So this weeks film takes us on a turgid, moralistic journey through the terrorism fuelled months following the Olympic games attack of 1972 in;
Munich
Firstly, this is a long film (157 minutes). It is also not an easy film to watch, due to the subject matter and the complexities of the political relationships. However, it is an important film, as it shows with passion and gravitas, the story surrounding the terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. And the bloody aftermath.
There is little point in filling in the details of the situation that the film deals with, these are known facts. If you don't know them, look them up prior to watching, it will make for a more fulfilling film.
To summarise the plot; a terrorist faction calling themselves Black September, attack and take hostage some of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games. The film tackles the aftermath, showing the journey taken by the five men chosen to eliminate the ones responsible for that fateful day.
What follows is a bloody battle between the assassins and the targets that they are instructed to kill. However, it is never that easy and there are others out to get the assassins.
Eric Bana plays the lead character Avner and a great lead actor he is too. Other notable appearances are Daniel Craig (pre Bond) and Geoffrey Rush, now more renowned for The Kings Speech.
It may take more than one viewing to gain the complete impact of this fictional film (based on real events). It is deep, disturbing, filled with hate and anguish and despair. It is difficult to take sides, there are no real good guys and bad guys in this, how can you decide based on the facts? Do we condone the violence? Do we accept the retribution?
As I say, it's a moralistic maze, that individual viewers will find different routes from. It is a hard film, a true film, a difficult film, you decide if it's a good film.
Tuesday 31 May 2011
Tuesday 24 May 2011
The Lovely Bones - 24th May 2011
Tonight's film was;
The Lovely Bones
This 2009 film, from the director; Peter Jackson, is an adaptation of the 2002 novel by American writer Alice Sebold.
It is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania; Susie Salmon ("as in the fish"), played superbly by Saoirse Ronan, who is murdered by her neighbour.
The neighbour; George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) is a quiet, creepy, sinnister character, who plots the murder of Susie. This fact is not hidden, so the film is not a murder mystery. Moreover, it is Susie telling her story from her "in-between place", before going to heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed, all the while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.
It's a dark, creepy film, the story keeping you gripped, while Susie narrates the action whilst on her journey from her earthly existence to heaven.
This journey gives the film makers a free rein to provide some tremendous surrealistic moments and impressive CGI effects.
Stand out performances are definitely Tucci as the creepy murderer. Saoirse Ronan also provides fantastic entertainment as Susie. Susie parents, played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are also very impressive.
A special note too for Susan Sarandon who plays Susie's Grandmother, a fairly minor part in the story, but superbly acted.
So many people say that the book is better than the film, well the book must be extremely good then! Must read it some day.
The Lovely Bones
This 2009 film, from the director; Peter Jackson, is an adaptation of the 2002 novel by American writer Alice Sebold.
It is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania; Susie Salmon ("as in the fish"), played superbly by Saoirse Ronan, who is murdered by her neighbour.
The neighbour; George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) is a quiet, creepy, sinnister character, who plots the murder of Susie. This fact is not hidden, so the film is not a murder mystery. Moreover, it is Susie telling her story from her "in-between place", before going to heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed, all the while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.
It's a dark, creepy film, the story keeping you gripped, while Susie narrates the action whilst on her journey from her earthly existence to heaven.
This journey gives the film makers a free rein to provide some tremendous surrealistic moments and impressive CGI effects.
Stand out performances are definitely Tucci as the creepy murderer. Saoirse Ronan also provides fantastic entertainment as Susie. Susie parents, played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are also very impressive.
A special note too for Susan Sarandon who plays Susie's Grandmother, a fairly minor part in the story, but superbly acted.
So many people say that the book is better than the film, well the book must be extremely good then! Must read it some day.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
Withnail & I - 17th May 2011
Tonights sojourn into the cellarful of celebrated celluloid, produces the cult classic;
Withnail & I
The problem with knowing that a film is hailed as a cult classic, means that you should really like it, if only to be cool, hip and trendy. The problem with that is; what happens if you're not so sure? Do you look uncool, because you don't "get it", or do you feign enjoyment to fit in?
Thus we have the dilemna with Withnail & I. Do we denounce the cult classic status or do we say it was great?
I shall sit firmly on the fence. I can quite clearly see that this could be an enjoyable film, that has students quoting lines ad infinitum. "We seem to have come on holiday by mistake".
However, it sits in a genre alongside This Is Spinal Tap. Classic films that have a cult status thrust upon them, because they are of their time. If Withnail & I were to be produced today, it would probably fail.
Bruce Robinsons' semi-autobiographical story, depicts the end of the 1960's, with two struggling actors sharing a squalid life, who then decide to get away from it all and escape to the country, on a booze filled adventure.
That is pretty much the storyline.
The thing that saves the film for me are the acting skills of Richard E Grant, Paul McGann and Ralph Brown. They absolutley nail their respective characters.
Grant plays the constant drunk; Withnail ("I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze").
McGann plays Marwood, the "& I" character. ("My thumbs have gone weird").
And Ralph Brown is superb as Danny the drug dealing dropout. ("Find your neutral space. You got a rush. It'll pass. Be seated").
So, in summation there are some funny parts, even laugh out loud moments. However, based on first viewing, it doesn't make the cult classic status in my book, but who knows, on a second viewing it might just get there. The only question remains is; will we want to watch it again?
As a footnote, on the DVD is a special feature called Withnail & Us. This is very good and goes someway to explain why the film is so admired, by so many.
Withnail & I
The problem with knowing that a film is hailed as a cult classic, means that you should really like it, if only to be cool, hip and trendy. The problem with that is; what happens if you're not so sure? Do you look uncool, because you don't "get it", or do you feign enjoyment to fit in?
Thus we have the dilemna with Withnail & I. Do we denounce the cult classic status or do we say it was great?
I shall sit firmly on the fence. I can quite clearly see that this could be an enjoyable film, that has students quoting lines ad infinitum. "We seem to have come on holiday by mistake".
However, it sits in a genre alongside This Is Spinal Tap. Classic films that have a cult status thrust upon them, because they are of their time. If Withnail & I were to be produced today, it would probably fail.
Bruce Robinsons' semi-autobiographical story, depicts the end of the 1960's, with two struggling actors sharing a squalid life, who then decide to get away from it all and escape to the country, on a booze filled adventure.
That is pretty much the storyline.
The thing that saves the film for me are the acting skills of Richard E Grant, Paul McGann and Ralph Brown. They absolutley nail their respective characters.
Grant plays the constant drunk; Withnail ("I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze").
McGann plays Marwood, the "& I" character. ("My thumbs have gone weird").
And Ralph Brown is superb as Danny the drug dealing dropout. ("Find your neutral space. You got a rush. It'll pass. Be seated").
So, in summation there are some funny parts, even laugh out loud moments. However, based on first viewing, it doesn't make the cult classic status in my book, but who knows, on a second viewing it might just get there. The only question remains is; will we want to watch it again?
As a footnote, on the DVD is a special feature called Withnail & Us. This is very good and goes someway to explain why the film is so admired, by so many.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Irresistible - 10th May 2011
And yet again the march of time brings us around once more, to another Tuesday Night is Film Night. This week we take a look at the pyschological thriller;
Irresistible
Wasn't sure about this film, having never heard of it, but the synopsis was interesting and a we haven't seen a thriller for ages, so we thought; "give it a go". And jolly glad we did too.
Filmed on location in Australia and backed by Australian producers, this could have been a low budget film, (not sure about that), but it was an extremely well written film and Susan Sarandon as Sophie Hartley and Emily Blunt as Mara Toufiey, are outstanding, bringing drama, suspense and nail biting realism to their roles.
The synopsis is as follows;
Sophie Hartley is convinced that someone is trying to steal her children, her husband: her life. Forced to prove her sanity, Sophie fights back and makes a discovery more shocking than her worst fear.
All the way through the film, you knew there was going to be twists and turns, but you never knew what. The suspense draws you in and you start wondering which character is stalking who. At first Mara (Emily Blunt) is stalking Sophie (Susan Sarandon), although you never see this. So is this all in Sophie's head? Is she imagining this? She then turns stalker herself and lands herself in big trouble, when she is caught.
The film builds and builds, adding layer upon layer of intrigue, tying the viewer into a pyschlogical knot, unsure which way to go to unravel the mystery.
As I say, first rate story, first rate acting. Must mention Sam Neil as well, as Sophie's Husband, who is embroiled in this intrigue and suspense. He plays his part extremely well.
A right little cracker of a film. If you get chance to see it, it's well worth it. Check out the reviews on Amazon too.
Irresistible
Wasn't sure about this film, having never heard of it, but the synopsis was interesting and a we haven't seen a thriller for ages, so we thought; "give it a go". And jolly glad we did too.
Filmed on location in Australia and backed by Australian producers, this could have been a low budget film, (not sure about that), but it was an extremely well written film and Susan Sarandon as Sophie Hartley and Emily Blunt as Mara Toufiey, are outstanding, bringing drama, suspense and nail biting realism to their roles.
The synopsis is as follows;
Sophie Hartley is convinced that someone is trying to steal her children, her husband: her life. Forced to prove her sanity, Sophie fights back and makes a discovery more shocking than her worst fear.
All the way through the film, you knew there was going to be twists and turns, but you never knew what. The suspense draws you in and you start wondering which character is stalking who. At first Mara (Emily Blunt) is stalking Sophie (Susan Sarandon), although you never see this. So is this all in Sophie's head? Is she imagining this? She then turns stalker herself and lands herself in big trouble, when she is caught.
The film builds and builds, adding layer upon layer of intrigue, tying the viewer into a pyschlogical knot, unsure which way to go to unravel the mystery.
As I say, first rate story, first rate acting. Must mention Sam Neil as well, as Sophie's Husband, who is embroiled in this intrigue and suspense. He plays his part extremely well.
A right little cracker of a film. If you get chance to see it, it's well worth it. Check out the reviews on Amazon too.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
Chariots of Fire - 3rd May 2011
And so to tonights' film presentation, it's the multi Oscar award winning film, from 1981;
Chariots of Fire.
Unfortunately, I don't think it set anything alight in our household. OK, it is 30 years old and it is based on the real life story of Harold Abraham and Eric Liddell, who were aspiring athletes, so the storyline was never going to be electric.
However, what the film lacked in spark, it gained in the cinematography and production. The film makers pulled out all the stops to make this an authentic period piece.
The story follows two British track athletes, one a determined Jew (Harold Abraham), and the other a devout Christian (Eric Liddell) who compete in the 1924 Olympics.
Certainly the portrayal of Abraham and Liddell, by Ben Cross and Ian Charleson respectively, were most enthralling and engaging. Especially Charleson, who managed to get the balance just right with his character, being a devout Christian who refused to run on the Sabbath day.
Although, it was Ian Holm who picked up an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, as Sam Mussabini, the down-to-earth coach toHarold Abraham.
The film picked up four Oscars in all that year. Best Costume Design went to Milena Canonero.
David Putnam picked up the Best Picture Oscar.
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen went to Colin Welland, yes, him from Z Cars.
And also an Oscar for Vangelis for Best Music, Original Score. Now, we all know the haunting theme music to Chariots of Fire, but having now seen the film, I am not so sure that the Vangelis style of synthetic electro-classico-pop music, is suitable or fitting for a 1920's period drama. In fact, the theme music aside, some of the incidental music was particularly bad. Maybe 30 years ago, it would have been seen as a remarkable piece of work, but to my ears, it hasn't stood the test of time.
Neither has the film. It is rather disjointed, albeit beautifully shot. It clearly lost some credibility in the edit. Plus the music was dire.
Now, if there were to be a modern day remake.........
Chariots of Fire.
Unfortunately, I don't think it set anything alight in our household. OK, it is 30 years old and it is based on the real life story of Harold Abraham and Eric Liddell, who were aspiring athletes, so the storyline was never going to be electric.
However, what the film lacked in spark, it gained in the cinematography and production. The film makers pulled out all the stops to make this an authentic period piece.
The story follows two British track athletes, one a determined Jew (Harold Abraham), and the other a devout Christian (Eric Liddell) who compete in the 1924 Olympics.
Certainly the portrayal of Abraham and Liddell, by Ben Cross and Ian Charleson respectively, were most enthralling and engaging. Especially Charleson, who managed to get the balance just right with his character, being a devout Christian who refused to run on the Sabbath day.
Although, it was Ian Holm who picked up an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, as Sam Mussabini, the down-to-earth coach toHarold Abraham.
The film picked up four Oscars in all that year. Best Costume Design went to Milena Canonero.
David Putnam picked up the Best Picture Oscar.
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen went to Colin Welland, yes, him from Z Cars.
And also an Oscar for Vangelis for Best Music, Original Score. Now, we all know the haunting theme music to Chariots of Fire, but having now seen the film, I am not so sure that the Vangelis style of synthetic electro-classico-pop music, is suitable or fitting for a 1920's period drama. In fact, the theme music aside, some of the incidental music was particularly bad. Maybe 30 years ago, it would have been seen as a remarkable piece of work, but to my ears, it hasn't stood the test of time.
Neither has the film. It is rather disjointed, albeit beautifully shot. It clearly lost some credibility in the edit. Plus the music was dire.
Now, if there were to be a modern day remake.........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)