mike-wright-1 Reviews

The Hunger Games (2012)

Could have been great

[6/10 · 4 June 2013]

This is a review of the Hunger Games movie. Not a review of how good an adaptation of the book Hunger Games is.

The Hunger Games is clearly a film with a primary target audience. So any criticism should be mindful of that. The fact that it is a targeted film yet remains eminently watchable for people outside that demographic is to its huge credit.

I think most people by now know the basic story so I won't go into that. The strengths of the film lie in its tremendous premise and the back story around it (accusations of plagiarism in relation to Battle Royale are harsh). Also the performance of Jennifer Lawrence is a powerhouse and she has a wonderful career in front of her. The action scenes are filmed very sympathetically, leaving you in no doubt of the horror that is happening without really showing anything to compromise the target audience.

The film does fall down in a couple of areas though. It seems completely unaware of some of the powerful themes it has at its disposal. Not nearly enough was shown of the relationship between the populace of the Capital and the outer districts. Perhaps this is dealt with more in later instalments. The characterisation of the tributes was also thin on the ground, and the idea of the games as a true test of skill, endurance, psychology etc was massively underdeveloped. Perhaps this was deliberate to show that the organisers were obsessed with controlling the action. If it was, then I would say it was a mistake.

Overall I think the film is quite a rarity. It has some wonderful ideas and although enjoyable, it feels like it was reined in to ensure it met its target audience. It's arguable that in movie making, there are few greater crimes.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Perfect

[10/10 · 4 June 2013]

Silver Linings Playbook is as an enjoyable two hours that you could hope to get from a movie. The four leads are truly marvellous – although I haven't seen too much of Jacki Weaver, it was great to see Bradley Cooper showing how much more he has to offer, Jennifer Lawrence confirming what most of us already knew and Robert De Niro showing there's life in the old dog still.

One of the more ridiculous complaints I've read is that "It's not as good as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Well, no its not. But that movie remains one of only three to scoop the big five Oscars, so not being as good as it is hardly much of a criticism. Yes, the film is predictable. And I was thoroughly pleased at that. It's become fashionable over the last few years – almost clichéd in fact – for Hollywood to throw a curve ball at you, just for the sake of it. SLP gives you exactly what you want; it just does it with a wonderful script and fine performances.

I can honestly only see two reasons for someone not to like this. Either you've seen the acting nominations and vague plot and are expecting something in the league of Cuckoo's Nest. Or you're one of those darling people who link their film tastes directly to their superiority complex, and therefore shun anything popular. If you fall into the first category, then beware – this movie is wonderful but it's not an all-time great. It's a perfect comedy-drama-romance which does not try to extend beyond its reach. If you fall into the second category, then you need to wise up a little because you're only punishing yourself!

A Life Less Ordinary (1997)

Starts very well but then falls away badly

[5/10 · 28 February 2013]

I recently purchased ALLO having not seen it in a long time. I had fond memories of a number of scenes and the movie was really cheap in a second hand store.

In the first hour all of the scenes I remembered popped up and I was thoroughly enjoying myself, whilst wondering why the film had a comparatively poor rating both with audiences and critics. The chemistry between the leads is good and there are a lot of funny moments as Ewan Macgregor's character struggles with his inability to be a bad guy and Cameron Diaz tries to manipulate the situation to meet her own ends. Holly Hunters playfully seductive angel is also perfect opposite Delroy Lindo.

Unfortunately the bag swap comes about 40 minutes too early in the film and from here the wheels come off. We are given scene after scene, each one more ridiculous than the last, of the two would be lovers getting mad at each other. Although the fantastical elements of the film can be accepted, there is at least one scene where the inevitable repercussions cannot be ignored but are never addressed. For a film that has such a strong first half, the second half verges on boring. For me that's probably the worst thing that can be said of any movie.

The soundtrack is no doubt great if you're playing the CD in the car. However the placing of the songs seems all wrong, like Boyle was simply trying to replicate what he had achieved in Trainspotting where the songs underlined the scenes perfectly. All in all, for me this was a typical Danny Boyle film (with the exception of Trainspotting). It promised so much yet was let down by some fatal flaws.

Warm Bodies (2013)

A worthy entry to the Zombie sub-genre

[7/10 · 15 February 2013]

Before writing the main part of this review, lets deal with something else first. There seems to be a lot of talk about Twilight series surrounding this film. The hatred for that series has become so intense – almost militant – that it is seeping into completely unconnected projects. Don't get me wrong, I am most definitely not a fan of those films, but they and Warm Bodies have about as much in common as The Whole Nine Yards and Godfather.

Warm Bodies is a fresh, if not completely original, addition to the Zombie genre. Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland have recently started to bring this horror sub genre to the masses by upping the laughs and limiting the gore; Warm Bodies takes it a step further by adding a much stronger romance sub plot (actually, it could be argued that the zombie apocalypse is the sub-plot here with the romance being the central plot). The film is not without its scares though. The zombies are self aware and for the most part, are not happy with their condition. Those that essentially give in to what they are gradually turn to "bonies" – skeletal creatures who are much quicker and more aggressive. Whilst for the veteran zombie fan, these will cause little more than a flutter, for the casual observer they are enough to give the movie an edge. There is also an excellent soundtrack full of classic songs.

There are a few questionable character decisions and bending of its own rules, which are used to take the action to its required destination. John Malkovich is also criminally underused for an actor of his ability and seemingly perfect fit in the role of chief zombie hater. Other than that though, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film with a decent, at times witty, script. There's even an early moment that suggests the film is going to tread in Romero's steps and be a social satire too. Unfortunately that never came to be though and ultimately that prevented this film entering the realm of brilliant.

A History of Violence (2005)

Could have been a masterpiece....

[6/10 · 12 February 2013]

A History of Violence is certainly a conundrum. If you treat it like a run-of-the-mill action thriller, its pretty good. However the irony is that's the exact type of film that Cronenburg's potential masterpiece is attempting to speak out against. I say potential, because if you treat it the way the director attempted, then it's really a bit of a mess.

The film opens, like many films of its genre, establishing the picture perfect family life currently in place for the protagonists. In going over the top with the opening scene, Cronenburg signposts that he is looking to do something different here. That something is to look at violence, the immediacy of it and its effect on those who commit and witness it in an altogether more realistic manner. The first scene of violence is shocking, making the audience lean forward and take notice. A media circus starts to surround the protagonist as the public's interest is stirred and the film really starts kicking into gear. And just as it kicks, the wheels come off.

There is a clumsy, muddled attempt at showing the effect of violence on Mortensen's son with a "monkey see, monkey do" encounter with a caricature school bully. Further attempts are made with Maria Bello's character, but because her development has been neglected up to this point, it falls flat.

The encounters with Ed Harris and William Hurt as the films primary antagonists only serve to confuse things further, as characters who are supposedly at the top of the criminal underworld commit error after error straight from the James Bond book of villains. Personally I think DC was in several minds over whether to satirise the genre, or to show his audience what they really want in an exploitation manner, or to make a straight forward, but more realistic thriller. In the end, it's all a bit of an uneven mess.

There is a terrific final scene which to an extent, saves the piece. However I was left with an overwhelming, frustrated sensation of what might have been.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

It just didn't work for me

[6/10 · 12 February 2013]

Much like the infinitely different and otherwise incomparable Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I get the impression that Scott Pilgrim's biggest failure was in trying to remain too faithful to its existing fans.

The character of Scott may well have worked in the graphic novel – it may even have worked in different hands although that assumption would be unfair on Cera. In movie form though, I just didn't buy it. He is, quite simply, completely unlikeable. I cannot think of a single thing he does to make Ramona like him. At the start he is dating a 17 year old who is going on 13. It's an odd "romance" that tries to speak of the emotional damage he has suffered at the hands of his own ex. In truth though, the wonderfully named Knives is probably the zenith of what Scott could realistically achieve, girlfriend-wise. Then as soon as Ramona turns up with her roller blades and pink hair, he pretends his current girlfriend does not exist and starts to ditch his band mates even though they're nearing a big break.

He is needy and pathetic, and even if Ramona is after a "bird with a broken wing" to look after for a while, she will very soon get very bored of it. There's nothing wrong with a likable nerd - and Cera pulls this off believably in both Juno and Superbad to get the hot girl. But here, he's an unlikeable nerd and the best that will get you is a barely legal fan girl.

Unlike some of the other detractors of this film, I have no issue with the physical appearance of Cera or the fight scenes as they are so clearly fantastical - although I was struggling to find anything allegorical about them. They did seem to be designed more so as people who already spend their entire time in front of the TV could put the controller down for two hours and still get the same experience. I wanted to like it, in fact I've actually watched it twice. There are probably half a dozen laugh at loud moments which, together with a superb turn from Culkin, invoking an early Robert Downey Jr, and the gorgeously punky Winstead, made this film by means a wasted two hours. However the rest of the ideas fall pretty flat. It probably just tried to be too faithful to its source.

Ju-on: The Grudge (2002)

Very light on the scares

[5/10 · 8 January 2013]

Despite being a big horror fan, I have only recently got around to watching my first Japanese horror film. Ju-On comes with a big reputation, but if this movie is typical of Japanese horror, then I feel I won't be watching too many more.

The film is split into five separate segments, each telling a separate part of the timeline of a haunted house. For some reason they are not shown chronologically. I can see no reason for this, other than to confuse the viewer and cover up the lack of any kind of interesting story.

The talcum powder covered little boy reminds me of the kind of frights you get in a fairground fun house. The first time he appears it's pretty creepy. After that you're expecting him and he rarely fails to appear at the obvious moments. Each segment seems to end in much the same way, and although the first time we see a figure creeping down the stairs is a little freaky, by the third or fourth time you're really wondering why the characters don't just walk the two feet to the front door. Yes some people may be paralysed by fear, but most would just hot foot it out of there.

There are a couple of decent frights in here that have been mentioned before by others, but overall it reminded me of our Paranormal Activity. The film is well shot and evenly paced, but most of the scares are telegraphed and then repeated. The only reason I haven't given this a lower score is that I'm aware this film has been made for a Japanese audience. Ju-On is a well known "ghost story" in Japanese culture, and therefore perhaps a significant something is lost on me, both as a Western audience and as someone unfamiliar to Japanese horror

Lost in Translation (2003)

Perfection

[10/10 · 7 January 2013]

Lost in Translation's real power comes in its ability to elicit such a range of emotions from its audience whilst remaining so subtle in everything it does. At once beautiful, tragic, heart warming and funny, it is underscored by a wonderful soundtrack, spectacular cinematography and magnetic performances from its two leads.

Bob and Charlotte are two people lost in the maze of their own lives. The feeling of isolation from their true selves is perfectly reflected in Tokyo's alien culture, people and surroundings. The film is set at a perfect pace, which allows you to consider what may have come before. You are able to mull over how their lives have panned out up to their chance encounter in Tokyo and therefore untangle their respective emotional messes. There is no judgement present in Copolla's script or direction, and none is expected of the audience.

LiT is in the same class as Before Sunrise in its achievement of developing an intense relationship between two strangers over a very short space of time – Copolla replaces Vienna with Tokyo as the postcard backdrop. Comparing the two films is made all the more interesting by the vastly different styles. Where Linklater used almost all dialogue in developing the relationship, Copolla is sparse with hers – relying more on shared experiences and on two characters being in exactly the same place in their lives, despite the generational divide.

It's difficult to see any other actors pulling off the roles of Bob and Charlotte. By many accounts, Murray is effectively playing himself, despite being somewhat against type. Johannson was just 18 at the time of filming – making the emotional depth she conveys quite extraordinary. Lost in Translation really is flawless.

Dazed and Confused (1993)

My all time favourite movie

[10/10 · 28 December 2012]

Dazed & Confused is my favourite film of all time. I have no idea how many times I've seen it, but every watch is as enjoyable as the last. I was born five months after the seventies finished, in the UK. So as far as the social realism of the movie goes, I cannot comment. However in a very broad sense there are two things which make me love this film so very much.

Firstly, it's just so damn cool. The cars look amazing, the soundtrack is great, the clothes are effortlessly hip and the male and female leads (or as close is this film gets to leads) are the two people you would have loved to know at High School, regardless of the social circle you were in. It is incredibly quotable and although not obviously funny (it was poorly marketed as a comedy), these days different scenes crack me up every time I watch it. It is also NOT a stoner flick. Yes there's a fair bit of pot smoked in it, but only because there was a fair bit of pot smoked at that time. Not a single scene has pot smoking as its focus – it's just there, like the music, the clothes or the high school football stadium.

Secondly and more importantly, it is a far more subtle and realistic examination of high school life than just about anything else I've seen (The Last Picture Show comes close in its depiction during the 1950s). Yes there are "jocks", "cheerleaders" and "geeks", but they are not so rigid in their definition. They are all interlinked by people who have friends in many camps. They all have their flaws but like the vast majority of teenagers, almost all of them are generally good kids (bar one whose redeeming scene was cut).

Even though it's the last day of school, Linklater doesn't focus on the obvious graduating seniors. Rather on next year's seniors and next year's freshmen. This is not a huge day in their lives and nothing life changing is going to happen. The year's big party gets busted before it even starts and they spend most of the night just driving around or at the local pool hall. Perhaps the most astounding thing is the sheer number of characters that RL fits in to the film. There is not one conversation which I would label as clichéd or forced to inform you of character, yet I have counted 22 main roles and by the end of the film you feel you really know all of them.

I could go on to write an essay about why this film is so fine, but let me just finally say this. There's no defined plot, there's no first, second and third act as such and there are certainly no great resolutions (because how many resolutions to life's problems do you really encounter when you're a teenager?). However there are cool conversations, fun times, obstructive parents and awesome Foosball!!

Hugo (2011)

An ode to Cinema

[8/10 · 28 December 2012]

Since its release, I've been confused why Martin Scorsese made this film. I knew very little about it of course, only that it was an adventure movie about an orphan boy living in the walls of a Paris train station. It certainly doesn't sound very Scorsese-like.

However that is merely the framing for what is an ode to the earliest days of cinema, and in particular one of its true pioneers, Georges Melies. With references to "Arrival of a Train" – one of the world's first films by the Lumiere brothers, Melies's "A Trip to the Moon" and many others, this really is a treat for movie fans. Yes on a very basic level it is a children's movie, but really there's far more here for adults. Scorsese wonderfully juxtaposes his most technologically advanced film yet to demonstrate the genius and inventiveness of cinema in its earliest days.

There are fine performances from the two children, as well as Ben Kingsley as Melies and Sasha Baron Cohen as a determined and love struck station inspector. I actually thought that Helen McCrory stole the show as Melies' wife Mama Jeanne.

I never got to see Hugo in 3D, but the blu ray version looks truly sumptuous, with some breath taking imagery of early 20th century Paris. The film does tailor off significantly towards the end, with Scorsese seemingly unsure of what to do with the final act once the children had solved their mystery. What comes before is truly magical though and this film gets a big thumbs up from me.

Love Actually (2003)

Ambitious? No. Perfect? Yes.

[7/10 · 20 December 2012]

The film most obviously comparable to Love Actually is Paris Je T'Aime. Although LA never scales the heights of its French counterpart, it never attempts to. In doing what it sets out to, Richard Curtis's montage of love at Christmas is every bit as perfect.

It is fair to say that this is very much a fantasy film. There are elements which are completely unrealistic and there is definitely a need for suspension of disbelief. The film does not branch out too far from middle class London with almost all of the cast living in very trendy, modern homes. Where it really succeeds though is that each of the nine story arcs has its own charm – there are no duds. For comedy value, the strongest are those involving Hugh Grant's Prime Minister and Martin Freeman's body double. For good, old fashioned schmaltz it's hard to look past Colin Firth's writer and his Portuguese maid. There's also a strong turn from Laura Linney in the film's most serious arc, as the office girl in love with her colleague for two years but with the burden of a sick brother keeping her from her own life.

Love Actually has quickly become a Christmas classic. One of the those films you can come into half way through and still enjoy every bit as much. It may not be overly ambitious, but it allows you to sit back with a smile on your face and relax for a while.

Office Space (1999)

A mixed bag

[6/10 · 18 December 2012]

There's no doubt about it, Office Space has touches of genius. The traffic jam, the multiple levels of management, the consultants, the battles with the printer, the restaurant boss and more. They are all very keenly observed and can be related to by all but the luckiest among us.

The downside is that just about all of these things are introduced in the first quarter of the movie – which is where Mike Judge packs 90% of the laughs. I've seen two films where Ron Livingston is the lead. From a script viewpoint, Swingers is everything Office Space isn't. Had I seen Office Space first I would have been tempted to avoid Swingers for fear that the lead was a horrible actor. However the truth is that the script for Office Space is at times awful (particularly in the last twenty minutes when the big moments between the two leads arrive). Aniston and Livingston come across very poorly and it really isn't their fault.

I suspect Office Space is a grower. Milton no doubt becomes even funnier the more you see him and other subtleties of humour will shine through. The mind will adjust to the clunky script and accept that these are not, and never could be, real conversations. First impressions are though that Mike Judge is far more adept at the shorter game, even if he does bring enough splashes of brilliance to edge a thumbs up.

Into the Wild (2007)

An excellent choice for a movie party!

[9/10 · 17 December 2012]

Most of the negative reviews around Into The Wild focus on two things. The merits or otherwise of Chris McCandless and the accuracy of the story. Whilst I can understand a degree of frustration at the addition of at least one fact to romanticise the story and the man, I feel sad that some people are so judgmental of others that they cannot enjoy what is a truly beautiful and thought provoking film.

At best the protagonist was brave and principled. A voice all too infrequently heard as society careers ever more headlong towards pure materialism. A man who understood that the health of the soul and the clarity of understanding his place was of utmost importance. At worse he was a selfish, ignorant and pretentious brat. A man who was so wrapped up in the tough cards life had dealt him that he unconditionally abandoned the one person who loved him and had been dealt those some cards. A man who failed to recognise that for all the relative pain he had gone through in his adolescence, he also had been given the intelligence and opportunity to really do something with his own life.

This is what makes Into The Wild first and foremost such a satisfying story. It shouldn't matter which side of the fence you fall, so long as you can appreciate the polarising nature of the character. My emotions towards him swung wildly with the narration of his sister and then seeing the positive effect he seemed to have an everyone he met on his travels. I don't judge him for his foolishness; I think life has judged him quite enough for that already.

Of course none of that covers the beautifully captured scenery, pitch perfect soundtrack and wonderful pacing of the film. The two and a half hours flies by despite the episodic nature of the story, thanks to the inter cuts between the magic bus and what led to it. Emile Hirsch does everything he needs to as the lead and the supporting cast fall in behind up wonderfully. Of particular note are William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden as the parents and Catherine Keener who maximises every second of screen time in her portrayal of the roaming hippie, haunted by the reminder of her estranged son.

There are few films capable of prompting debate quite like Into The Wild and that is a thoroughly fine trait to have. Plus it's a damn enjoyable watch.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

A fine film, but just short of the best

[8/10 · 17 December 2012]

I'm not quite sure how it has taken me almost 15 years to watch Saving Private Ryan. Somehow I guess I just never got round to it. Well I finally did and was left with mixed feelings.

Far more experienced movie critics and war experts than me have extolled the opening scene. So there's little more that I can add. It's power to shock and sadden surpasses almost anything I've seen before it and for that alone the film has earned its place in movie history.

Of course the downside is that if it surpassed so much before it, then it inevitably also surpassed the 100 or so minutes that followed it. I'll forgive that though. Ultimately in the story of the Normandy beach landings, the landings were the beginning and so although it's not perfect from a movie perspective, it's the only way to tell it. I did though find much of the rest of SPR remarkably standard. Yes the acting was excellent. However the characters were distinct caricatures. The bitter Jew, the loyal lieutenant, the brash New Yorker and the good guy medic. They were all finely portrayed but their characters brought nothing new to the screen. It was only Jeremy Davies' interpreter who could have come from superior war films such as Platoon or Full Metal Jacket (or even the vastly different but more cerebral The Thin Red Line, which SPR overshadowed).

My other issue is the portrayal of those damn Germans. Inglourious Bastards revels in it's over the top portrait of just about every German during WWII being Satan's sidekick. However that film has its tongue firmly in cheek. SPR does not and the German soldier who is let free by Tom Hanks' super hero captain ("he'll be picked up soon enough"), and then returns as the face of the enemy is pure Hollywood cliché.

Don't get me wrong, SPR was a fine film. The opening is shocking and the remainder is thoroughly enjoyable. The caricatures which prevented it from matching the greats also offer a large degree of comfort. They allow us to feel like we know all these characters and emphasise with them immediately, with little effort. Spielberg paints by numbers in the last battle scene though, it being all too predictable to fully believe any battle in any war ever quite happened like that. It's for this reason that in the context of the great war films (or the few I've seen to date), I'd say it falls a little short.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

Watch it once, put it back on the shelf, then watch it again a year later

[7/10 · 10 December 2012]

I don't believe anyone should review The Men Who Stare at Goats before they've seen it at least twice. The first time I saw it, not long after its release to DVD, it was exactly as I feared: A Coen wannabe. Too much randomness, too little cohesion. So many flashbacks that the actual story of the film, as in what happens from McGregor and Clooney meeting, was a little too light on the ground.

I probably would not have watched it again at all, were it not for the lesson I learnt from Napoleon Dynamite. Sometimes a film is bizarre and surreal because it's topic demands it. In ND that topic is the nature of life in such a small town. In TMWSAG, the stupidity is perfectly captured when one of the characters states that "We don't really believe in any of this stuff, but the Russians are looking into it and we don't want to fall behind them". It's easy to miss this first time round when you're expecting a story first and foremost. Once you know that it's the craziness of the situation that is the point rather than what actually happens, the whole thing somehow makes far more sense.

And if nothing else, seeing what would have happened if "The Dude" had a position of authority in the army makes the film worthwhile all by itself!

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Overall a triumph, however if only....

[8/10 · 10 December 2012]

The Thin Red Line is a very difficult film to review. I watched it a couple of nights back and have attempted to write a review several times. However each time I felt I was approaching it with either too positive a slant or too negative.

When TRL is good, it is truly brilliant. It seems like every emotion of war is captured so perfectly. The terror, the heroism, the triumph, the guilt, the acceptance of fate, even the monotony. The intensity achieved in the capture of a strategic bunker has rarely been matched in any film, of any genre. The raid on a Japanese camp captured some of the most haunting shots I've ever seen, featuring scenes which were as tragic as anything in Schindlers List. There are some beautiful performances as well, from Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin and Dash Mihok in particular.

If only Malick had known what he wanted to achieve when he set out, he could surely have made the greatest war film of all time. The first edit came in at five hours, and a whole host of famous faces were entirely cut by the time the final version was settled on. A number of others were left with little more than cameos, meaning we never got a chance to know them as characters so we remember them as Woody Harrelson, John Travolta, George Clooney, John Cusack etc. No genre of film relies on the audience seeing the cast as real people rather than actors more than a war film, given the intrinsic link between cinema and reality. This is what makes Malicks decision to cast so many well known faces all the more head scratching (although it is important to remember that many of the ones featured in the final cut and previous cuts were much less known then).

Having said that, what is left is still a fine movie, beautifully shot (excepting for the occasional art for arts sake moment) with one of the finest scores I've heard in a long time. It speaks volumes of Malick that despite the obvious flaws in his approach, he was still able to produce such an affecting film.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Not for newcomers

[6/10 · 7 December 2012]

I suspect that if you've read the novel, or seen the mini series, then Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a thoroughly enjoyable watch. For my sins, I have not, so my review is from that perspective.

I'll admit that knowing the plot outline of George Smiley needing to root out the mole from four suspects, and seeing Firth, Strong, Cumberbatch and Hardy on the cast list, I was excited. It's possible that my assumption that there was correlation in the fours was part of my issue. However I don't think so. Perhaps the characters played by Hardy and Strong are the most charismatic, or have the most interesting story in the original source material. However when squeezing it all into a two hour movie, you need to reduce things to the bare bones. Ultimately from that respect, this movie spent far too much time concentrating on two characters who weren't really that relevant to the main plot. The result was that we had very little screen time with the suspects and were given little opportunity to join in with George on his investigation.

In the end, due to the way the story was cut down for the movie, it played out that two very simple steps from George revealed the culprit. Steps which he actually could have taken right at the start of his investigation.

The acting was superb as you would expect (Oldman's subtle performance against type was particularly impressive), and the sense of time and place at the height of the cold war was captured perfectly. Ultimately though, this came across too much like a film solely for existing fans of the book. And to be honest, what's the point of that?

Go (1999)

The pluses outweigh the minuses to give an overall thumbs up

[7/10 · 27 November 2012]

I recently watched Go! for the first time in almost a decade having seen it a few times in the initial years after its release. Some aspects of it were as solid and entertaining as I remembered, some others seemed weaker.

This is a film very much of the Tarantino era. It's clearly inspired by his early works (with a hint of Coen-esque black comedy) so if you're not a QT fan, then it's probably one to avoid (although it is certainly less violent than his work, so if you like his style but not the occasional brutality then this may be for you).

The film is made up of three interlocking stories focusing on employees of a food market. It was originally written as a single short story, but when friends of the writer showed interest in what happened with the other characters, he extended it to its current form. Taking inspiration from QTs films, the director decides to mess with the chronology and show each story from beginning to almost end, one after another. Unlike in Pulp Fiction where this is entirely necessary, here it comes off as more of a gimmick. It works on the couple of occasions where the third story intersects the first . However it leaves the second story set in Vegas to fend for itself. This is undoubtedly the weakest of the three arcs, in terms of characters, acting and believability and therefore makes the film drag a little in the middle.

However, the first and in particular the third story, together with the final ten minutes which ties the ends do, more than make up for it and leave the film with a definite thumbs up. Sarah Polley carries her segment well and it's a surprise that we haven't heard more from her over the last decade. Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr are particularly entertaining and have the best scene as they are propositioned by a cop and his wife over an early Christmas dinner. Towards the end, one of the characters seem to completely betray the development from earlier in the film, which feels a little forced. However this can be excused by the questionable morality shown by all of the characters which is something of a theme.

The score is excellent and the cinematography is inventive and works 75% of the time. Only in Vegas does it seem cool for cool's sake.