Just watched this and thought I'd do a review.
Definitely post-modern in it's thinking, this depressing film goes for realism in a big way, by looking at the life of David Spritz, (Nicholas Cage), a Chicago weatherman separated from his wife and kids who negotiates his misery and tries to reconcile the disparate parts of his life. With the help of his father Robert, (Michael Caine), whose approval and affection he constantly seeks, he tries to be a better person and miserably fails, whilst trying to support his father through diagnosis of a terminal disease. His father is a prize-winning author and journalist now retired who's shadow David tries to live up to.
The film's narrative is understandably slow as it follows the minutiae of David's life, from hope to hope as he tries different tactics to be a better father to his two kids and reconcile with his wife, grabbing the new opportunity of a job offer with a major network to try and solve his problem of absence.
Basically, all these attempts fail and the film ends depressingly with a 'there you go then, that's life' kind of conclusion.
I don't dent that sometimes life is like that, (after all I'm living that at the moment in some ways!) but I found it depressing that there seemed to be no redemption for the main character in anything, and he resignedly admits there's nothing he can do. It was a depressing take on how empty life can become if your life is your work I guess, and a pointing to what sometimes is an embarrassingly male phenomenon of 'lack of presence' or 'lack of attention'.
In the film every other character is seen to lack interaction with David, real meaningful interaction, as David tries too hard, and tries to force intimacy with his children, wife and father that obviously died a long time ago. An interesting part of the plot is that strangers randomly throw fast food at him in the street from time to time, and he eventually realises that people do that, because he appears to be a shallow, unconnected person on their screens. Eventually, he realises that this is the truth about himself, and towards the end of the film he resigns himself to taking the big salary job in new York. Personal success and professional success are mutually exclusive, and he realises that he has nothing left personally to keep him where he is.
I found this film really depressing, and whilst this sad story might be a reality for some people, I think the writers maybe were trying to make a point about the way we view our work, and how important human interaction is. I found it strange though, that they didn't give any chance for David to change, it seemed his fate was inevitable, even though he tried to change it. Filmed very well, but not really one I'd like to watch again!
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Monday, 22 November 2010
This got me thinking, and made me feel relieved!
I've always wondered why I struggled so much over the last year with academic study... This may be be part of the reason. It may also be why my wife (who was home-schooled) always seems to engage with things more easily than I do...
Watch this.
Thoughts?
Watch this.
Thoughts?
Skyline... My Thoughts!
Well, I liked it.
I liked it purely on a no-holds barred, entertaining aliens movie with lot's of effects and action basis.
In terms of plot, there is hardly any in the film, it's just one minute of tense atmosphere with a very small amount of poor dialogue in between, for the whole film basically. It's amazing to think that virtually the whole film was shot in/outside the Directors apartment, which is why the costs of the film were $500,000, and the effects were $10,000,000!
I think the weakness of the film is the dialogue, which is very stuttered at times, action sequence upon action sequence means that the film doesn't give the actors little time to develop their characters, as basically they're running from one thing to the next!
In some ways it reminded me of War Of The Worlds, (the remake) which a few other people have commented on I think, but it has even less character development than that. This I find strange, as the quality of people they got, is actually quite good. Eric Balfour, (of '24' no less!) and David Zayas, (of Dexter) should be expected to produce some good work, but the scripts they were given are very limited.
One thing that is slightly frustrating is that no questions that could be raised by the viewer are ever answered. Questions such as 'why the lights?', and 'where is the rest of the world?', and 'what are the invading species planning?', etc. Also it bugged me a bit that certain biological things happen to you if you stand in 'the light', but no clue was given as to what precisely that was. there was a lot to 'guess at' in the film, which from one point of view is good, as people can have endless discussions afterwards, and if you like that, then great! If, however you like your films to be clear and self-explanatory, then you might want to give this a miss! There is nothing in the film from the invaders perspective, it is all from the humans trying to survive, and perhaps this might be another weakness in the plot? Mind you, that seemed to work for Cloverfield? *shrugs*
About the ending of the film...
I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it, but a lot of people who have seen it reportedly don't like it. I have to say I thought it was really clever, and because it wasn't your usual 'happy ever after' ending, I liked it even more. Some film endings where the story neatly resolves, I do like that occasionally in film, but I thought in this case the fact that it doesn't, is really a strength. It made me want to watch the sequel, (if there is one!) to see what happens next. I think the ending can work either way; as a clever ending, or as preparation for a sequel. I think I would prefer a clever ending, but then the story of the invasion isn't resolved at all, which I personally don't have a problem with, but I think a lot of viewers would.
Overall, despite the weaknesses I've briefly outlined, if you're looking for an entertaining 'action alien invasion' film, this would be the one for you to go to. If you like your films to make you think, or if you enjoy exploring characterization in a film, this isn't the film for you.
I'd like to be sexist at this point and say I think it's more of a 'boys film' than a 'girls one'...
I thoroughly enjoyed it as a nice bit of escapism on a Saturday afternoon!
Thoughts?
I liked it purely on a no-holds barred, entertaining aliens movie with lot's of effects and action basis.
In terms of plot, there is hardly any in the film, it's just one minute of tense atmosphere with a very small amount of poor dialogue in between, for the whole film basically. It's amazing to think that virtually the whole film was shot in/outside the Directors apartment, which is why the costs of the film were $500,000, and the effects were $10,000,000!
I think the weakness of the film is the dialogue, which is very stuttered at times, action sequence upon action sequence means that the film doesn't give the actors little time to develop their characters, as basically they're running from one thing to the next!
In some ways it reminded me of War Of The Worlds, (the remake) which a few other people have commented on I think, but it has even less character development than that. This I find strange, as the quality of people they got, is actually quite good. Eric Balfour, (of '24' no less!) and David Zayas, (of Dexter) should be expected to produce some good work, but the scripts they were given are very limited.
One thing that is slightly frustrating is that no questions that could be raised by the viewer are ever answered. Questions such as 'why the lights?', and 'where is the rest of the world?', and 'what are the invading species planning?', etc. Also it bugged me a bit that certain biological things happen to you if you stand in 'the light', but no clue was given as to what precisely that was. there was a lot to 'guess at' in the film, which from one point of view is good, as people can have endless discussions afterwards, and if you like that, then great! If, however you like your films to be clear and self-explanatory, then you might want to give this a miss! There is nothing in the film from the invaders perspective, it is all from the humans trying to survive, and perhaps this might be another weakness in the plot? Mind you, that seemed to work for Cloverfield? *shrugs*
About the ending of the film...
I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it, but a lot of people who have seen it reportedly don't like it. I have to say I thought it was really clever, and because it wasn't your usual 'happy ever after' ending, I liked it even more. Some film endings where the story neatly resolves, I do like that occasionally in film, but I thought in this case the fact that it doesn't, is really a strength. It made me want to watch the sequel, (if there is one!) to see what happens next. I think the ending can work either way; as a clever ending, or as preparation for a sequel. I think I would prefer a clever ending, but then the story of the invasion isn't resolved at all, which I personally don't have a problem with, but I think a lot of viewers would.
Overall, despite the weaknesses I've briefly outlined, if you're looking for an entertaining 'action alien invasion' film, this would be the one for you to go to. If you like your films to make you think, or if you enjoy exploring characterization in a film, this isn't the film for you.
I'd like to be sexist at this point and say I think it's more of a 'boys film' than a 'girls one'...
I thoroughly enjoyed it as a nice bit of escapism on a Saturday afternoon!
Thoughts?
Saturday, 20 November 2010
X Factor 2010... I'm thinking of doing the unthinkable...
In the spirit of true musicianship, I'm seriously considering voting for Wagner in the X factor final if he gets there...
I think Matt and Rebecca are outstanding, but am really fed up of the nonsense that the panel of judges come out with each week. Is it just me or is it blindingly obvious that they're playing off each other in their comments and don't mean a word of what they say most of the time?
I'm not naive, I realise it's a show and it's all about ratings, but... seriously?
I think it would be fantastic if Wagner won and Simon had to give him a record deal...
I'm REALLY tempted!
Friday, 19 November 2010
Here's Hoping...
I'm off to see Skyline tomorrow, I'm hoping that it's good, though I've heard a few comments from people who've seen it already saying that it's not that great...
We'll see!
We'll see!
Inconsistent Morality...
Well, I haven't written for quite a while so I thought I'd start up again...
Meg and I went to the Cinema tonight to see 'Due Date', starring Robert Downey, Jnr and Zach Galifianakis among others. Parts of the film were very funny, as it explores the (non) relationship between the two main characters on a long road trip from Atlanta to L.A. Robert Downey plays an expectant father (Peter), trying to get home to L.A. for the birth of his first child, while Zach Galifianakis (of 'The Hangover' fame) plays the eccentric loner (Ethan), who inadvertently becomes Downey's saviour and road-trip partner. Lot's of hilarity ensues in varying levels and situations of political in-correctness, and both the characters reveal deeper parts of themselves along the way.
The one thing I've gotta confess is this:
I found it funny, up to a certain scene, then my humour gland dried up because of that scene, then it came back again a little later.
I found myself, not for the first time in a major Hollywood release, actually being offended by the content of this scene, which I thought was totally inappropriate. Yes, I get that they are portraying Ethan as a weird, socially awkward loner, the guy who everybody avoids as soon as he opens his mouth, I get that they put scenes in the film that you laugh at and then wonder if you should be laughing at, a bit like 'Four Lions' did for terrorism; I get all that. I even mostly ignored the language because it made some of the scenes funnier, just like the language in Grand Torrino made the scenes more poignant and caught the humorous reality (sometimes) of playful language used in a racist sense. Im not really a prude when it comes to stuff like that, mostly I filter out the bad and take the scene for what it is and what it's saying.... But this particular scene?
I don't really want to describe it, other than it was very much in the style of the 'American Pie' series of films, a sexual context but made very obvioius and in a way that grosses you out.
As I said, I'm no prude, but this scene in the film grossed me and Meg out, both of us thought it was totally unnecessary, It wasn't that you saw anything explicit; ironically, as the best films do, (though definitely not in this case) what was 'suggested' to you as the viewer by sound effects, etc, was just pure gross.
It was the same kind of disturbed feeling I got when I attempted to watch '300', that adrenaline fuelled, testosterone-filled guys film based on the epic tale of 300 Spartan warriors against the might of King Xerxes. Surprisingly, the violence in it didn't bother me, as I felt it was in accordance with the plot and scope of the film; it was a film about ancient war after all, and the brutality of it was showing the realism. What disturbed me personally about 300, (to the point, where I didn't actually finish watching it!), was the scene where the crippled, rejected Spartan turns traitor and enters the court of Xerxes to sell his fellow Spartans out. The court was depicted in such a twisted, sexual way that I found myself switching it off. Not, actually, because secretly I liked it and it brought out base feelings in me, but simply because I instantly felt disturbed by the images I saw, and simply didn't want to watch it; almost as if I heard a whisper in my own conscience saying 'don't watch it'.
I remember being disturbed then, and it was that same level of 'disturbed-ness' (if that's a word?) that happened tonight. Like I said, I'm not a prude and no doubt I've watched some scenes in other genres (such as horror), that would intensely disturb others. Part of my level of unease, I think about Due Date and this particular scene, was that I just didn't expect it in this film, that is generally one to have a good laugh in, an 'emotive comedy' of sorts. Although there was quite a bit of language, I didn't expect such a suggested explicit scene carried off as comedy to be laughed at.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, maybe there is a bit of the prudish about me. I just didn't want to be confronted with that when watching a film for entertainment with my wife...
All in all, it was a funny film, but it just really did not need that scene...
What do people think? Is the genre of film free to show any and every shocking thing for the sake of expression and reality, even in a comedy, or are there some things that we really don't need to 'see', or think about??
Meg and I went to the Cinema tonight to see 'Due Date', starring Robert Downey, Jnr and Zach Galifianakis among others. Parts of the film were very funny, as it explores the (non) relationship between the two main characters on a long road trip from Atlanta to L.A. Robert Downey plays an expectant father (Peter), trying to get home to L.A. for the birth of his first child, while Zach Galifianakis (of 'The Hangover' fame) plays the eccentric loner (Ethan), who inadvertently becomes Downey's saviour and road-trip partner. Lot's of hilarity ensues in varying levels and situations of political in-correctness, and both the characters reveal deeper parts of themselves along the way.
The one thing I've gotta confess is this:
I found it funny, up to a certain scene, then my humour gland dried up because of that scene, then it came back again a little later.
I found myself, not for the first time in a major Hollywood release, actually being offended by the content of this scene, which I thought was totally inappropriate. Yes, I get that they are portraying Ethan as a weird, socially awkward loner, the guy who everybody avoids as soon as he opens his mouth, I get that they put scenes in the film that you laugh at and then wonder if you should be laughing at, a bit like 'Four Lions' did for terrorism; I get all that. I even mostly ignored the language because it made some of the scenes funnier, just like the language in Grand Torrino made the scenes more poignant and caught the humorous reality (sometimes) of playful language used in a racist sense. Im not really a prude when it comes to stuff like that, mostly I filter out the bad and take the scene for what it is and what it's saying.... But this particular scene?
I don't really want to describe it, other than it was very much in the style of the 'American Pie' series of films, a sexual context but made very obvioius and in a way that grosses you out.
As I said, I'm no prude, but this scene in the film grossed me and Meg out, both of us thought it was totally unnecessary, It wasn't that you saw anything explicit; ironically, as the best films do, (though definitely not in this case) what was 'suggested' to you as the viewer by sound effects, etc, was just pure gross.
It was the same kind of disturbed feeling I got when I attempted to watch '300', that adrenaline fuelled, testosterone-filled guys film based on the epic tale of 300 Spartan warriors against the might of King Xerxes. Surprisingly, the violence in it didn't bother me, as I felt it was in accordance with the plot and scope of the film; it was a film about ancient war after all, and the brutality of it was showing the realism. What disturbed me personally about 300, (to the point, where I didn't actually finish watching it!), was the scene where the crippled, rejected Spartan turns traitor and enters the court of Xerxes to sell his fellow Spartans out. The court was depicted in such a twisted, sexual way that I found myself switching it off. Not, actually, because secretly I liked it and it brought out base feelings in me, but simply because I instantly felt disturbed by the images I saw, and simply didn't want to watch it; almost as if I heard a whisper in my own conscience saying 'don't watch it'.
I remember being disturbed then, and it was that same level of 'disturbed-ness' (if that's a word?) that happened tonight. Like I said, I'm not a prude and no doubt I've watched some scenes in other genres (such as horror), that would intensely disturb others. Part of my level of unease, I think about Due Date and this particular scene, was that I just didn't expect it in this film, that is generally one to have a good laugh in, an 'emotive comedy' of sorts. Although there was quite a bit of language, I didn't expect such a suggested explicit scene carried off as comedy to be laughed at.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, maybe there is a bit of the prudish about me. I just didn't want to be confronted with that when watching a film for entertainment with my wife...
All in all, it was a funny film, but it just really did not need that scene...
What do people think? Is the genre of film free to show any and every shocking thing for the sake of expression and reality, even in a comedy, or are there some things that we really don't need to 'see', or think about??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)