake and eat it, it wants to parody the police thriller, but emulate it at the same time. As such when the pair start investigating a case that starts with a simple permit dispute, but that leads to something bigger, it feels quite by the numbers. The case and the eventual bad guy (a wasted Steve Coogan) are not particularly interesting, factors which comedy films have struggled with in the past. In grounding the film to a more recognisable reality it finds itself limited, there is little of the pure silliness that made Anchorman and Step Brothers so much fun. As a result there is little in the way of scenes or dialogue that really sticks in the mind once the film ends, a shame given the film's heritage.

That being said the film is not terrible, it is always amusing, if not especially laugh out loud funny, and the supporting cast help add some flavour, Eva Mendes is good value as Ferrells adoring wife and Michael Keaton is always fun, though his role as the station Captain feels like another wasted opportunity to play with the genre conventions and create something memorable.

The ending of the film is another sticking point, at times in the film it feels like certain facts and situations are being set up for a payoff at the end, a payoff that doesn't come to pass. In fact the ending of the film is a pretty drab affair and fails as either an action scene or the resolution of a comedy. Now I don't want to give the impression that I am totally down on the film, there are a couple of a stand out moments, a brilliant silent fight at a funeral and a visually impressive rendition of a lads night out, but as a whole the film leaves little impression which, given it's pedigree, is disappointing and feels in many ways like a missed opportunity.

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)

The Coen brothers are film-makers who's oeuvre I have grown to appreciate in time, a progression not as immediate as some, who profess as genius every move that they make, but enough that I now anticipate each of their films safe in the knowledge that it will be a unique and memorable experience. AS far as this line of thinking goes, O Brother fits perfectly into this category, it is unmistakably Coens and at the same time a true original.

A rough re-telling of Homer's Odyssey set in the deep south during the 1930s depression, the film follows three chain-gang escapees as they attempt to locate a great treasure, whilst escaping the law. Naturally it gets a lot more complicated than that, and the episodic nature of the story, which essentially boils down to a very bizzare road trip, allows for a diverse range of situations and characters. The main trio, played brilliantly by George Clooney (as the hair-wax obsessed, scheming Everett), John Turturro (in typical wide eyed, but sympathetic mode as Pete) and Tim Blake Nelson (who almost steals the show as the dim but good natured Delmar) have a fantastic dynamic and all three show a strong capacity for comedy of the most unusual kind. George Clooney in particular is obviously having a lot of fun the role as the vapid but eternally enthusiastic leader of the group. Along their journey the group encounter all sorts of characters, from John Goodman's cycloptic Bible salesman, to blind radio DJs, warring senators and KKK meetings (naturally). What holds all these disparate threads together is the perfect blend of tone that the Coens manage throughout the film, funny when it needs to be but also touching and deep there is always more going on under the surface both in the characters and the overarching narrative of the story.

The ending really compounds the fable like nature of much the film, devolving almost completely into fantasy, but again it feels earned and entirely in keeping with what has gone before. As usual the film is immaculately constructed, Roger Deakin's cinematography is frequently stunning, the heavily affecting colour palette of the film gives it a sun-baked and antiquated look that never feels overbearing. It would also be remiss to talk about the film without mentioning the superb music and score, which do much of the work effortlessly capturing the mood and style of the film throughout.

Overall O Brother isn't the Coens most important film, or their deepest, but it is one of their most purely enjoyable. Those who have remained unswayed by the brothers over the years will find little here to change their minds, but for those yet to dip their feet in the stream this is as good a starting point as any.

Catfish (2010)

Also known as the other Facebook movie from last year, Catfish was the rare documentary that managed some breakout fame outside of the usual festival circuit. Focusing on the nature of online relationships and the way they impact people it tells a fascinating, and worrying tale. Part of the films big success comes from the way it is constructed, rather than being a typical documentary the film is structured more like a drama, the conceit being that the true nature of the story was only uncovered whilst filming.

The film starts by documenting the relationship between Nev Schulman, a photographer based in New York and Abby , a 10 year old girl from rural Michigan after she starts sending him paintings of his photographs in the post. Through Abby, Nev and his brother and filmmaker housemate (who is capturing the whole episode on camera) get to know her whole family including her older sister, an aspiring model and musician whom Nev has an immediate connection with. A lot of the power of the film comes from how this set up evolves and reveals itself, so I won’t spoil it here, but suffice to say not everything is as it seems.

The nature of the story and way that it is captured does lend it a slight air of having been deliberately constructed in parts, especially near the start, but this never really distracts from the film because the ending, and the reveal (as it were) are so well handled and moving that they suddenly make the whole tale very real, and very sad.

It’s hard to talk about the film without going into detail of what actually happens, but therein lies the interest. A lot of the film’s success is down to the likeable performances from the three housemates documenting the story as it unfolds, the construction of the film draws you into the mystery and provides some wonderfully tense and uncomfortable moments. It is not, at the end of the day, a particularly deep film, it doesn’t pretend to have something new to say about the way we conduct our lives online in this modern age, but it does shine a light on an area of this and raise some interesting, and troubling questions.

It is the sort of film whose power lies in the puzzle it lays out, and the conversations it prompts after the fact. It is an unashamedly populist form of documentary but one that I did find not only entertaining, but surprisingly restrained and quietly powerful. It runs at a brisk pace for its 80 minute runtime, so even if you are normally adverse to documentaries I would urge you to give it a shot and see what you make of it all.

Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time (2010)

Oh dear, and it was all going so well. As if affronted by my stream of generally positive reviews on the blog these past few weeks the big screen adaptation of the classic Prince of Persia gaming series arrives determined to dampen the mood. Roughly borrowing elements from the game of the same name, the Sands of Time avoids many of the pitfalls of other videogame adaptations by shunning a lot of the games narrative and story elements, yet still fails to impress by simply being a poor film in nearly every regard. The hand of Jerry Bruckheimer is clearly evident in the way the film is laid out and presented, however the magic that was spread when Pirates of the Caribbean was brought to the big screen is sorely missing here. This is largely down to the films script, which fails to create any memorable characters or set pieces. 

Despite the Pirates of the Caribbean comparisons it is actually the Indiana Jones films that Prince of Persia seems most to seek to emulate. The loveable rogue on the run accompanied by an unwilling female companion is a familiar set up, but one that again feels like a wasted opportunity here. Gemma Arterton and Jake Gyllenhaal in the main roles are adequate, but they never spark. Gyllenhaal proves himself adept enough at handing the films various action scenes, but his faux-British accent is simply distracting and seems to waver between scenes. Arterton fares little better, she may be extremely attractive but she does little to imbue her character with much life or energy. The supposedly witty banter that the two exchange (one of the films few nods to the game series) fails to generate much except groans and fails to capture the love/hate vibe the film-makers were clearly aiming for. One of the main failings of the script is that it lumbers many of the actors with pages of expository dialogue, explaining the situation, or what has just happened or what will happen. It grinds the film to a halt too many times and still leaves the ultimate goal vague. The main conceit, that of a dagger which can rewind time, is an interesting one but it is underused in any interesting capacity other than as a massive deau ex machina whenever necessary. It must however be pointed out that I did really like the effect used for this process, it visualised what was happening is a clear and very cool way.

The supporting cast are again, adequate, but aside from Afred Molina who hams it up amusingly as a local bandit leader with a secret, they are not that memorable. Ben Kingsley cashes yet another cheque as he largely stands around in the background wearing heavy eye make up, anyone who is familiar with his usual typecasting will easily work out his role in the film early on and he does little to distinguish it.

The film however is solidly made, Mike Newell direction is competent but inert, I enjoyed his entry in the Harry Potter series, but working from a weaker script and characters here he does little to inject a sense of adventure into proceedings. That is the main problem with the film really, on a technical level you couldn't really call it a failure, but it feels like one. Halfway through watching, if not before, I gave up caring about what was happening, I was not engaged. The film feels like a hodgepodge of different ideas that haven't been developed or thought about and as such it becomes a cynical marketing exercise without an ounce of passion or creativity on show. I'm usually a fan of entertaining summer blockbuster fare, but Prince of Persia was a disappointment on every level, and a distinct waste of a decent amount of talent. Now if only I had a dagger I could use to get those two hours of my life back...

The Brothers Bloom (2008)

Along with much of the critical establishment I was very impressed by Rian Johnson's directorial debut, the high school noir Brick. It established him as a clear new voice, and as such I was eagerly anticipating his follow up, a heist film called The Brothers Bloom. Well for varying reasons the film was only recently released here in the UK so it has taken me a while to finally see it, thankfully the film was worth waiting for, and it shows a versatility and softer side to Johnson than Brick had previously hinted at.

As opposed to the dark and shadowy underworld depicted in Brick, The Brothers Bloom has the air of a fantastic story about it. It is bold with its use of colour and light, and the nondescript locations and costumes give it a feeling out timeliness that the best woven fables often do. The film concerns itself with the titular brothers,  played by Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody. Together they make their living as con men, Ruffalo's Stephen is the architect of the schemes, the storyteller with Brody's Bloom finding his place in the world by playing the characters Stephen dreams up for him. There are some very strong parallels in the story to the relationship between writer and actor, the cons that the men take part in are not just simple tricks, but adventures they create leaving their marks with a story to tell, and an emotional satisfaction which outweighs the material loss. Stephens belief that the perfect con leaves everyone with exactly what they wanted is an interesting one and it keeps the films twisting narrative in question throughout.

Rachel Weisz plays Penelope, the Brothers' final mark, a lonely and bored heiress whose millions have seen her trapped in her own mansion. Penelope is a departure from the more emotional characters Weisz tends to play and it's a delight to see her spread her quirky comedy wings. Penelope could have easily become a caricature of a sheltered naive and slightly eccentric woman, but she imbues her with a tremendous amount of heart and longing. The relationship between her and Bloom, whose years of playing characters have left him beaten down and isolated, is sweet and funny and underpins the backbone of the film. Rounding out the gang is Rinko Kikuchi's enigmatic Bang Bang, an (almost) silent accomplice whose speciality with explosives serve the Brothers well. She steals nearly every scene she is in and instantly becomes one of those hilarious and iconic characters.

As with Brick Johnson affects the film with a very specific tone that runs from the characters and plot right through to the dialogue rhythms and beats. It is a rare film that manages to be lighthearted and odd without being quirky and cloying. However the twisting narrative is possibly a bit to clever for it's own good, and I didn't feel that the ending was as effective as it could have been, it's not bad per se, just slightly disappointed when compared to what it felt the film was building towards. Similarly the films light tone and comedic edge make it less compelling and deep than Brick, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there isn't much here except the surface level con man caper. 

That being said Johnson has proven a lot by crafting such a wildly different follow up film with such a confident and assured touch. There are few directors who can flit between styles so easily and it bodes well for the long and interesting career he has ahead of him, one I am eager to follow wherever it goes.

Breathless (1960)

Jean-Luc Godart's seminal 1960 debut is often accredited with kicking off the French New Wave of cinema, influencing cinema right up until this day. As is often the case with such classics of the medium it is often difficult to fully appreciate the film in the proper context, many of the techniques used in the film that seems prevalent now; long tracking shots, handheld naturalistic dialogue scenes, were in fact amazingly pioneering back in 1960.

The film concerns itself with Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a young criminal on the run from the law. He takes refuge in Paris where he hooks up with Jean Seberg's aspiring American journalist. Outside of that brief synopsis not a lot happens in the film, the bulk of it is less about the impending police investigation, but about the relationship between Michel and Patricia. It is this aspect that most surprised me about the film, it still feels remarkably modern; the loose tone and naturalistic dialogue and extended scenes seem from a different era than other films of the time and give the film a great sense of urgency and intimacy at times. The carefree nature of the main anti-hero is again an unusual touch, there is little concession made to make him out as a particularly sympathetic character but he is never less than fascinating. The battle of wills that they two engage in is engrossing and Seberg's conflicted nature brings the film its heart, her Patricia is captivating and it's easy to see why Michel would pursue her in the way that he does.

Despite the lack of significant action the film is breezy and never feels stale or dull. Godard's obvious control over the tone and mood of the film is evident; it feels more than most films of the period, a very authored and specific vision. It is this uniqueness, the French sense of style and passion that infuses the film that helps it linger long past it's ending. Much in the same way that many modern art-house films are said to be sensory experiences, so too is Breathless and it's hard even now to fully understand just what a change this would have been for the industry at the time. One element of the film that is easy to overlook is how revolutionary its approach to editing was at the time, forgoing a lot of the established rules around continuity editing Godard often uses jump-cuts to speed up scenes, or create a sense of dislocation and confusion. It's a small thing that makes a big different and it's a key factor in the immediacy of the films action.

There are aspects that feel dated, Michel's initial run in with the law and subsequent escape is less than convincing, and the lack of budget is evident in some scenes. However the performances and the assuredness of the direction help anchor the film through these moments, leaving an indelible impression and a film that deserves it's place in the history books.

Roman Holiday (1953)

Taking another step back in time today's film is the one that introduced the world to Audrey Hepburn, William Wyler's warm and entertaining Roman Holiday. What is interesting when watching some of these older films is tracing back many of the conventions and high-concept ideals of modern romantic comedies and then seeing how the differences in time and culture affects the way things play out. 

Roman Holiday's conceit (and it is one) concerns a royal Princess, played by Hepburn, who's life of sombre engagements, formal meetings and worthy actions leave her longing for a normal life and a freedom from responsibility. One night in Rome she sees an opportunity to escape, out on the streets she meets Gregory Peck's embittered newspaper man who, sensing a story offers to show her the sights and from whom she hides her true identity. It's a premise that manages to avoid many potential narrative traps, the motivations of the protagonists are clearly defined and allow much of the class based comedy to emerge. What the film really excels at is the performances though. In her first role Hepburn practically radiates, convincing as both a princess and a slightly spoiled and sheltered young woman. She brings a wonderful energy and naivete to the character and it's to Gregory Pecks immense credit that his character never feels overtly cruel or unpleasant for deceiving her in the way that he does.

The film is slight in terms of plot, but its as much an excuse to show the sights of Rome as well as give the couple time to trade blows as they come to learn more about each other, and ultimately fall in love. This much I'm sure was obvious from the very start, but the way the story plays out defied my expectations, and I give it credit for not taking the obvious choice, but the one with the most thematic resonance.

That being said this is not a particularly deep film, nor does it pretend to be. The chemistry between the case is great and makes the whole experience deeply enjoyable, they are fun to spend time with and there is a genuine sense of loss once the day comes to a close and normality has to be restored.

Approaching the film from a modern day perspective I was pleased by how enjoyable and watchable the film was. It has a slow start, and those used to modern day rom-com conventions may be disappointed at it's distinctly chaste nature and focus on character humour, but to me these were welcome changes. It has taken me a while, but my appreciation for classic films is definitely growing the more that I watch and experience and I look forward to continuing to dig into this rich vein on film history as time (and this blog) goes on.

The Ghost (2010)

His personal issues aside, Roman Polanski has been one of the most celebrated and interesting directors of the last 30 years. His latest film, who's release was marred by real life events, is a neat and taut adaptation of Robert Harris's novel. The story is a simple one of political intrigue, Ewan McGreggor plays the titular 'ghost', a writer who is hired to finish writing the memoirs of Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) the British ex-prime minister, after the books previous author was found dead. Naturally what seems to be an easy way of making some good money turns into something much more sinister as allegations about Adams conduct whilst in office raise their head. 

What is refreshing about The Ghost is the relatively low key and realistic nature of the mystery and characters as a whole. In many ways it has a very old fashioned feeling, it's deliberate pacing and ambiguous characters keep the tone claustrophobic and tense, even when nothing is happening and this in turn feeds the films more dramatic scenes with a greater sense of urgency and importance. Ewan McGreggor does a great line in the everyman and his character here, who is never named, is refreshingly normal. He is not a detective, and so the way his enquiries come about feel a lot more natural rather than a standard police procedural. The subject matter of the film, war crimes, and the focus on US / UK relations make this as well a timely and politically minded film in many ways, the parallels between Adam Lang and Tony Blair are obvious, but it is never too overt about it, the situations forming the backdrop of the film rather than the focus. The film may deal with some potentially heavy issues but it never forgets its focus on entertainment and character, and so never feels weighted down or dull.

Olivia Williams puts in another strong supporting performance as Lang's embittered wife and her uncanny knack of playing cold hearted, but complex lends the film much of its ambiguity and intrigue. The whole film is surrounded in rain and gloom, the cold landscape of the New Hampshire villa where a lot of the film takes place reflects the tone of the film nicely. Alexandre Desplat's score as well is wonderfully evocative, whilst remaining subtle enough to merely enhance the films inherent tension. The only bum note in the film is Kim Catrall's rather flat and one note performance as Adam Lang's long suffering PA, a role that is somewhat underwritten, but not helped by her less than convincing British accent.

As a whole though this is a highly effective little thriller, it is tightly plotted and scripted and filled with great performances. Those expecting a bombastic Bourne Identity style thriller may be disappointed but this is a film that will manage to entertain and surprise, whilst having a little something more on its mind.

Heartbreaker (2010)

This delightful French romantic comedy slipped under most people's radars when it came out last year, and it is a shame as it is a whole lot of fun, a breezy and entertaining film that manages to walk the line of convention without tipping fully into cliché.

The film concerns itself with Alex, a professional breakup master. He is hired to break up unsuitable couples, by offering the women a glimpse of the romance they deserve. He never gets involved with a client, and only deals with unhappy couples. On his latest job he is hired to breakup a seemingly perfect couple, in the short 10 days before they get married. Now it is to the films immense credit that both the pre-tense and possibly mean spirited premise don't obstruct the film. This is largely down to the charming work done by Romain Duris in the main role, he is a very French leading man, suave, sophisticated but impulsive and charming. The main focus on the film is the relationship that develops between him and Vanessa Paradis's steely Juliette as he find her every bit a match for his usual techniques and tricks. Posing as her bodyguard as she sorts out the wedding preparations in Monaco gives him the perfect 'in' to her life, but winning her over isn't so straightforward.

As well as the fresh Gaelic tone of the film the stunning European backdrops really add character and glamour to the film. It is difficult to imagine the story playing out against the gloomy autumn backdrop of London and there is a very Mediterranean atmosphere as a result. Making up the rest of Alex's crew are his sister and her husband. They provide a lot of the humour of the film, which veers from clever farce to slapstick depending on the scene. This mix of styles suits the film well and the lack of many of the rom-com tropes is welcome. Sure you can see where the story is going, but it never quite does what you expect. The script is sharp and witty and the characters are warm, making it easy to root for them.

That said don't expect a revolution of the genre, despite it's European quirk this is still very much a romantic comedy and your mileage with that might vary. I also felt the ending was slightly undercooked, but I did appreciate the films reluctance to frame anyone as the villain of the piece. It is not an especially deep or memorable film, but it's not trying to be. Overall if you are after a fun and, dare I say, heart-warming, little film you could do plenty worse. At a time where many of the so called rom-com's leaving the US system are awful, it's nice to see that when done right there is still a place for them in any film lovers repertoire.