Keeping Mum

IMDB

One of the local theatres was showing this, and I decided to watch it based purely on the fact that Rowan Atkinson was in it. This may seem a bit brash, but with shows like Blackadder and Mr Bean, I will always take a chance with Mr Atkinson. As it turns out, the rest of the cast was very good as well. Kristin Scott Thomas plays the wife of the local vicar (supurbly played by Rowan Atkinson) – she looked very familiar, and her resume shows her in many films where I might have seen her (including Mission Impossible, which is very different to this film). Maggie Smith plays the lady who starts up as the housekeeper for the vicar’s family (and unless you live under a broken bus somewhere, you will find her very familiar. Harry Potter anybody?).

The storyline is hard to describe without turning the review into a big fat spoiler. Basically, the vicar (who is apparently the most boring man in the most boring village in the world) and his depressed wife hire a housekeeper, who changes their life for the better in many wonderful ways. Along the way a lot of curious incidents happen, leading to many humerous incidents and a humerous ending.

If you love watching British television (such as Four Weddings and a Funeral, for example, or anything else with Hugh Grant) then you will love Keeping Mum. It is a bit of a black comedy (there are several murders in the film) and the characters live in a somewhat dystopian representation of what most people think of old blighty. The seventeen year old daughter is sleeping with as many men as she can get her hands on, the younger son is being given a hard time by bullies, nobody can sleep because of a barking terrier across the road, and the Vicar is aweful at being a goalie.

Much like Whale Rider (my review here), the film was shot in a location to lend authenticity to things. As is typical in this part of the world, there is never sunshine (I have never been there, but you rarely see sunshine in anything shot in that part of the world. If everything was sunny I would be suspicious). The old lady across the road is nosy, the old man next to her cannot hear, and it all brings a picture of the old days to mind. I sets the stage beautifully for a great comedy, because along with this old Harry-Potter-esque landscape you have people swearing in a positively modern way, Lexus SUVs and cellphones as well. The juxtaposition of old and new in Europe is always interesting to watch for me, but then again I have always lived in the New World.

Overall, it is a great film. It is well staged, well filmed, well written and very funny to boot. Rowan Atkinson plays a role which looks a lot less formularic than some others I have seen – there is always the temptation to make him Blackadder or Bean in films, and when they try to do that it does not come out very well at all. You don’t get the sense that the role was written for him, basically, which ironically enough makes it more fun to watch. Maggie Smith is a great surprise too – she plays her role very well, and it is an interesting role to play. She is obviously very accomplished as an actress and shows that in this film.

The only problem with this film, I fear, is finding a cinema to watch it in. It seems to have the feel of something that major theatres will only carry if they see an award for it or something. Which would be a grand pity – this deserves to run with the big boys. Try to look out for this if a local theatre carries it.

Whale Rider

IMDB

My wife rented this one, and I decided to watch it since I had heard good things about it, and I never saw a film about Maori culture that I did not like. As it turns out, a lot of the cast of Once Were Warriors and What Becomes of the Broken Hearted turn up (six from the first page of IMDB, as far as I could count). Unfortunately, Temuera Morrison does not make an appearance. But I suppose we cannot expect the man to be in every Maori film ever made.

The story is about a young Maori girl, Pai,  who is the twin sister of the first born child of the first born son of the chief (did you get that). Her twin brother died at birth, leaving the family without the first born son to replace the chief. She is raised by her grandfather, who loves her but still wants a grandson to carry on the traditions of his people. However, Pai wants to follow in her grandfather’s footsteps and stubbornly tries to learn the ways of being a chief.

The film is very well made. I appreciate the fact that the people were obviously Maori and from New Zealand (being from Australia I know the accent well), although ironically the protagonist is played by a girl born in Australia. The landscape and the people feel very authentic, and there is none of the overdone shtick that you see in so many Hollywood productions. The slang and language used helps create an immersive atmosphere for the story. The landscapes are also very beautiful – this is not the kind of film that you could fake in Vancouver and I am glad that they did not try.

Another thing that made the film interesting to watch is that the characters are developed in a deep way that makes you care about them. The simple concept of a granddaughter loving her grandfather unconditionally frames the story in a simple way that requires no explanation. I won’t spoil the ending, but suffice to say that the story lacks predictability, because the authenticity makes you doubt that some Deux ex machina will come and make everything all right.

The story is not all tears and hugs – there are some quaint funny moments that make it fun to watch. The interaction between Pai and her uncle is always fun to watch, and the banter between the small players on the screen is amusing to those from that part of the world. I think that some characters could have done with some more development, such as Pai’s father or the friends of her uncle, but I do understand that these things have to be weighed with the importance of making a film that can be absorbed in one sitting.

Overall, this is a fine film and I wish that I had seen it sooner. Especially recommended for those from the southern hemisphere.

Crank

IMDB

Looking around the offerings this weekend, I noticed Crank in the listings. Seeing something with an ‘R’ rating makes me curious (I think that on average you see more artistic integrity with a film rated ‘R’. You at least know that things are not edited down to satisfy some demographic). And what do I see but Jason Statham in the credits?

Ever since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels I have kept my eye out for Mr Statham. He never fails to impress me. That is not to say that every film that I have seen him in has been fantastic, but I squarely lay the blame for these incidents on the script and never at his feet. His best offering to date is probably The Transporter, which was the first film I saw that was a vehicle for his unique talents. His girlfriend is very well played by Amy Smart, who is most recognizable to me from Starsky and Hutch, but who has starred in a bunch of other things in places that I never noticed (such as Starship Troopers). Another honorable mention is Efren Ramirez, who looked familiar in the film to me, but it was not until I checked the internets later that I saw that this was Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite.

The cast is set up for a good time, so how is the story? The premise of the story is somewhat unique. Statham’s character, a hitman, has been injected with some potion that means that he will die unless he keeps his adrenaline going (well, not that unique. Think Speed, instead with Jason instead of a bus). Finding out that he has very little time to live has made him understandably angry, so he sets out to find the man who did this to him.

There are very few dull moments in the film. I think that the people who made this wanted a roller coaster ride, and the plot is a very good excuse for one. The story suits Statham well – there is a lot of his trademark extreme, almost comedic action going on constantly in his efforts to keep himself awake. It is interesting to note that the film was directed and written by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who count Biker Boyz in their previous credits (although not as writers or directors. This appears to be a debut of sorts for writing and directing for this pair). There are some interesting effects put into play during the film to try and give an idea of what the protagonist is going through with his medical condition, as well as for artistic effect (at one point a bar with a fight in it bulges in an almost cartoonish fashion).

The constant barrage of action and the original plot make for a great film. The story is rarely predictable, although I think that it does brush a little too lightly on the goings on of the underworld in which Statham’s character works. The lightness of this part of the story gives the impression that the backstory is just an excuse for the protagonist to break a whole bunch of stuff, but breaking a whole bunch of stuff is entertaining, so I forgive it. There were times where the whole theater was laughing out loud at the antics on screen, and people even clapped at some of it. Even very good films fail to bring this level of passion to the audience, and I think that the passion that I saw tonight in the audience was appropriate. This film was entertainment all of the way.

Along Came Polly

IMDB

To be honest, the first time I saw a preview for this film I was scared to watch it, and I avoided it in the theatrical release. This is in spite of being a huge fan of Ben Stiller, ever since I saw Zoolander. I think that I could tell that this movie would be a cringe-fest, much like Meet the Parents, which although incredibly funny was hard to watch because I would constantly cringe in empathy at the embarrassing situations being shown. It is interesting that the preview reminded me so much of the Focker films because John Hamburg wrote them along with Along Came Polly, and the movie has a similar feel.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I watched it. I am glad that I did, because even though I was right about the cringeworthyness of the content, it also delivered the kind of funny stuff that Mr Stiller is famous for. The premise of the story is quite basic (Stiller plays an insurance analyst who is constantly trying to play everything safe, who is spurned by his newlywed bride on his honeymoon and starts dating a dangerous happy go lucky girl). The Polly described in the title is played by Jennifer Aniston, who plays the part well if a little too much like characters from her other movies and television efforts.

The protagonist’s best friend is brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who never shirks an opportunity to show off his range of acting abilities. I have seen him in such varied efforts as The Talented Mr. Ripley and Boogie Nights. Despite he and the Scobleizer looking scarily alike, I always enjoy watching him play his roles. His portrayal of Truman Capote was amazing to watch. I had no idea who Capote was, but I recently saw a preview for Infamous I immediately thought ”They’re making another Capote film!”. The fact that he plays an actor in this movie is deliciously ironic as well, because it takes a great actor to play a bad actor well (if that makes any sense). Hank Azaria also makes a cameo – it is always amazing how you have to do a double take to recognize him. He does a character so well you don’t know that it is him if he puts on a voice and a wig.

The movie is a little predictable in parts, but this movie is meant to be enjoyed like a pizza on a lazy afternoon. You know it is not gourmet but you don’t care, because it meets the needs and the desires of the time better than gourmet would. As somebody who also refuses to eat nuts out of a tray in a bar (I agree with Ben’s character that it is a good chance somebody with questionable hygiene has been there before you) it was interesting to watch how other people perceive this OCD-like behavior.

Overall, if you doubted the movie like I did then you shouldn’t have. While it is not quite the classic that Zoolander was, it is a great easy comedy flick that will give you quite a few laughs and keep you entertained along the way. There is never a dull moment with Ben Stiller around.

The Covenant

IMDB

I decided to watch this film because the premise looked interesting. The backstory to the film is that there were five families in Essex county with supernatural powers that are somehow hereditary, and one of the families was banished. The other four families continued to live in the area, thinking that they are the only ones left. Then one day, a member of the fifth family returns…..

From watching the preview and the opening few minutes, this is obviously a ‘teen’ film. All of the main characters were people that seemed somewhat familiar, but this film was their first. I think that seeing so many films set in high schools and colleges gives a feeling of familiarity to these films. Initially, some of the corny dialog and the setup in the first few scenes made me worry about the film a little. But the darker elements of the film came into play fairly quickly, and the predictable nature of the film melted away a lot.

The setting is Massachusetts in autumn, and the atmospere is developed throughout the film very well. There is the usual suspension of disbelief required in watching the actors. They all played their parts nicely, but none of them looked remotely like people in high school, which is where I think they were meant to be. The female lead, Laura Ramsey, turns 24 this year as an example (according to IMDB). The special effects are very good, but not unusually so for this day and age.

I think that the film could have done with more back story to develop things. Throughout the film the way that the magic works, how people came to have the powers, what people have done with them through the ages, etc are not really explained in detail. This feels intentional, like the mystery surrounding the powers is something that the audience should feel, but it also creates the feeling that rules are being made up as you go along. I think that the best fantasy and science fiction universes have the quality of explaining a lot of the restrictions and rules of the universe early on and demonstrating the ramifications of that throughout the story. I think that this gives an immersive quality to the fiction, whereas introducing new rules constantly breaks the illusion.

The storyline put the protagonist into a pickle that did make me curious about how he would get out of it, but I don’t think that I was wondering if he would get out of it. I don’t know why, but the film never had the feeling that it would kill people off. Not that I like to watch people die, but it does make things feel less predictable when characters die. In the end, the ending was one of the possibilities that I thought of while watching, but it was not done in a super predictable way, and I did appreciate that.

All in all, this is a nice weekend film. I think that the current IMDB rating of 4.4 is harsh - the acting is solid, the story is original and the production values are sound. I think that some people cannot look past the patina of a summer teen flick and see the film for what it is, but I can see past it and I liked what I saw.

The Illusionist

IMDB

When I first saw the preview for this film, it intrigued me and I have wanted to see it ever since. The talent on display was part of what sold me. Edward Norton is great (Fight Club is my favorite of his films), Paul Giamatti is a great character on the screen (Sideways is my favorite work of his so far), and Jessica Biel is engrossing to watch (I never actually saw 7th Heaven, but she was awesome in Blade: Trinity). I did not immediately recognize Rufus Sewell when I saw the preview or the film. Some of you may remember him from Dark City (a true classic).

The other thing that sold me was the obvious effort to create a period piece. The turn-of-the-last-century reconstruction of Vienna feels great, and there was an obvious attempt to create a sullen mood with the constant overcast feeling in the movie. The preview gave me an idea of the magic that they have in the film (ooohh magic) but it did not look cheesy at all.

The actual movie did not disappoint. The basic idea of the story is that a man from humble origins who grows up to be an illusionist (Norton) is in love with a lady of the upper class above his reach (Biel), who is promised to the Crown Prince (Sewell). The obvious romantic tensions that arise from this little love triangle culminate in several kufuffles (which I will not describe, because it is a mystery film after all and I don’t want to spoil anything). A police inspector (Giamatti) attempts to investigate and unravel the complexities of what is happening, with obvious mystery created because of the suspicions of the illusionist doing his antics off the stage.

The reconstruction of Vienna is very well done. I especially loved the shots of people walking through a hallway in the Prince’s abode which had a large collection of trophy heads littering the walls, with the antlers of the heads almost making a canopy above the head of those walking through it. It was a very interesting touch to have, and something that I had never seen before. I think that it helped to add to the ambience of the film, as well as maybe telling you something about who inhabited the house.

This film is pitched as a mystery and a romance, and I think that it is much more the former than the latter (which is what I hoped for). Right from the beginning there are magic tricks on the screen that have you wondering if the movie is portraying real magic, a trickster, or even an unreliable narrator. There are some scraps of explanation for some simple tricks shown occasionally, but for the most part the mystery of Norton’s character is felt by those watching the movie in the same way as those in it. I think that this is what makes the movie so compelling to watch, and makes it feel like far less than the claimed 110 minutes.

Any discussion of how things end will spoil it for somebody, and I think that you should be able to tell somebody what you thought of a film without spoiling it. I can tell you that the ending is reached in a very entertaining way, with several turns that keep you wondering what is going on. I have heard some people complain that you can see some of it coming (and I did see some of it coming) but this is a case of the destination not being as important as the journey, and the journey is enjoyable. I think that the viewer is meant to guess at what is going to happen but wonder how the characters will do it, and that is not always a bad thing. Are Bond movies not fun because Bond always gets away and never gets killed?

Introduction

Whenever I see a good movie, I always think about starting to write reviews of all of my movies. I don’t know why, but I have finally decided to do this.

My aim is to tell it how I see it. I don’t want to put numbers on reviews, because everybody is different and interpreting numbers is hard. I just aim to explain what I think about each movie as it comes to mind and hopefully this will help people make decisions about what to watch.