Change Your Image
JFCole
Reviews
Ken Park (2002)
Well...hard to sum up, really.
-SPOILERS-
(Though let's face it, the only reason you're reading this is because you've heard about some of the scenes and want to know more...)
OK: on one level it's an intelligent film that dissects the relationships between teenagers and their parents. On another level it's a film that looks at teenage relationships. On a third level, it's a study of film as film, cutting consistently between four different stories that don't come together until the final scene. And on a fourth level, it's a film about graphic sex. Hello Larry Clark.
Leaving the sex aside for now, this film deals with a range of issues in a sensitive and intelligent manner - father figures, teenage rage, religion, intergenerational relationships - and does so arguably better than Clark managed in either 'Kids' or 'Bully'. 'Bully' in particular suffers in comparison to 'Ken Park', being much less acute in it's observations and much less clear in it's motivations. 'Ken Park' has intelligent things to say, but...
...no one will hear them, because it contains a lot of graphic scenes. And that is all anyone will talk about after they've watched it. Which is sad, because, unnecessary as some shots are, all the scenes involve issues relevant to the film's dissection of teenage culture. The most often cited example of the film going too far is the scene in which the character Tate masturbates to orgasm in front of the camera, but the scene is a turning point for viewers in that it shows us the loneliness (perhaps self-imposed) that he feels, as well as a further example of his twisted mindset (the method he uses). Now, whether this had to be conveyed with a full blown money shot is debatable - personally, I don't see it as being such an issue, in an 18 or X rated film: however, from an artistic view it is a mistake. When people leave the cinema and discuss one of the major scenes in the film only in terms of how disgusted they were and how they feel it should be taken out, rather than the emotional impact of the scene, then clearly the filmmaker has failed to make his point clear.
The other scene most people seem to dislike is the threesome at the end of the film between Shawn, Peaches and Claude. Again, I believe this scene buries it's message under a lot of sex. It's actually an uplifting finale, showing Claude and Peaches happy after getting away from the actions of their fathers, and implying that difficulties can be overcome. That such a great scene had to be upstaged by close ups of Claude fingering Peaches and both Claude and Shawn being pleasured by her is a mistake on the part of Larry Clark. None of these shots is especially disturbing given the certificate, but the message is again lost to most viewers.
The film is beautifully shot and well acted, and personally I consider it to be a fine piece of work. My only regret is that Larry Clark overindulged his tendency to show teenage bodies at the expense of the emotional impact this film would otherwise surely have. It's more uplifting than 'Kids' and more coherent than 'Bully', but it's sadly destined to become, alongside '9 Songs', "That film with the sex in".
Richard III (1995)
An excellent adaption.
-Probable spoilers-
This is the first adaptation of Richard III I've seen, and I loved it. Transferring the play into the 1930s allows it a modern(ish) anchor that most Shakespeare adaptations fail at, giving it a better sense of authenticity rather than leaving it blowing in the historical wind. The curious mix of the 1930s setting with the fascist influences and the Shakespearean language gives it a fantastical, almost Brazil-like atmosphere, and both the drama and the war scenes are very well handled - it's hard to forget the opening image of a tank crashing through a wall.
As well as this, the performances are excellent, McKellen's Richard emphasising both the animal rage already associated with the character, and the charm that Richard possessed (he was in fact a well-liked king, until the rumours began to spread about the princes in the tower). Jim Broadbent and Annette Bening also deliver stand-out work, as the scheming Buckingham and the elegant Queen Elizabeth, and all the supporting cast make their mark - in particular, Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence giving his "...broken from the tower" speech, and Robert Downey Jr. arriving drunkenly on an airplane.
On the whole, this film is a great translation of the play, and certainly one of the most enjoyable Shakespeare films out there - 9/10.
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Funny film with a powerful emotional core.
This is a fantastic comedy that also happens to be a zombie film, brilliantly worked in together by the writers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright to give us a movie with more depth than the premise suggests. It hinges around an excellent performance by Pegg in the title role, who makes the film believable whatever is happening on screen. The build of humour throughout the film means that the astonishing emotional power of the ending may take you by surprise, but go with it - because I promise you the film is worth it. Also, can't leave without mentioning the supporting players, all of whom fulfill their roles excellently (special mentions to Lucy Davis and the always great Dylan Moran).
Wonder Boys (2000)
Grows into a great film
I'm hardly the first person ever to hold up their hand and profess a deep and lasting hatred of Michael Douglas, so it's a tribute to the man that after about ten minutes of Wonder Boys, I had completely forgotten to boo every time he appeared. The story is engaging, even if Tobey Maguire's performance jars a little to begin with, and the film itself is beautifully moody. Robert Downey Jr remains the greatest superstar who never was, and Frances McDormand is on fine form. I only saw this because it was on tv and I had nothing to do: since then I have searched out the (Region 1) dvd so I could see it again (incidentally, Bob Dylan looks terrifying in the video for his song. Watch the extras if you dare!)
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
Best film ever. So there :op
Ok, I love this film so, as a brief warning, I'm bound to accidently say something that might spoil the plot.
I think Ian Holm is probably England's most underrated actor, so I stayed up to watch this film on tv at 1am purely on the basis that he was in it. Whether it was the film or me being tired, I don't know, but the images on the screen really hypnotised me: snowy vistas, log cabins, even a car wash. Sarah Polley is absolutely superb; indeed the cast as a whole is faultless. Atom Egoyan's direction is subtle but well played, and Ian Holm as Mitchel Stephens is one of the best characterisations of all time: a creeping, crawling lawyer, trying to maintain his outward appearance of solid, intelligent dependability while inwardly being torn apart by the downfall of his family life.
I cannot praise this film enough, and I admit that maybe you need to be in the right mood to enjoy it, but I find it's like one of those songs you truly love: even if your house were on fire you'd stay to hear the end of it, and the same is true of this film. It is pitch perfect, with every note in exactly the right place.
The Third Man (1949)
Bought it on a whim, watched it ever since.
I bought this film after watching Citizen Kane for the first time, purely in order to see more of Orson Welles' acting (a fair enough reason, I think!) I hadn't really paid attention to anything else, so when Joseph Cotton appeared on screen, I was surprised but pleased, mainly because I recognised him from Citizen Kane as well. Over the next 100 mins or so he went on to prove himself one of the best screen actors I've ever seen, easily comparable with his co-stars: it's fair to say that Orson Welles dominates the film, but arguably Joseph Cotton dominates the screen. Add in to this Trevor Howard, an often overlooked but talented actor, and Valli, who is captivatingly melancholic, plus the absolutely brilliant final sequence, and you end up watching a great, great film. It's just a shame that the finest British film ever made dates back to 1949: couldn't we have gone on to even better things? To be honest, who cares: just sit down and watch this!