Waking up early to see a bad film is probably one of the biggest punishment that one can get, and unfortunately I got punished like this for nothing. Although I have never liked westerns, comedies or I’m not a great fan of Chinese cinema, I have decided to wake up at 7am to see Let the Bullets Fly during this year’s London Film Festival. I was very disappointed. Mainly I was disappointed with the fact that although the seats in NFT1 at BFI are much more comfortable than my bed in my own bedroom, the sound was so loud in the film that I simply could not get any sleep. Instead I was made to follow this pointlessly complex plot presented in the smallest, white subtitles often on the white background. Throughout the whole film, I was just sitting there thinking that at least I will have something to write about, especially if it’s a bad film, but the problem is Let the Bullets Fly is a bad, but horribly boring film. Because it was really boring, I did not focus on it much so I cannot really complain about anything specific because I have no specific knowledge about what was happening. I could read the description on IMDB, but I don’t think I really care to discuss this film as much. Let’s get some things straight though, because some notes have been taken during this screening, so I can at least tell you why you should not waste your time on it. And boy was it a waste of time...
I cannot really tell you what Let the Bullets Fly is about, because it involves too much talking in white letters on the white background and because of the most background stories ever told, including political issues that one’s brain does not consume easily when they are served with flying trains and sliced stomachs. The combination of the latter is what really makes Let the Bullets Fly so surprisingly boring, I think. If it was a sort of political western (if something like this can even function) I would be fine, or if at least it was a political comedy. But boring us to death with politics and then once in a while present us with a nice action sequences or incredibly dark and gore humour, creates an uneatable mixture. I could take one or another but not both at the same time. Like the rest of the audience I expected The Good, The Bad and The Weird and got some bad CGI and much too long monologues instead. The lack of an individual character does not help the film. You can say something about three characters in the movie, but it is not enough to make their vivid image. They are either good or bad, and the rest of the cast just stands or fights in the background.
I might have a different cinematic sensitivity from Chinese audience, but to me Let the Bullets fly does not fulfill its promised function. It dragged on for ages and not one scene’s finale satisfied me. Please LFF, keep the film baddies for the later hours. I hate the feeling of disappointment so early in the morning.
2/10
Film Addict
queerdelys, bitch!
Saturday 22 October 2011
Friday 21 October 2011
Carnage
From trendsetter of filmmaking Polanski has turned into movie making machine. His technically perfect films are deprived of humanity and small imperfections which make a film interesting, unique and innovative. But he just won't break the rules of directing 101 it seems.
At some point in the film, Christoph Waltz says that he believes in god of carnage. But how can we believe in real carnage if it is presented in such a conservatively boring way? Don't get me wrong, the film is not boring; it is light and funny, a little charming and definitely well performed, however, the way it is all shot is simply boring. There is nothing edgy or risky about Polanski's direction. The actors (and he got some god damn good actors) walk around as if they were on theatre stage and often seem to have as much knowledge about filling the screen space or interacting with each other and the props around them as a theatre club student.
Carnage is based on the play and I will never understand what has tempted Polanski to turn it into a movie. Even working with the writer of the play did not help it. It even might have made it more theatre like. Carnage is a story of four parents (two couples) who meet after their sons get into a fight (or rather one hits the other after being called names). Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly (who is stalking me) play the parents of a suppose victim, and Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet try to protect their supposedly guilty son. There is lots of 'ifs' in Polanski's film, but he manages to solve them nicely and prioriotises what really keeps our interest. Thus from the boys' fighting we go to marriage problems and personal tragedies. Every one of the actors pulls their performances well, however, the characters they play are again a very stereotypical choices for these actors. John C. Reilly plays a good, fun to be with husband and father who is willing to compromise, although his jokes might hurt some; Jodie Foster is a defensive mother who cares for human rights and world peace and even when she breaks down, she still cries about African babies starving; Kate Winslet is a successful and confident woman who hides her roughness under romanticism; and Christoph Waltz is an intelligent asshole. What a shocker.
The main problem with Carnage is that it fully relies on the performances, however, no performance can make an averagely written film good. It will still remain just average. The jokes are good, but they are too repetitive; the lines are well delivered but they simply sound written. The only thing missing in Carnage is the theatre stage. It works, but only in a theatre.
It might be the matter of age, laziness or being too confident. but it seems like Polanski has lost the power to change the cinema. He sticks to the rules in the world where we want to break the rules. Overall, Carnage is pleasurable to watch but a forgettable film.
6/10
At some point in the film, Christoph Waltz says that he believes in god of carnage. But how can we believe in real carnage if it is presented in such a conservatively boring way? Don't get me wrong, the film is not boring; it is light and funny, a little charming and definitely well performed, however, the way it is all shot is simply boring. There is nothing edgy or risky about Polanski's direction. The actors (and he got some god damn good actors) walk around as if they were on theatre stage and often seem to have as much knowledge about filling the screen space or interacting with each other and the props around them as a theatre club student.
Carnage is based on the play and I will never understand what has tempted Polanski to turn it into a movie. Even working with the writer of the play did not help it. It even might have made it more theatre like. Carnage is a story of four parents (two couples) who meet after their sons get into a fight (or rather one hits the other after being called names). Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly (who is stalking me) play the parents of a suppose victim, and Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet try to protect their supposedly guilty son. There is lots of 'ifs' in Polanski's film, but he manages to solve them nicely and prioriotises what really keeps our interest. Thus from the boys' fighting we go to marriage problems and personal tragedies. Every one of the actors pulls their performances well, however, the characters they play are again a very stereotypical choices for these actors. John C. Reilly plays a good, fun to be with husband and father who is willing to compromise, although his jokes might hurt some; Jodie Foster is a defensive mother who cares for human rights and world peace and even when she breaks down, she still cries about African babies starving; Kate Winslet is a successful and confident woman who hides her roughness under romanticism; and Christoph Waltz is an intelligent asshole. What a shocker.
The main problem with Carnage is that it fully relies on the performances, however, no performance can make an averagely written film good. It will still remain just average. The jokes are good, but they are too repetitive; the lines are well delivered but they simply sound written. The only thing missing in Carnage is the theatre stage. It works, but only in a theatre.
It might be the matter of age, laziness or being too confident. but it seems like Polanski has lost the power to change the cinema. He sticks to the rules in the world where we want to break the rules. Overall, Carnage is pleasurable to watch but a forgettable film.
6/10
Monday 17 October 2011
We Need to Talk About Kevin (and about Tilda)
With her almost lizardy face, almond shaped eyes, doll like paleness and boyish expressions, Tilda Swinton is simply hypnotising type of beauty. And so is her performance in the almost perfect adaptation of Lionel Shriver's disturbing novel, We Need to Talk About Kevin.
This book is not for everyone, as so is not the film, however, Lynne Ramsay seems to have exactly the same sensitivity as the author of the novel. It's almost scary how with gentle perfection she manages to reflect the atmosphere of the book. Her Kevin speaks with the sentences that could have easily been written by Shriver; he is inhumanly conscious and intelligent, just as he is in the book. Her Eva is my Eva too. Tilda Swinton is casted so perfectly that it literally took my breath away seeing her on screen. She is the strong, ambitious mother of a monster whose life has been broken, but never completely destroyed by the massive murder committed by her son, Kevin. Although Ramsay is often very ascetic when it comes to showing the story on the screen; the events are reflected on Eva's face rather than showed directly to us; she still manages to persuade us that Kevin cannot be stopped, even as a baby.
This atmosphere of the inevitable combined with the intelligent black humour makes this dark story disturbingly entertaining. Ramsay uses symbols, yet they are so subtle that We Need to Talk About Kevin can be watched without any horrible pretentious preparations; it is light enough for the audience not familiar with London Film Festival's programme as well as challenging enough for a critic. There is a lightness in making the weirdness of this seemingly simple story.
We Need to Talk About Kevin is the first film during this year's London Fil Festival that did not disappoint me. It was everything I expected plus a little more. And if you don't think this review is persuasive enough, then I beg you, see this film and write one yourselves.
8/10
Here, Kevin is eating his sister's eye
This book is not for everyone, as so is not the film, however, Lynne Ramsay seems to have exactly the same sensitivity as the author of the novel. It's almost scary how with gentle perfection she manages to reflect the atmosphere of the book. Her Kevin speaks with the sentences that could have easily been written by Shriver; he is inhumanly conscious and intelligent, just as he is in the book. Her Eva is my Eva too. Tilda Swinton is casted so perfectly that it literally took my breath away seeing her on screen. She is the strong, ambitious mother of a monster whose life has been broken, but never completely destroyed by the massive murder committed by her son, Kevin. Although Ramsay is often very ascetic when it comes to showing the story on the screen; the events are reflected on Eva's face rather than showed directly to us; she still manages to persuade us that Kevin cannot be stopped, even as a baby.
This atmosphere of the inevitable combined with the intelligent black humour makes this dark story disturbingly entertaining. Ramsay uses symbols, yet they are so subtle that We Need to Talk About Kevin can be watched without any horrible pretentious preparations; it is light enough for the audience not familiar with London Film Festival's programme as well as challenging enough for a critic. There is a lightness in making the weirdness of this seemingly simple story.
We Need to Talk About Kevin is the first film during this year's London Fil Festival that did not disappoint me. It was everything I expected plus a little more. And if you don't think this review is persuasive enough, then I beg you, see this film and write one yourselves.
8/10
Saturday 15 October 2011
Real Steel
Omg, where do I even start...
Real Steel might have been one of the worst movies, if not the worst (well, there was Soul Surfer...) of the year. It has big machines, annoying child, Hugh Jackman as an asshole father and no point of existence whatsoever. I have no idea why this film was made, because having a budget like this and a big ass robot, I can think of so many other scripts that would work better than Reel Steal. I don't even have to think about them, to be honest, because Cracked.com has already done so:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/9-better-uses-giant-robot-from-real-steel/
There are also ways in which you should never use robots, you creep
In Reel Steel, Hugh Jackman is a robot trainer of some sort and spends his life participating in robot vs bull fights as well as being a neglectful father to his only son that to be honest, I would myself neglect for being the most annoying child in the history of cinema. Of course he is made to spend a summer with his son and obviously their relationship changes rapidly as soon as Hugh Jackman discovers the boy's talent. And what is it exactly? The fact that the boy is able to restore an old generation robot? The fact that just by playing video games he is able to control the big machine? The fact that he is able to communicate with the robot? Or the fact that he is inhumanly powerful and is able to drag himself a full three ton heavy robot for a very long distance up the hill, in the middle of the night after almost losing his life?
If you think, these were impressive, you don't know anything about impressive. According to both Max's father and his girlfriend as well as the whole robot fighting audience, the most amazing thing about Max is his
annoying dance.
After discovering that his son is so good at robot dancing (literally), Hugh Jackman decides to give him a chance at the real competition, where some redneck punk guys get overexcited about beating some ten year old kid's ass. Although Max's robot is old, he manages to win all the fights up to the point where he meets Zeus- the ultimate robot killing machine that no robot in the entire world has ever beaten. It is designed by a hot japanese guy and run by a hot russian girl. And you probably have guessed, who wins this fight...
It is not that I can only be entertained by an emotionally deep film, because I have to admit- I like robots. I loved Terminator, I liked Transformers (I risk loosing my press pass by making this declaration, I'm aware of this), I like I Robot, I liked half of the A.I. I like brainless entertainment very often and sometimes it is enough to show me some badass special effects (Mr. Cameron) in order to make me a happy bunny. But this happy bunny can turn into a Monty Python bunny when watching so called movie about a friendship and love and forgiveness where the only persuasive character is dr pepper. By the way, has anyone noticed how many dr peppers there are in the entire film? I haven't seen that many in tescos and it's a large tescos I live next to. And it's not just doctor pepper that they put everywhere. Real Steel seems like it's trying to beat Michael Bay's record of the amount of product placement in one scene. And it works. I will never drink Dr Pepper thanks to it.
Reel Steel 1/10
Real Steel might have been one of the worst movies, if not the worst (well, there was Soul Surfer...) of the year. It has big machines, annoying child, Hugh Jackman as an asshole father and no point of existence whatsoever. I have no idea why this film was made, because having a budget like this and a big ass robot, I can think of so many other scripts that would work better than Reel Steal. I don't even have to think about them, to be honest, because Cracked.com has already done so:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/9-better-uses-giant-robot-from-real-steel/
In Reel Steel, Hugh Jackman is a robot trainer of some sort and spends his life participating in robot vs bull fights as well as being a neglectful father to his only son that to be honest, I would myself neglect for being the most annoying child in the history of cinema. Of course he is made to spend a summer with his son and obviously their relationship changes rapidly as soon as Hugh Jackman discovers the boy's talent. And what is it exactly? The fact that the boy is able to restore an old generation robot? The fact that just by playing video games he is able to control the big machine? The fact that he is able to communicate with the robot? Or the fact that he is inhumanly powerful and is able to drag himself a full three ton heavy robot for a very long distance up the hill, in the middle of the night after almost losing his life?
If you think, these were impressive, you don't know anything about impressive. According to both Max's father and his girlfriend as well as the whole robot fighting audience, the most amazing thing about Max is his
annoying dance.
It's been a long time since I've seen something THAT irritating. Congratulations, movie
It is not that I can only be entertained by an emotionally deep film, because I have to admit- I like robots. I loved Terminator, I liked Transformers (I risk loosing my press pass by making this declaration, I'm aware of this), I like I Robot, I liked half of the A.I. I like brainless entertainment very often and sometimes it is enough to show me some badass special effects (Mr. Cameron) in order to make me a happy bunny. But this happy bunny can turn into a Monty Python bunny when watching so called movie about a friendship and love and forgiveness where the only persuasive character is dr pepper. By the way, has anyone noticed how many dr peppers there are in the entire film? I haven't seen that many in tescos and it's a large tescos I live next to. And it's not just doctor pepper that they put everywhere. Real Steel seems like it's trying to beat Michael Bay's record of the amount of product placement in one scene. And it works. I will never drink Dr Pepper thanks to it.
Reel Steel 1/10
Friday 14 October 2011
Before I publish my review of Real Steel
Let me for just one more moment enjoy myself with this funny Modern Family clip.
Wednesday 12 October 2011
What Am I Missing Today?
I've never wanted to complain about my private life struggles, but fuck it, I have nothing to lose at this point (meaning: no audience to lose haha)...So basically, London Film Festival has now officially started and I have written maybe six or less articles about the films, because I've been looking for a flat. So while everyone is watching 360 today in the morning, I'm calling rude agents at the estate agencies while desperately learning London's tube map by heart. So please, sympathise with me.
I bet 360 was an outstanding film, but this I will hear from other nasty bloggers who have managed to see it. Let us see what else have I missed out today:
1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1827512/
The Kid with a Bike
What do I think I would rate it? Well, it might be a slightly depressing, but in a french, quirky way film, so I think it would be at least 6/10, but if shown after a good film, it might have even moved my heart to mark it 8/10. Will I ever find out?
2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456472/
We Have a Pope
Awwwwwwww it has a polish actor in it (Jerzy Sztuhr), so now I will feel like a traitor to my own country. Although topically it has been analysed much too many times, I would still see it, fuck it, after missing out for so long, I would see all the films today.
3. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1658820/
Sket
Almost everything, I meant. I would have a lunch while this new british wave disappointment lasts...
4. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2050561/
Louise Wimmer
film so hipster that it doesn't even have a synopsis on IMDB. And I would go and see it too, wy not.
Unfortunately, I won't see any of them. I will see Snowtown tomorrow though and hope I won't hear from others how good 360 was.
You lucky bastards....
I bet 360 was an outstanding film, but this I will hear from other nasty bloggers who have managed to see it. Let us see what else have I missed out today:
1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1827512/
The Kid with a Bike
What do I think I would rate it? Well, it might be a slightly depressing, but in a french, quirky way film, so I think it would be at least 6/10, but if shown after a good film, it might have even moved my heart to mark it 8/10. Will I ever find out?
2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456472/
We Have a Pope
Awwwwwwww it has a polish actor in it (Jerzy Sztuhr), so now I will feel like a traitor to my own country. Although topically it has been analysed much too many times, I would still see it, fuck it, after missing out for so long, I would see all the films today.
3. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1658820/
Sket
Almost everything, I meant. I would have a lunch while this new british wave disappointment lasts...
4. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2050561/
Louise Wimmer
film so hipster that it doesn't even have a synopsis on IMDB. And I would go and see it too, wy not.
Unfortunately, I won't see any of them. I will see Snowtown tomorrow though and hope I won't hear from others how good 360 was.
You lucky bastards....
Labels:
360,
british new wave,
films,
london film festival,
oscar nominees,
reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)