Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
An Education (2009)
An ending imploding anything worthwhile in the movie.
This is a film that is great half way - excluding its clichés regarding the mythical Paris as a place of 'life' and 'creativity' - and then implodes on itself with its lazy ending - which completely spoils the movie and any points raised. Why raise them in the first place? Its interesting because of the dilemmas faced by a young women in 1961 London and the equally flawed character played by Peter Sarsgaard and yes seconded a mediocre British accent but nonetheless well played part. Other character's ultimately appear pointless, such as her headmistress who makes a cruel decision later on but this is all pointless given her experience and the ending. The film raises many problems for the characters - going to Oxford, but for what. Other characters clearly see it as a means for marriage) - its easy to be confused by the father who exclaims that he wants a better life for his daughter (he actually says something more specific than this) but is nonetheless over the moon that she has found someone to marry her and so Oxford is no longer important. This changes when the film tries to reconcile his character with a consequently confusing 'grand gesture' scene after the big revelation. The marvellous points raised in films/plays like the 'History Boys' or even more problematically 'The Dead Poets Society' are echoed here - what is the point in creating educated idiots who know nothing. A product of our education systems which favour old notions of wisdom over genuine critical thinking in a dynamic world. This film yanks anything of value gained from the build up - a variety of interesting points which I will not spoil here. Damn though it wastes your time. Watch this film certainly but ask yourself what it really achieves.
Battle Los Angeles (2011)
Falluja (Iraq) style engagements play out boringly with a cringe worthy story.
Reviews of this film have tended to take two forms. Either slamming the film outright or supporting the 'raw action' yet dismissing criticism of the intellectual quality of the film as an unrealistic expectation. I tend to prefer a calm approach - but in this case the film is really quite awful and even a little suspect. I'm going to concentrate on the support for the 'raw action' because it's well established that intellectually this film is atrocious. For those that enjoyed the action I was completely disappointed personally. I'm confused by the directors ambitions in the movie - he states he wanted to recreate a real war film in an urban context and had apparently watched a lot of youtube video's of falluja, yet is his intention then to glorify service in the marine corps. We might be inspired to think of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan which had its own share of issues but technically was absolutely brilliant. The story whatever your perspective was sufficient enough not to remove you from the action and those scenes were epic. Added to that the budget for SPR was 70 million dollars the same estimated budget for Battle LA. Cloverfield is also worth mentioning, the film works so well because there is a point to the documentary style. Even Independence Day with its dubious America save the world style was still enjoyable. Battle LA was a bore; there were some cool ideas with the alien's and their drone equipment, but everything else was terrible. Lastly this really is a giant recruiting video, that reminds me of the Inglorious Basterd's SS movie which serves as the rationale for the high command to all gather in the Paris movie theatre. A comparison with SPR, Cloverfield, Independence Day says it all. And that's not even mentioning the amazing district 9. The director is either dumb, or has zero ambition. Even with expectations of a cliché Hollywood movie, this movie really is awful.