Monday 20 September 2004
I'm going to miss Chris Patten
"Is the world today safer than before the overthrow of the appalling Saddam?" Patten asked in the European parliament last week. "Is global terrorism in retreat? Are we closer to building bridges between Islam and the west? Is the world's only super-power more widely respected? Have the citizens in our democracies been treated in a way that will encourage them to give governments the benefit of the doubt next time they are told that force needs to be used pre-emptively to deal with an imminent threat? I simply pose the questions. The answers are well known."
Monday 13 September 2004
Gladiator
"What we do in life echoes in eternity." Unfortunately probably not for this slightly underwhelming film. Why did it win so many Oscars? Why did Russell Crowe win an Oscar for this when he has done much better work?
I want to talk about something that bugs me with modern films. Maybe I am the only one who notices this? The fight scenes were completely spoiled by the editing and the camera work. Everything was done in close up, each shot took only a couple of frames and they seemed to shoot everything on digital camera, which means that there is no blur in each frame. This gives an extremely disjointed effect overall and for me completely destroys any flow or grace to the fight scenes. There is no impression of choreography or strategy to the fight scenes. It completely destroyed any excitement I have for the fight scenes. Nothing works or connects with this style of editing and shooting. Doesn't anyone else see this?
The special effects were pretty cheesy too in this film. It comes back to the same old gripe I always have. Previously good model work works even if you know it's a model, but so far this has never been the case for CGI effects. In fact the only place it works is in an entirely CGI film such as Shrek, where there is no mix of live and CGI action. Ancient Rome was unconvincing to me.
I like Russell Crowe a lot, especially his early work in Australia – you only have to watch two films (Romper Stomper and The Sum of Us) to understand his range, skill and humanity. But this was just a low key performance. Where the film did score full marks was the use of the three wonderful, now sadly no longer with us, great British (well, of the British Isles) actors – Richard Harris, Oliver Reed and David Hemmings. All sadly missed.
The narrative was terribly linear and doesn't stand up to the great epics of the 50s and 60s. This film was not the promised renaissance of the genre.
I want to talk about something that bugs me with modern films. Maybe I am the only one who notices this? The fight scenes were completely spoiled by the editing and the camera work. Everything was done in close up, each shot took only a couple of frames and they seemed to shoot everything on digital camera, which means that there is no blur in each frame. This gives an extremely disjointed effect overall and for me completely destroys any flow or grace to the fight scenes. There is no impression of choreography or strategy to the fight scenes. It completely destroyed any excitement I have for the fight scenes. Nothing works or connects with this style of editing and shooting. Doesn't anyone else see this?
The special effects were pretty cheesy too in this film. It comes back to the same old gripe I always have. Previously good model work works even if you know it's a model, but so far this has never been the case for CGI effects. In fact the only place it works is in an entirely CGI film such as Shrek, where there is no mix of live and CGI action. Ancient Rome was unconvincing to me.
I like Russell Crowe a lot, especially his early work in Australia – you only have to watch two films (Romper Stomper and The Sum of Us) to understand his range, skill and humanity. But this was just a low key performance. Where the film did score full marks was the use of the three wonderful, now sadly no longer with us, great British (well, of the British Isles) actors – Richard Harris, Oliver Reed and David Hemmings. All sadly missed.
The narrative was terribly linear and doesn't stand up to the great epics of the 50s and 60s. This film was not the promised renaissance of the genre.
Friday 10 September 2004
Book of Job / Talking of Pelham
The Italian Job
The archetypal cheesy cheeky cockney crime caper. I have to say finally that this film is a bit disappointing. The best section by far is the opening titles. As Matt Munro croons away at Quincy Jones' and Don Black's peerlessly cool “On days like these,” we see Rossano Brazzi (a peerlessly cool name), cigarette hanging louchely from his lips, expensive sunglasses against the glare of the snow, handling his Lamborghini through the Italian Alps. This has to be the best, coolest title sequence from the 60s, or maybe ever.
It all goes a bit downhill after this. There are some nice touches – Benny Hill's line, “if only people could be more like flowers,” is as touching as it is bizarre. Noel Coward has a wonderful jawline, shown to best effect when he is unexpectedly confronted by Michael Caine in the prison toilets. Marvellous. Caine's character shagging multiple girls at the same time is a nod to the permissive 60s, but all is left behind with London.
Special mention should go to Douglas Slocombe, the English DP who also did all the Indiana Jones films.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
Nice tense early 70s hijack thriller with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as the two opposing protagonists. Notable for its sense of realism. The New York subway is shown in realistic decline. One of the odd things I find about this movie, viewd from our early 21st Century age, is the general incomprehension by all except the hi-jackers that the subway car has in fact been hi-jacked. These days everyone would automatically and immediately assume that it was terrorists.
The demise of Robert Shaw's character is very chilling, eliciting a “Jesus” from this viewer – immediately followed by a “Christ” by Walter Matthau!
The archetypal cheesy cheeky cockney crime caper. I have to say finally that this film is a bit disappointing. The best section by far is the opening titles. As Matt Munro croons away at Quincy Jones' and Don Black's peerlessly cool “On days like these,” we see Rossano Brazzi (a peerlessly cool name), cigarette hanging louchely from his lips, expensive sunglasses against the glare of the snow, handling his Lamborghini through the Italian Alps. This has to be the best, coolest title sequence from the 60s, or maybe ever.
It all goes a bit downhill after this. There are some nice touches – Benny Hill's line, “if only people could be more like flowers,” is as touching as it is bizarre. Noel Coward has a wonderful jawline, shown to best effect when he is unexpectedly confronted by Michael Caine in the prison toilets. Marvellous. Caine's character shagging multiple girls at the same time is a nod to the permissive 60s, but all is left behind with London.
Special mention should go to Douglas Slocombe, the English DP who also did all the Indiana Jones films.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
Nice tense early 70s hijack thriller with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as the two opposing protagonists. Notable for its sense of realism. The New York subway is shown in realistic decline. One of the odd things I find about this movie, viewd from our early 21st Century age, is the general incomprehension by all except the hi-jackers that the subway car has in fact been hi-jacked. These days everyone would automatically and immediately assume that it was terrorists.
The demise of Robert Shaw's character is very chilling, eliciting a “Jesus” from this viewer – immediately followed by a “Christ” by Walter Matthau!
Thursday 2 September 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)